https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=MathematicaConservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-09-23T09:39:25ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_organ&diff=95413Vestigial organ2007-04-09T16:49:24Z<p>Mathematica: Redirecting to Vestigial organs</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[vestigial organs]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial&diff=95411Vestigial2007-04-09T16:48:55Z<p>Mathematica: Redirecting to Vestigial organs</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[vestigial organs]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ad_hominem&diff=95403Ad hominem2007-04-09T16:42:00Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Fallacy|Ad hominem}}''Ad hominem'' means "against the man", rather than against what the man is saying. This Latin phrase describes one of the oldest known [[logical fallacies]].<br />
<br />
== Classical structure ==<br />
Classically, this fallacy casts doubt on what a person is saying because of (imputed) flaws in the person's character, or circumstances peculiar to the person, that are unrelated to the matter at hand. Its usual structure is:<br />
<br />
# A makes claim X.<br />
# A has a flaw in his character, or else his circumstances mean that X somehow serves a special interest of A, etc.<br />
# Therefore X is false.<ref name=Nizkor>The Nizkor Project, [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html Fallacy: Ad Hominem] (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref><ref name=Lander>Lander University, Department of Philosophy, ''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html Philosophy 103, Introduction to Logic: Argumentum ad Hominem]''. (Retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref><br />
<br />
== Why Ad Hominem is Objectionable ==<br />
The ''ad hominem'' is objectionable and usually fallacious practice because:<br />
<br />
# It is an appeal to emotion rather than to fact.<ref name=heritage>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem Definition of ad hominem] from ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language'', 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006 (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref><br />
# It introduces an irrelevant consideration.<ref name=Engel>S. Morris Engel, ''With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies'', 5th ed., St. Martin's Press, 1994, pp. 198-206. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html The Fallacy Files]</ref><br />
<br />
== Forms of Ad Hominem ==<br />
The ad hominem fallacy can take several forms. The most common of these are personal abuse<ref name=Engel/> and the introduction of an irrelevant circumstance.<ref name=Engel/> Some debaters use the ''ad hominem'' attack pre-emptively, a technique known as ''poisoning the well.''<ref name=Engel2>Engel, ''op. cit.'', pp. 206-209. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html The Fallacy Files]</ref><br />
<br />
In a special form of ''ad hominem'' that is closely akin to [[special pleading]], a debater attempts to deflect criticism of himself by asserting that his opponent has the identical character flaw. This form is called ''tu quoque'' ([[Latin]], "thou too"). The proverbial expression of this fallacy is "It takes one to know one" or "Let the pot call the kettle black."<ref name=Warburton>Nigel Warburton, ''Thinking from A to Z'', 2nd. ed., "Politician's Answer", pp. 103-104. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html The Fallacy Files]</ref><br />
<br />
== Examples ==<br />
The statement <br />
<br />
:'Richard Wagner was an opera composer much admired by the Nazis' <br />
<br />
might be considered an ad hominem attack on Wagner's music. It is true, and in some contexts might be a relevant comment. But if someone says it in order to suggest that Wagner was a bad composer, then it's an ad hominem attack, because whether some bad people liked his music is not a relevant comment on the quality of his music.<br />
<br />
As another example, the statement <br />
<br />
:'The atheist Karl Marx believed in taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it to the poor' <br />
<br />
might be considered an ad hominem attack on the policy of income redistribution. Karl Marx may or may not have been right to advocate income redistribution; but whether he was an atheist is irrelevant to that question. So if the speaker mentions that he is atheist (to someone who considers atheism bad) when the topic under discussion is income distribution, then that's an ad hominem attack.<br />
<br />
== Ad Hominem Not Always Fallacious ==<br />
The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument--so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== See Also ==<br />
* [[Logical fallacy]]<br />
* [[Special pleading]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Potassium&diff=95388Potassium2007-04-09T16:33:59Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Element | name=Potassium | symbol=K | anumber=19 | amass=39.10 amu | noe=19 | class=Alkali metal | cstructure=Body-Centered Cubic | color=Silver | date=1807 | discname=[[Davy, Sir Humphrey ]] | origname=From the Latin ''Kalium'' | uses=important biological role, and used in numerous industrial processes | obtained=sylvite, sylvinite, carnallite }}<br />
<br />
Potassium is an element<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>in the Alkali metals class of the periodic table. It is so chemically active that it is never found free (in elemental form) in nature. In its elemental form, it reacts with water, forming potassium hydroxide and [[hydrogen]] gas, so violently that the hydrogen usually catches fire.<br />
<br />
Its existence as "potash" or "vegetable alkali" (potassium carbonate), "caustic potash" (potassium hydroxide), etc., had long been known, but it was not isolated as an element until 1807, by Sir Humphrey Davy.<br />
<br />
The radioactive decay of potassium provides a method of [[radiometric dating]] called [[potassium-argon dating]] that is used to calculate the ages of volcanic rocks.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
[[Category:Chemistry]]<br />
[[Category:Elements]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_theory&diff=95375Scientific theory2007-04-09T16:27:03Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>A theory is an abstract or systematic explanation of some phenomenon or subject matter. A scientific theory is more substantial than a conjecture or hypothesis, but may not be verified as consistent with empirical data. <ref>For example, scientists may refer to phlogiston theory or ether theory, even though empirical verification was lacking.</ref> <br />
<br />
The term theory is often used outside of science, such as in music theory, number theory, or Marxist theory. <br />
<br />
==Scientific Theory==<br />
A theory is a plausible and consistent explanation for some set of observable phenomena. A scientific theory must be [[falsifiable]], meaning that there must be some way to do experiments that could counter the theory's predictions, thus disproving the current theory.<br />
<ref>"A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected." [http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/theory.php] </ref><br />
<br />
Generally accepted scientific theories have been tested and survived over time, have evolved when appropriate, and modified toward consistency with newly discovered data, have not been shown to be false and can make predictions about natural phenomena. <ref>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory </ref><br />
<br />
A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories. Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or speculative, such as [[String Theory]].<br />
<br />
== Common usage == <br />
Evolutionists frequently argue that the word "theory" means very different things to scientists and non-scientists. For example, a PBS TV show says: <ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_1.html</ref> <br />
:''When we use the word "theory" in everyday life, we usually mean an idea or a guess, but the word has a much different meaning in science. This video examines the vocabulary essential for understanding the nature of science and evolution and illustrates how evolution is a powerful, well-supported scientific explanation for the relatedness of all life.''<br />
<br />
The American Museum of Natural History exhibit on Darwin says: <ref>http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/theory.php</ref> <br />
:''In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.''<br />
<br />
In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public.<br />
<ref>For example, this 2004 NY Times article on the pros and cons of string theory [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html?ei=5090&en=fd15a74e2dca3af0&ex=1260075600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position=] used the word "theory" 70 times without any suggestion that ideas must be well-substantiated before they qualify as a theory. Physicist Lawrence Krauss used the term "string theory" even though the theory has "yet to have any real successes in explaining or predicting anything measurable". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/08essay.html] A month later, he argued that it should really be called the "string enterprise" because using the word "theory" causes problems with intelligent design advocates and those who say that evolution is "just a theory". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/newscieditorial.html]</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_theory&diff=95365Scientific theory2007-04-09T16:23:33Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>A theory is an abstract or systematic explanation of some phenomenon or subject matter. A scientific theory is more substantial than a conjecture or hypothesis, but may not be verified as consistent with empirical data. <ref>For example, scientists may refer to phlogiston theory or ether theory, even though empirical verification was lacking.</ref> <br />
<br />
The term theory is often used outside of science, such as in music theory, number theory, or Marxist theory. <br />
<br />
==Scientific Theory==<br />
A theory is a plausible and consistent explanation for observable phenomena. A scientific theory is a model or framework for describing a related set of natural or social behaviors or observations. A scientific theory must be [[falsifiable]], meaning that there must be some way to do experiments that could counter the theory's predictions, thus disproving the current theory.<br />
<ref>"A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected." [http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/theory.php] </ref><br />
<br />
Generally accepted scientific theories have been tested and survived over time, have evolved when appropriate, and modified toward consistency with newly discovered data, have not been shown to be false and can make predictions about natural phenomena. <ref>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory </ref><br />
<br />
A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories. Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or speculative, such as [[String Theory]].<br />
<br />
== Common usage == <br />
Evolutionists frequently argue that the word "theory" means very different things to scientists and non-scientists. For example, a PBS TV show says: <ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_1.html</ref> <br />
:''When we use the word "theory" in everyday life, we usually mean an idea or a guess, but the word has a much different meaning in science. This video examines the vocabulary essential for understanding the nature of science and evolution and illustrates how evolution is a powerful, well-supported scientific explanation for the relatedness of all life.''<br />
<br />
The American Museum of Natural History exhibit on Darwin says: <ref>http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/theory.php</ref> <br />
:''In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.''<br />
<br />
In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public.<br />
<ref>For example, this 2004 NY Times article on the pros and cons of string theory [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html?ei=5090&en=fd15a74e2dca3af0&ex=1260075600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position=] used the word "theory" 70 times without any suggestion that ideas must be well-substantiated before they qualify as a theory. Physicist Lawrence Krauss used the term "string theory" even though the theory has "yet to have any real successes in explaining or predicting anything measurable". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/08essay.html] A month later, he argued that it should really be called the "string enterprise" because using the word "theory" causes problems with intelligent design advocates and those who say that evolution is "just a theory". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/newscieditorial.html]</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jean-Marie_Le_Pen&diff=95330Jean-Marie Le Pen2007-04-09T16:01:40Z<p>Mathematica: linkin'</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Jean-Marie Le Pen''' was a French candidate for president in 2002 who called for stricter controls against [[immigration]] in [[France]], in order to preserve French culture. He has also denied aspects of the Holocaust, has said that the Nazi occupation of France was not severe, and said that AIDS patients should be isolated. He is the leader of the [[rightist | right-wing]] [[National Front]] party and is running in the [[2007 French presidential elections]].<br />
<br />
His immigration policies were called racist by some of his opponents.<br />
<br />
[[Category:France]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=95314Vestigial Structures2007-04-09T15:53:53Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes<ref>[http://www.esconi.org/Karen_Komments_PDF/KK6-June2006.pdf Report on fossil snake with lizard-like features and legs]</ref>,<ref> [http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/spurs1.jpg Photo of python's rear leg stumps]</ref> and whales<ref>[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf Diagram of blue whale skeleton, showing "leg" bones]</ref>, the appendix in humans<ref>[http://www.medicinenet.com/appendicitis/article.htm Diagram of appendix and information on appendicitis]</ref> and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi <ref>[http://www.chem.cmu.edu/groups/Collins/about/kiwi.html Kiwi information page]</ref>.<br />
<br />
Vesitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight, thus helping the bird survive by requiring less food and energy.<br />
<br />
Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi.<ref> [http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1BF57624-0105-41DB-BBFD-4BFEC7C2E62C/0/rc12_wing.jpg Photo of kiwi wing stump] </ref><br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=95311Vestigial Structures2007-04-09T15:52:45Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes<ref>[http://www.esconi.org/Karen_Komments_PDF/KK6-June2006.pdf Report on fossil snake with lizard-like features and legs]</ref>,<ref> [http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/spurs1.jpg Photo of python's rear leg stumps]</ref> and whales<ref>[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf Diagram of blue whale skeleton, showing "leg" bones]</ref>, the appendix in humans<ref>[http://www.medicinenet.com/appendicitis/article.htm Diagram of appendix and information on appendicitis]</ref> and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi <ref>[http://www.chem.cmu.edu/groups/Collins/about/kiwi.html Kiwi information page]</ref>.<br />
<br />
Vesitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight.<br />
<br />
Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi.<ref> [http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1BF57624-0105-41DB-BBFD-4BFEC7C2E62C/0/rc12_wing.jpg Photo of kiwi wing stump] </ref><br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=95309Vestigial Structures2007-04-09T15:52:13Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes<ref>[http://www.esconi.org/Karen_Komments_PDF/KK6-June2006.pdf Report on fossil snake with lizard-like features and legs]</ref>,<ref> [http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/spurs1.jpg Photo of python's rear leg stumps]</ref> and whales<ref>[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf Diagram of blue whale skeleton, showing "leg" bones]</ref>, the appendix in humans<ref>http://www.medicinenet.com/appendicitis/article.htm</ref> and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi <ref>[http://www.chem.cmu.edu/groups/Collins/about/kiwi.html Kiwi information page]</ref>.<br />
<br />
Vesitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight.<br />
<br />
Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi.<ref> [http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1BF57624-0105-41DB-BBFD-4BFEC7C2E62C/0/rc12_wing.jpg Photo of kiwi wing stump] </ref><br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=95306Vestigial Structures2007-04-09T15:50:12Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes<ref>[http://www.esconi.org/Karen_Komments_PDF/KK6-June2006.pdf Report on fossil snake with lizard-like features and legs]</ref>,<ref> [http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/spurs1.jpg Photo of python's rear leg stumps]</ref> and whales<ref>[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf Diagram of blue whale skeleton, showing "leg" bones]</ref>, the appendix in humans and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi <ref>[http://www.chem.cmu.edu/groups/Collins/about/kiwi.html Kiwi information page]</ref>.<br />
<br />
Vesitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight.<br />
<br />
Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi.<ref> [http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1BF57624-0105-41DB-BBFD-4BFEC7C2E62C/0/rc12_wing.jpg Photo of kiwi wing stump] </ref><br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=95305Vestigial Structures2007-04-09T15:49:51Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes<ref>[http://www.esconi.org/Karen_Komments_PDF/KK6-June2006.pdf Report on fossil snake with lizard-like features and legs]</ref> <ref> [http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/spurs1.jpg Photo of python's rear leg stumps]</ref> and whales<ref>[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf Diagram of blue whale skeleton, showing "leg" bones]</ref>, the appendix in humans and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi <ref>[http://www.chem.cmu.edu/groups/Collins/about/kiwi.html Kiwi information page]</ref>.<br />
<br />
Vesitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight.<br />
<br />
Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi.<ref> [http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1BF57624-0105-41DB-BBFD-4BFEC7C2E62C/0/rc12_wing.jpg Photo of kiwi wing stump] </ref><br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=95304Vestigial Structures2007-04-09T15:49:36Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes<ref>[http://www.esconi.org/Karen_Komments_PDF/KK6-June2006.pdf Report on fossil snake with lizard-like features and legs]</ref> <ref> [http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/spurs1.jpg Photo of python's rear leg stumps]</ref> and whales<ref>[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf Diagram of blue whale skeleton, showing "leg" bones]</ref>, the appendix in humans and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi <ref>[http://www.chem.cmu.edu/groups/Collins/about/kiwi.html Kiwi information page]</ref>.<br />
<br />
Vesitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight.<br />
<br />
Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi <ref> [http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1BF57624-0105-41DB-BBFD-4BFEC7C2E62C/0/rc12_wing.jpg Photo of kiwi wing stump] </ref><br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=95302Vestigial Structures2007-04-09T15:48:31Z<p>Mathematica: removed link that didnt work</p>
<hr />
<div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes<ref>[http://www.esconi.org/Karen_Komments_PDF/KK6-June2006.pdf Report on fossil snake with lizard-like features and legs]</ref> and whales<ref>[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf Diagram of blue whale skeleton, showing "leg" bones]</ref>, the appendix in humans and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi <ref> [http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1BF57624-0105-41DB-BBFD-4BFEC7C2E62C/0/rc12_wing.jpg Photo of kiwi wing stump] </ref>,<ref>[http://www.chem.cmu.edu/groups/Collins/about/kiwi.html Kiwi information page]</ref>.<br />
<br />
Vesitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight.<br />
<br />
Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi <ref> [http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1BF57624-0105-41DB-BBFD-4BFEC7C2E62C/0/rc12_wing.jpg Photo of kiwi wing stump] </ref><br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=95301Vestigial Structures2007-04-09T15:47:23Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes<ref>[http://www.esconi.org/Karen_Komments_PDF/KK6-June2006.pdf Report on fossil snake with lizard-like features and legs]</ref> and whales<ref>[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf Diagram of blue whale skeleton, showing "leg" bones]</ref>, the appendix in humans and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi <ref> [http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1BF57624-0105-41DB-BBFD-4BFEC7C2E62C/0/rc12_wing.jpg Photo of kiwi wing stump] </ref>,<ref>[http://www.chem.cmu.edu/groups/Collins/about/kiwi.html Kiwi information page]</ref>.<br />
<br />
Vesitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight.<br />
<br />
Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi <ref> [http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/wings/IMAGES/kiwi.jpg. Photo of kiwi showing no visible wings] </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=95300Vestigial Structures2007-04-09T15:47:01Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes<ref>[http://www.esconi.org/Karen_Komments_PDF/KK6-June2006.pdf Report on fossil snake with lizard-like features and legs]</ref> and whales<ref>[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf Diagram of blue whale skeleton, showing "leg" bones]</ref>, the appendix in humans and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi <ref> [http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1BF57624-0105-41DB-BBFD-4BFEC7C2E62C/0/rc12_wing.jpg Photo of kiwi wing stump] </ref>,<ref>[http://www.chem.cmu.edu/groups/Collins/about/kiwi.html Kiwi information page]</ref>.<br />
<br />
Visitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight.<br />
<br />
Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi <ref> [http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/wings/IMAGES/kiwi.jpg. Photo of kiwi showing no visible wings] </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=95298Vestigial Structures2007-04-09T15:45:46Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes<ref>[http://www.esconi.org/Karen_Komments_PDF/KK6-June2006.pdf Report on fossil snake with lizard-like features and legs]</ref> and whales<ref>[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf Diagram of blue whale skeleton, showing "leg" bones]</ref>, the appendix in humans and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi <ref> [http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1BF57624-0105-41DB-BBFD-4BFEC7C2E62C/0/rc12_wing.jpg Photo of kiwi wing stump] </ref><ref>[http://www.chem.cmu.edu/groups/Collins/about/kiwi.html Kiwi information page]</ref>.<br />
<br />
Visitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight.<br />
<br />
Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi <ref> [http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/wings/IMAGES/kiwi.jpg. Photo of kiwi showing no visible wings] </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=95296Vestigial Structures2007-04-09T15:45:03Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes<ref>[http://www.esconi.org/Karen_Komments_PDF/KK6-June2006.pdf Report on fossil snake with lizard-like features and legs]</ref> and whales<ref>[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf Diagram of blue whale skeleton, showing "leg" bones]</ref>, the appendix in humans and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi <ref> [http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1BF57624-0105-41DB-BBFD-4BFEC7C2E62C/0/rc12_wing.jpg Photo of kiwi wing stump] </ref><ref>http://www.chem.cmu.edu/groups/Collins/about/kiwi.html</ref>.<br />
<br />
Visitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight.<br />
<br />
Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi <ref> [http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/wings/IMAGES/kiwi.jpg. Photo of kiwi showing no visible wings] </ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=95280Vestigial Structures2007-04-09T15:38:26Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes<ref>[http://www.esconi.org/Karen_Komments_PDF/KK6-June2006.pdf Report on fossil snake with lizard-like features and legs]</ref> and whales<ref>[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf Diagram of blue whale skeleton, showing "leg" bones]</ref>, the appendix in humans and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi.<br />
<br />
Visitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight.<br />
<br />
Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=95275Vestigial Structures2007-04-09T15:35:34Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes and whales<ref>[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf Diagram of blue whale skeleton, showing "leg" bones]</ref>, the appendix in humans and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi.<br />
<br />
Visitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight.<br />
<br />
Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=95274Vestigial Structures2007-04-09T15:34:53Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes and whales<ref>[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf]</ref>, the appendix in humans and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi.<br />
<br />
Visitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight.<br />
<br />
Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=95271Vestigial Structures2007-04-09T15:34:06Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes and whales<ref>[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf]</ref>, the appendix in humans and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi.<br />
<br />
Visitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight.<br />
<br />
Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
</references></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vestigial_Structures&diff=95270Vestigial Structures2007-04-09T15:33:48Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Vestigial organs are those which resemble organs in other species but which are too small to be functionally useful. Examples include rear legs in some snakes and whales<ref>[http://www2.ucsc.edu/seymourcenter/PDF/3.%20Whale%20Skeleton%20Activity.pdf]</ref>, the appendix in humans and wings in flightless birds such as ostriches or kiwi.<br />
<br />
Visitigial organs are claimed to be strong evidence in favor of evolution - ostriches, for instance, would be claimed to have evolved from a flying ancestor which no longer needed to fly, and so in subsequent generations the wings shrunk until they were no longer capable of flight.<br />
<br />
Creationists usually claim that vestigial organs aren't really useless at all - for instance, in ostriches the wings might be used for balance or sexual display. However, it is hard to extend this explanation to internal leg bones in right whales, or the near-invisible wings of the kiwi.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dendrochronology&diff=93225Dendrochronology2007-04-08T14:53:46Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Dendrochronology''' is the method of determining the age of a piece of wood by counting or comparing tree rings.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000</ref><br />
<br />
[[Tree rings]] form each year in the trunks of trees because trees grow more quickly in the spring and summer and more slowly in fall and winter. The cells in the wood are smaller and more densely spaced in periods of slow growth, causing a dark 'ring'. Therefore when a living tree is cut down, its age can be determined by counting the rings at the base of the trunk.<br />
<br />
However, tree rings can also be used to date much older wooden artifacts. Since trees grow more in years with favorable climates, multi-year weather patterns leave recognizable patterns in tree rings. These patterns are used to identify specific periods of time (in specific places) just as fingerprints can be used to identify a person. Tree ring patterns in old living trees can be matched up to ring patterns in older, dead wood from the same area, to give a chronology of ring patterns that may go back much farther than the life of any one tree (this process is called [[crossdating]]). These patterns can then be used to date the wood in artifacts such as houses or tools, or to date the age of different [[stratigraphy | strata]] in the soil. <br />
<br />
Tree-ring dating has been used to calibrate accuracy of the [[radiocarbon dating]] process.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering.html The International Tree Ring Databank]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dendrochronology&diff=93220Dendrochronology2007-04-08T14:47:50Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Dendrochronology''' is the method of determining the age of a piece of wood by counting or comparing tree rings.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000</ref><br />
<br />
[[Tree rings]] form each year in the trunks of trees because trees grow more quickly in the spring and summer and more slowly in fall and winter. The cells in the wood are smaller and more densely spaced in periods of slow growth, causing a dark 'ring'. Therefore when a living tree is cut down, its age can be determined by counting the rings at the base of the trunk.<br />
<br />
However, tree rings can also be used to date much older wooden artifacts. Since trees grow more in years with favorable climates, multi-year weather patterns leave recognizable patterns in tree rings. These patterns are used to identify specific periods of time (in specific places) just as fingerprints can be used to identify a person. Tree ring patterns in old living trees can be matched up to ring patterns in older, dead wood from the same area, to give a chronology of ring patterns that may go back much farther than the life of any one tree (this process is called [[crossdating]]). These patterns can then be used to date the wood in artifacts such as houses or tools, or to date the age of different [[stratigraphy | strata]] in the soil. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering.html The International Tree Ring Databank]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dendrochronology&diff=93217Dendrochronology2007-04-08T14:45:36Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Dendrochronology''' is the method of determining the age of a piece of wood by counting or comparing tree rings.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000</ref><br />
<br />
[[Tree rings]] form each year in the trunks of trees because trees grow more quickly in the spring and summer and more slowly in fall and winter. The cells in the wood are smaller and more densely spaced in periods of slow growth, causing a dark 'ring'. Therefore when a living tree is cut down, its age can be determined by counting the rings at the base of the trunk.<br />
<br />
However, tree rings can also be used to date much older wooden artifacts. Since trees grow more in years with favorable climates, multi-year weather patterns leave recognizable patterns in tree rings. These patterns are used to identify specific periods of time (in specific places) just as fingerprints can be used to identify a person. Tree ring patterns in old living trees can be matched up to ring patterns in older, dead wood from the same area, to give a chronology of ring patterns that may go back much farther than the life of any one tree. These patterns can then be used to date the wood in artifacts such as houses or tools, or to date the age of different [[stratigraphy | strata]] in the soil. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering.html The International Tree Ring Databank]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&diff=93205Radiometric dating2007-04-08T14:26:41Z<p>Mathematica: /* See also */</p>
<hr />
<div>Radiometric dating is using a radioactive process to determine the age of an item.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks, and relies on the well-established function for exponential decay <math>F</math><sub><math>t</math></sub><math>=e</math><sup><math>-kt</math></sup>. Different radiometric techniques are calibrated in different ways; for example, radiocarbon dating is calibrated by dating wood that has been dated through the process of [[dendrochronology]].<br />
<br />
The Institute for Creation Research suggests that [[radioactive decay]] might have been faster during the first 2.5 days of Creation.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Accelerated_decay</ref> If so, scientists using radiometric dating techniques would calculate erroneously old dates, possibly explaining why radiometric techniques often give ages for rocks that do not fit within the Creation model.<br />
<br />
Radiometric dating relies on three improvable assumptions, 1) It assumes to know the amounts of the decaying material present when the rocks were formed, 2) It assumes the decay rate has been constant and 3) It assumes there have been no outside influences affecting the amounts of parent and daughter particles in that rock, or in other words the rock has been completely isolated from any outside influences.<br />
<br />
Since radiometric dating has been shown to give inaccurate dates for rocks of known ages{{fact}} it should not be used to give dates for rocks of unknown ages. In addition if an obtained 'age' does not agree with secular scientists presuppositions then the date is ignored and tests are conducted on a different part of the rock or the rock is simply said to be of 'unknown' age.{{fact}}<br />
<br />
<br />
==Some major methods of radiometric dating<ref>Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref>,<ref>Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref>==<br />
<br />
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating<br />
<br />
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]<br />
<br />
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]<br />
<br />
#[[Uranium-thorium]]<br />
<br />
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&diff=93192Radiometric dating2007-04-08T14:20:57Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Radiometric dating is using a radioactive process to determine the age of an item.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks. However, the Institute for Creation Research has suggests that [[radioactive decay]] might have been faster during the first 2.5 days of Creation.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Accelerated_decay</ref> If so, scientists using radiometric dating techniques would calculate erroneously old dates, possibly explaining why radiometric techniques often give ages for rocks that do not fit within the Creation model.<br />
<br />
Radiometric dating relies on three improvable assumptions, 1) It assumes to know the amounts of the decaying material present when the rocks were formed, 2) It assumes the decay rate has been constant and 3) It assumes there have been no outside influences affecting the amounts of parent and daughter particles in that rock, or in other words the rock has been completely isolated from any outside influences.<br />
<br />
Since radiometric dating has been shown to give inaccurate dates for rocks of known ages{{fact}} it should not be used to give dates for rocks of unknown ages. In addition if an obtained 'age' does not agree with secular scientists presuppositions then the date is ignored and tests are conducted on a different part of the rock or the rock is simply said to be of 'unknown' age.{{fact}}<br />
<br />
<br />
==Some major methods of radiometric dating<ref>Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref>,<ref>Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref>==<br />
<br />
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating<br />
<br />
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]<br />
<br />
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]<br />
<br />
#[[Uranium-thorium]]<br />
<br />
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
There are also many methods of [[absolute dating | absolute]] or [[relative dating]] that do not rely on radioactive decay, including [[dendrochronology]] (tree-ring dating), [[thermoluminescence]], and [[stratigraphy]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&diff=93175Radiometric dating2007-04-08T14:06:02Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Radiometric dating is using a radioactive process to determine the age of an item.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks. However, the Institute for Creation Research has suggests that [[radioactive decay]] might have been faster during the first 2.5 days of Creation.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Accelerated_decay</ref> If so, scientists using radiometric dating techniques would calculate erroneously old dates, possibly explaining why radiometric techniques often give ages for rocks that do not fit within the Creation model.<br />
<br />
Radiometric dating relies on three improvable assumptions, 1) It assumes to know the amounts of the decaying material present when the rocks were formed, 2) It assumes the decay rate has been constant and 3) It assumes there have been no outside influences affecting the amounts of parent and daughter particles in that rock, or in other words the rock has been completely isolated from any outside influences.<br />
<br />
Since radiometric dating has been shown to give inaccurate dates for rocks of known ages{{fact}} it should not be used to give dates for rocks of unknown ages. In addition if an obtained 'age' does not agree with secular scientists presuppositions then the date is ignored and tests are conducted on a different part of the rock or the rock is simply said to be of 'unknown' age.{{fact}}<br />
<br />
<br />
==Some major methods of radiometric dating<ref>Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref>,<ref>Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref>==<br />
<br />
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating<br />
<br />
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]<br />
<br />
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]<br />
<br />
#[[Uranium-thorium]]<br />
<br />
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&diff=93174Radiometric dating2007-04-08T14:04:09Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Radiometric dating is using a radioactive process to determine the age of an item.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks. However, the Institute for Creation Research has suggests that [[radioactive decay]] might have been faster during the first 2.5 days of Creation.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Accelerated_decay</ref> If so, scientists using radiometric dating techniques would calculate erroneously old dates, possibly explaining why radiometric techniques often give ages for rocks that do not fit within the Creation model.<br />
<br />
Radiometric dating relies on three improvable assumptions, 1) It assumes to know the amounts of the decaying material present when the rocks were formed, 2) It assumes the decay rate has been constant and 3) It assumes there have been no outside influences affecting the amounts of parent and daughter particles in that rock, or in other words the rock has been completely isolated from any outside influences.<br />
<br />
Since radiometric dating has been shown to give inaccurate dates for rocks of known ages{{fact}} it should not be used to give dates for rocks of unknown ages. In addition if an obtained 'age' does not agree with secular scientists presuppositions then the date is ignored and tests are conducted on a different part of the rock or the rock is simply said to be of 'unknown' age.{{fact}}<br />
<br />
<br />
==Some major methods of radiometric dating==<br />
<br />
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating<br />
<br />
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]<br />
<br />
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]<br />
<br />
#[[Uranium-thorium]]<br />
<br />
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).<br />
<br />
Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&diff=93172Radiometric dating2007-04-08T14:02:37Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Radiometric dating is using a radioactive process to determine the age of an item.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks. However, the Institute for Creation Research has suggests that [[radioactive decay]] might have been faster during the first 2.5 days of Creation.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Accelerated_decay</ref> If so, scientists using radiometric dating techniques would calculate erroneously old dates, possibly explaining why radiometric techniques often give ages for rocks that do not fit within the Creation model.<br />
<br />
Radiometric dating relies on three improvable assumptions, 1) It assumes to know the amounts of the decaying material present when the rocks were formed, 2) It assumes the decay rate has been constant and 3) It assumes there have been no outside influences affecting the amounts of parent and daughter particles in that rock, or in other words the rock has been completely isolated from any outside influences.<br />
<br />
Since radiometric dating has been shown to give inaccurate dates for rocks of known ages{{fact}} it should not be used to give dates for rocks of unknown ages. In addition if an obtained 'age' does not agree with secular scientists presuppositions then the date is ignored and tests are conducted on a different part of the rock or the rock is simply said to be of 'unknown' age.{{fact}}<br />
<br />
<br />
==Some major methods of radiometric dating==<br />
<br />
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating<br />
<br />
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]<br />
<br />
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]<br />
<br />
#[[Uranium-thorium]]<br />
<br />
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Potassium-argon_dating&diff=93165Potassium-argon dating2007-04-08T13:51:29Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Potassium-argon dating''' is a method for estimating the age of volcanic rocks by measuring the ratio of potassium-40 to argon-40 present. <br />
<br />
The method is based on the fact that the potassium-40 [[isotope]] of potassium [[radioactiv decay | decay]]s over time to form argon-40. The useful fact about these two substances is that at normal temperatures, potassium is a solid, but argon is a gas. Therefore, during volcanic eruptions, any argon that is present escapes from the rock. But after the rock solidifies, any potassium-40 that is present continues to decay, and the argon-40 that is produced cannot escape from the rock. <br />
<br />
Thus, geologists use potassium-argon dating to measure the age of volcanic rocks. If the concentration of argon-40 is almost zero, then the rock was formed recently. If it is high relative to the amount of potassium-40 present, then the rock is old. Archaeologists and biologists are also sometimes able to use potassium-argon dating to measure the age of artifacts and fossils, when these have become trapped in or buried under volcanic rock.<br />
<br />
The mathematical formula that is used to figure the age of the rock depends on the [[half-life]] of carbon-40 (the time it takes for half the potassium-40 in a given sample to decay). The half-live of potassium-40 is approximately 1.26 billion years (that is, 1.26x10<sup>9</sup> years). <br />
<br />
Obviously, this formula depends on the laws of physics remaining constant over time. If the rate of [[radioactive decay]] has changed over time, the formula will not give correct dates. Most scientists believe that the rate of potassium-argon decay has not changed over the history of the earth. However, some creationists have argued that God increased the rate of potassium-argon decay during the first few days of Creation, thus causing the potassium-argon dating method to give erroneously old date readings.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Carbon-14_dating#RATE_Group.27s_Research</ref><br />
<br />
Other isotopes with shorter half-lives can also be used to date objects- however, each method has its own drawbacks. For instance, the decay of carbon-14 is often used to complement the potassium-argon dating of [[dinosaur]] [[fossils]].<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
[[radiometric dating | Radiometric dating methods]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).<br />
<br />
Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Potassium-argon_dating&diff=93162Potassium-argon dating2007-04-08T13:49:17Z<p>Mathematica: New page: '''Potassium-argon dating''' is a method for estimating the age of igneous rocks by measuring the ratio of potassium-40 to argon-40 present. The method is based on the fact that the...</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Potassium-argon dating''' is a method for estimating the age of [[igneous]] rocks by measuring the ratio of potassium-40 to argon-40 present. <br />
<br />
The method is based on the fact that the potassium-40 [[isotope]] of potassium [[radioactiv decay | decay]]s over time to form argon-40. The useful fact about these two substances is that at normal temperatures, potassium is a solid, but argon is a gas. Therefore, during volcanic eruptions, any argon that is present escapes from the rock. But after the rock solidifies, any potassium-40 that is present continues to decay, and the argon-40 that is produced cannot escape from the rock. <br />
<br />
Thus, geologists use potassium-argon dating to measure the age of volcanic rocks. If the concentration of argon-40 is almost zero, then the rock was formed recently. If it is high relative to the amount of potassium-40 present, then the rock is old. Archaeologists and biologists are also sometimes able to use potassium-argon dating to measure the age of artifacts and fossils, when these have become trapped in a volcanic eruption.<br />
<br />
The mathematical formula that is used to figure the age of the rock depends on the [[half-life]] of carbon-40 (the time it takes for half the potassium-40 in a given sample to decay). The half-live of potassium-40 is approximately 1.26 billion years (that is, 1.26x10<sup>9</sup> years). <br />
<br />
Obviously, this formula depends on the laws of physics remaining constant over time. If the rate of [[radioactive decay]] has changed over time, the formula will not give correct dates. Most scientists believe that the rate of potassium-argon decay has not changed over the history of the earth. However, some creationists have argued that God made the rate of potassium-argon decay much faster during the first few days of Creation, thus causing the potassium-argon dating method to give erroneous results.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Carbon-14_dating#RATE_Group.27s_Research</ref><br />
<br />
Other isotopes with shorter half-lives can also be used to date objects- however, each method has its own drawbacks. For instance, the decay of carbon-14 is often used to complement the potassium-argon dating of [[dinosaur]] [[fossils]].<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
[[radiometric dating | Radiometric dating methods]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).<br />
<br />
Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Radiocarbon_dating&diff=93141Radiocarbon dating2007-04-08T13:21:17Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Radiocarbon dating''' is a method for estimating the age of organic material by measuring the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 present. <br />
<br />
The method is based on the fact that the carbon-12 [[isotope]] of carbon is more stable, and therefore more common, than the [[radioactivity | radioactive]] carbon-14 isotope. Most of the carbon in the earth is buried deep underground, where any carbon-14 [[radioactive decay | decays]], leaving behind carbon-12. But carbon in the atmosphere (or in living creatures, which pass the carbon back and forth to the atmosphere relatively rapidly) is often struck by [[cosmic ray]]s, which can convert it from carbon-12 to carbon-14. Therefore the concentration of carbon-14 is higher in living creatures and in the atmosphere than it is in dead or buried forms of carbon.<br />
<br />
Thus, archaeologists use radiocarbon dating to measure the age of dead bodies, fossils, and burnt wood. If the concentration of carbon-14 is almost as high as in the atmosphere, then the specimen was recently alive. If it is much lower, then the specimen has been dead a long time.<br />
The mathematical formula that is used to figure the time since death depends on the the measured concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and also on the [[half-life]] of carbon-14 (the time it takes for half the carbon-14 in a given sample to decay). The half-live of carbon-14 is commonly given as 5730 ± 40 years; however a global standard half-life of 5568 ± 30 years is also often employed. <br />
<br />
Obviously, this formula depends on the atmosphere remaining roughly constant in its composition over time. Insofar as the natural level and distribution of carbon-14 varies over time, due to to atmospheric disturbances, the formula will need to be adjusted. For example, in the last few decades, testing of [[nuclear bomb|nuclear weapons]] in the atmosphere has increased the concentration of carbon-14 in the Northern Hemisphere. To account for this, standard calibration curves are used to take account of chronological fluctuations, and results can be obtained which are rarely more than 700 years out.<br />
<br />
Other isotopes with longer half-lives can also be used to date objects- however, each method has its own drawbacks. For instance, the decay of potassium-40 is often used to complement the carbon-14 dating of [[dinosaur]] [[fossils]].<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
[[radiometric dating | Radiometric dating methods]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).<br />
<br />
Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Does_the_media_really_have_a_liberal_bias%3F&diff=93119Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?2007-04-08T12:35:34Z<p>Mathematica: /* No */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Yes==<br />
Except for FOX, which has a neocon bias. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 18:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: There is not a doubt about it, the media is liberal. Yes you can say FOX tilts right, but they offer the liberal counterpoint. Yes, you can say talk radio is conservative. The vast majority of media TV, print is operated by, employs liberals that promote liberal points of view. These medias go out of the way to deny a conservative point of view, not balanced. Maybe why FOX and conservative radio have a big following. They are the only game in town. Tilt a political direction and bias to one point of view, are two different meanings.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==No==<br />
<br />
The media is not one monolithic entity plus Fox. Some media outlets take a more liberal perspective, some a more conservative one. Talk radio, for example, is overwhelmingly conservative. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I think this should be rephrased as "does the MSM (Mainstream media) have a liberal bias?", because the big ones (CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc.) are pretty liberal. Should I move the page?--<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 18:27, 5 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The media has a bias toward making money. That is why even CNN is hiring people from Fox. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 18:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Interesting and relevant link--go to www.jibjab.com and click on 'it's what we call the news' (high speed only) [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Reporters and other people in the media are generally better educated than the dudes who get together in the bar to complain about stuff. Therefore, the media has a different, more educated point of view: they know more history, they know more science, they know more about other countries, they know you get what you pay for. The complaining dudes in the bar who think we should just eliminate taxes and bomb all the people who protest against US foreign policy are the majority of the public, but that doesn't make them right. Therefore, yes, the media has a bias, but it's not a liberal bias. It's a bias in favor of an intelligent, educated, well-informed point of view. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I must say I do not share your faith in the media. In my experience they are often lazy and disinclined to do any but the most cursory research. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I never said the media are intelligent and well-informed. I just meant to say that they are more intelligent and better informed than the average complaining dude in the bar, or the average Conservapedia contributor, or the average voter. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 05:25, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Hey!, I'm the average Conservapedia contributor. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No. Reporters do tend to be liberal, but publishers tend to be conservative, so it all balances out. Editors generally try to have the media's opinion reflect the mainstream of their readership, i.e., those dudes in the bar, because&mdash;obviously&mdash;the media are businesses and are trying to make money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_Spectrum&diff=93110Political Spectrum2007-04-08T12:15:09Z<p>Mathematica: distinguishing left/right from issues of freedom</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''political spectrum''' of contemporary U.S. politics places [[liberal]]s such as [[Democrats]] on the left and [[conservative]]s such as [[Republicans]] on the right. <br />
<br />
The origin of this term comes from the [[National Assembly]] in [[France]] just before the [[French Revolution]]. More [[liberal]] members, who supported political rights for all classes of society, would sit on the left side of the assembly hall in which they met. More [[conservative]] members, who supported the return of the monarchy, would sit towards the right. Those who had been offended by their own party would frequently stand up and walk over to the other side of the hall in order to make a political statement.<br />
<br />
It has been commonly pointed out that there is no reason to suppose that political points of view can be arranged along a single spectrum from left to right. <br />
<br />
:"The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape." [http://www.politicalcompass.org/ The Political Compass] </ref><br />
<br />
[[Libertarian]]s and [[classical liberal]]s, in particular, reject a one-dimensional view of the matter. They say that their point of view - advocating personal freedom in all its forms, as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others, is '''not''' a left-wing or right-wing position. Advocating freedom sometimes leads them to take positions that are usually considered [[rightist | right-wing]] (for example, defending a worker's right not to join a labor union) but at other times leads them to take positions that are usually considered [[leftist | left-wing]] (for example, defending gay rights).<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Fascist]]<br />
<br />
* [[Socialist]]<br />
<br />
* [[Communist]]<br />
<br />
* [[Libertarian]]<br />
<br />
* [[Republican]]<br />
<br />
* [[Democrat]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Right-wing_politics&diff=93101Right-wing politics2007-04-08T12:00:58Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>The term '''Rightist''' refers to someone on the 'right' side of the political spectrum. Politics on the 'right' usually <br />
imply taking positions in favor of the traditional system of a society, including its traditional values and its traditional ruling institutions.<br />
<br />
Of course, it is not obvious that there is just one dimension of political thought, so that people can unambiguously<br />
be classified as 'right' or 'left'. Nonetheless, the left/right distinction is widely recognized.<br />
<br />
The origin of this term comes from the [[National Assembly]] in [[France]] just before the [[French Revolution]]. More [[liberal]] members, who supported political rights for all classes of society, would sit on the left side of the assembly hall in which they met. More [[conservative]] members, who supported the return of the monarchy, would sit towards the right. Those who had been offended by their own party would frequently stand up and walk over to the other side of the hall in order to make a political statement.<br />
<br />
[[Conservative]] and [[right-wing]] are two synonyms for 'rightist'.<br />
<br />
Compare: [[Leftist]]<br />
[[category:politics]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Right-wing_politics&diff=93100Right-wing politics2007-04-08T11:59:48Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>The term '''Rightist''' refers to someone on the 'right' side of the political spectrum. Politics on the 'right' usually <br />
imply taking positions in favor of traditional values and individual liberties.<br />
<br />
Of course, it is not obvious that there is just one dimension of political thought, so that people can unambiguously<br />
be classified as 'right' or 'left'. Nonetheless, the left/right distinction is widely recognized.<br />
<br />
The origin of this term comes from the [[National Assembly]] in [[France]] just before the [[French Revolution]]. More [[liberal]] members, who supported political rights for all classes of society, would sit on the left side of the assembly hall in which they met. More [[conservative]] members, who supported the return of the monarchy, would sit towards the right. Those who had been offended by their own party would frequently stand up and walk over to the other side of the hall in order to make a political statement.<br />
[[Conservative]] and [[right-wing]] are two synonyms for 'rightist'.<br />
<br />
Compare: [[Leftist]]<br />
[[category:politics]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Leftist&diff=93099Leftist2007-04-08T11:58:57Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>The term '''Leftist''' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the political spectrum. <br />
<br />
Of course, it is not obvious that there is just one dimension of political thought, so that people can unambiguously be classified as 'right' or 'left'. Nonetheless, the left/right distinction is mentioned in many countries.<br />
<br />
The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word [[liberal]].<br />
<br />
The origin of this term comes from the [[National Assembly]] in [[France]] just before the [[French Revolution]]. More [[liberal]] members, who supported political rights for all classes of society, would sit on the left side of the assembly hall in which they met. More [[conservative]] members, who supported the return of the monarchy, would sit towards the right. Those who had been offended by their own party would frequently stand up and walk over to the other side of the hall in order to make a political statement.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
* [http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html V. I. Lenin, ''"Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder''] (1920) V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, English edition, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2.<br />
<br />
Compare: [[Rightist]]<br />
[[category:politics]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Libertarianism&diff=91256Libertarianism2007-04-07T12:56:35Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Libertarianism''' is a political philosophy emphasizing ''liberty'' and ''property''. A libertarian believes in minimizing or entirely eliminating government interventionism in all aspects of life; including economic, personal and in foreign policy matters. <ref>"Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians advocate freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians are also socially tolerant. We won't demand laws or restrictions on other people who we may not agree because of personal actions or lifestyles. <br />
Think of us as a group of people with a "live and let live" mentality and a balanced checkbook." [http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml] </ref><br />
Libertarianism is closely related to [[liberal | liberalism]], if this word is interpreted according to its original meaning of '[[classical liberal | classical liberalism]]'.<br />
<br />
Libertarians support an expansive view of liberty as the proper basis for organizing civil society. They tend to define liberty as the freedom to do whatever one wishes up to the point that one's behavior begins to interfere with another's person or property through coercive means. At the point of interference, each party would become subject to certain principled rules for adjudicating disputes, generally accepting that one who has demonstrated a proven lack of respect for the rights of others should be subject to sanctions, including possible constraints on their freedom. They believe that liberty is the right of every individual.<br />
<br />
Libertarians generally defend the ideal of freedom from the perspective of how little one is constrained by authority, i.e., how much one is allowed to do (also referred to as negative liberty). This ideal is distinguished from a view of freedom focused on how much one is able to do (also called positive liberty).<br />
<br />
There are more libertarians than members of the [[Libertarian Party]]. Libertarians tend to use the word "libertarian" (small "l") to refer to the philosophy, and "Libertarian" (capital "L") to refer to the party. Two general factions exist in the libertarian movement. The first are those libertarians who apply the principles of right to person and property to an absolute. They believe that no person, group, or government is above the right to violate these two things. They thus believe that government itself is illegitimate because it violates person and property. These libertarians subscribe to [[anarcho-capitalism]], as first named by [[Murray N. Rothbard]]. They believe that law and security can be handled by private means in the free market. The other faction believes in a very limited government. They are often referred to as [[minarchists]]. Libertarian minarchists want the state to only enforce law and order but generally nothing else.<br />
<br />
Libertarians tend to view liberalism as a philosophy advocating less government interference in private morality and more government control of business, and view conservatism as a philosophy advocating more government interference in private morality and less government control of business, while they view libertarianism as advocating less government control in all areas. However, there have been fusionist attempts to mix libertarianism and with social conservatism. This is noted in particular by [[paleolibertarians]]. They believe that social conservatism is a natural entity in a free society, but do not believe that it can be enforced by state interventionism. <br />
<br />
Neither the [[Democratic]] or the [[Republican]] [[parties]] are particularly well aligned with libertarian thought. While the Republican Party sometimes adopts libertarian-sounding rhetoric of small government in economic affairs, many libertarians see it as being a force that has increased government interventionism in these affairs. Libertarians generally, for example, are opposed to the [[USA PATRIOT Act]], which they believe increases government power and removes protections on the liberty and privacy of the public. Most conservatives, on the other hand, view it as a necessary government program and believe security to be more important than personal liberty and privacy. They are generally also opposed to the [[Iraq War]], unlike the majority of conservatives.<br />
<br />
While all libertarians agree in general on the principles of the desirability of maximizing individual liberty and avoiding excessive government interference with the operation of the free market, individual libertarians have opinions that differ wildly within these general principles.<br />
<br />
The libertarian movement generally gives praise on the [[United States Constitution]], regarding it as the proper scope of the national government. They believe that the Democratic and Republican parties have overstep the limits that are in placed in the constitution. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians, on the other hand, view the implementation of the constitution as the very means in which the national government is the size it is today. <br />
<br />
== Notable Libertarians ==<br />
[[Ron Paul]], 2008 Republican Party candidate.<br />
<br />
The novelist [[Ayn Rand]] advocated a philosophy of ''Objectivism'', embodying some libertarian thought, although differing from libertarianism in many ways. Some of her novels, such as ''Atlas Shrugged'', have become icons of the libertarian movement.<br />
<br />
[[Murray N. Rothbard]] was nicknamed "Mr. Libertarian." He brought life to the anarcho-capitalist movement. Rothbard was a economist of the [[Austrian School]]. <br />
<br />
[[Robert A. Heinlein]], Science fiction author.<br />
<br />
[[Penn & Teller]], stage magicians turned libertarian evangelicals preaching atheism and promoting libertarian philosophies, including controversial positions such as legalization of prostitution and drugs in their Showtime series, which sports a name that cannot for reasons of good taste be expressed here.<br />
<br />
The Canadian rock band Rush, which has been together since 1968, often explores libertarian themes in their lyrics.<br />
<br />
Humorist Dave Berry, actor/comedian Drew Carey, actor Denis Leary, former MTV VJ Lisa "Kennedy" Montgomery, actor Kurt Russell, investigative reporter John Stossel, and the late rocker Frank Zappa have all referred to themselves as being aligned with or openly supporting the Libertarian Party.<br />
<br />
Additionally, "shock jock" Howard Stern claimed alliance with the Libertarian Party during his unsuccessful bid for mayor of New York.<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
* [http://www.faqs.org/faqs/libertarian/faq/ Libertarian FAQ]<br />
* [http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Liberalism/Libertarianism/ Open Directory libertarian links ]<br />
* [http://chelm.freeyellow.com/black_index.html Black Libertarians]<br />
* [http://libertarianwiki.org/Main_Page Libertarian Wiki]<br />
* [http://www.l4l.org/ Libertarians for Life]<br />
* [http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html World's Smallest Political Quiz]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Debate_Topics&diff=91118Conservapedia:Debate Topics2007-04-07T09:30:43Z<p>Mathematica: /* Feel free to add additional debate topics. */</p>
<hr />
<div>Debate topic suggestions:<br />
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]<br />
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]<br />
# [[Define torture]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]<br />
# [[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [[Conservapedia:Which was closer to being right?|Which was closer to being right?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]<br />
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus|Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?|Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Major bias in conservapedia]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothng?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Keep Richard Around?|Should Richard Stay?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?|Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible|On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible...]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is atheism morally wrong?|Is atheism morally wrong?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]<br />
# [[Two sides to a coin. The liberals use of Swift Boat]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]<br />
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]<br />
<br />
==Feel free to add additional debate topics.==<br />
To add a topic, edit this page, and enter a '#' followed by the topic title in double square brackets. Use a '|' to separate the link from the title.<br />
<br />For example:<br />
<nowiki># [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]</nowiki> <br />
which will look like this:<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]<br />
<br />
Then you can click the link, and create the page when it isn't found.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates| ]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Debate_Topics&diff=91116Conservapedia:Debate Topics2007-04-07T09:29:58Z<p>Mathematica: /* Feel free to add additional debate topics. */</p>
<hr />
<div>Debate topic suggestions:<br />
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]<br />
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]<br />
# [[Define torture]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]<br />
# [[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [[Conservapedia:Which was closer to being right?|Which was closer to being right?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]<br />
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus|Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?|Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Major bias in conservapedia]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothng?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Keep Richard Around?|Should Richard Stay?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?|Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible|On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible...]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is atheism morally wrong?|Is atheism morally wrong?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]<br />
# [[Two sides to a coin. The liberals use of Swift Boat]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]<br />
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]<br />
<br />
==Feel free to add additional debate topics.==<br />
To add a topic, edit this page, and enter a # followed by the topic title in double square brackets. Use a | to separate the link from the title.<br />
<br />For example:<br />
<nowiki># [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]</nowiki> <br />
which will look like this:<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]<br />
<br />
Then you can click the link, and create the page when it isn't found.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates| ]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Debate_Topics&diff=91115Conservapedia:Debate Topics2007-04-07T09:29:16Z<p>Mathematica: /* Feel free to add additional debate topics. */</p>
<hr />
<div>Debate topic suggestions:<br />
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]<br />
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]<br />
# [[Define torture]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]<br />
# [[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [[Conservapedia:Which was closer to being right?|Which was closer to being right?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]<br />
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus|Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?|Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Major bias in conservapedia]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothng?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Keep Richard Around?|Should Richard Stay?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?|Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible|On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible...]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is atheism morally wrong?|Is atheism morally wrong?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]<br />
# [[Two sides to a coin. The liberals use of Swift Boat]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]<br />
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]<br />
<br />
==Feel free to add additional debate topics.==<br />
To add a topic, edit this page, and enter a # followed by the topic title in double square brackets. Use a | to separate the link from the title.<br />
<br />i.e.<br />
: <nowiki># [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]</nowiki> <br />
which will look like this:<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]<br />
<br />
Then you can click the link, and create the page when it isn't found.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates| ]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Debate_Topics&diff=91114Conservapedia:Debate Topics2007-04-07T09:28:47Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>Debate topic suggestions:<br />
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]<br />
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]<br />
# [[Define torture]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]<br />
# [[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [[Conservapedia:Which was closer to being right?|Which was closer to being right?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]<br />
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus|Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?|Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?]] <br />
# [[Conservapedia:Major bias in conservapedia]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothng?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Keep Richard Around?|Should Richard Stay?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?|Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible|On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible...]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Is atheism morally wrong?|Is atheism morally wrong?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]<br />
# [[Two sides to a coin. The liberals use of Swift Boat]]<br />
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]<br />
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]<br />
<br />
==Feel free to add additional debate topics.==<br />
To add a topic, edit this page, and enter a # followed by the topic title in double square brackets. Use a | to separate link from the title.<br />
<br />i.e.<br />
: <nowiki># [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]</nowiki> <br />
which will look like this:<br />
# [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]<br />
<br />
Then you can click the link, and create the page when it isn't found.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates| ]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Economist&diff=91095The Economist2007-04-07T08:44:25Z<p>Mathematica: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''The Economist''' is a weekly British newsmagazine promoting a [[liberal | classical liberal]] point of view.<br />
<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
[http://www.economist.com/ www.economist.com]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Economist&diff=91094The Economist2007-04-07T08:43:19Z<p>Mathematica: New page: '''The Economist''' is a weekly British newsmagazine promoting a classical liberal point of view. ==External Links== [http://www.economist.com/ Fraunhofer IIS]</p>
<hr />
<div>'''The Economist''' is a weekly British newsmagazine promoting a [[liberal | classical liberal]] point of view.<br />
<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
[http://www.economist.com/ Fraunhofer IIS]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=91093Liberal2007-04-07T08:39:29Z<p>Mathematica: clarifying and removing some junk</p>
<hr />
<div>==Original meaning: 'Classical liberalism'==<br />
<br />
As a political term, the original meaning of '''Liberal''' describes someone who favors personal [[freedom]] in all its forms<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>, as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others ('liber' means freedom in Latin). This interpretation of liberalism arose during the [[Enlightenment]], and became influential throught the [[American Revolution]] and [[French Revolution]], and was also spread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the [[classical economists]]<ref>[http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]</ref>. The original philosophy of liberalism (now sometimes called [[classical liberalism]], or [[libertarianism]] in the US), favors many forms of freedom, such as:<br />
<br />
*Freedom of speech<br />
*Freedom of religion<br />
*The right to form political parties and vote<br />
*Freedom to invest in and use private property<br />
*Freedom to work as one chooses<br />
*Freedom to enter into economic contracts<br />
*Free trade and freedom of migration<br />
*Sexual freedom<br />
*Equal rights independent of race or sex<br />
<br />
A prominent publication which promotes liberalism in the original sense of the word is the British newsmagazine [[The Economist]].<br />
<br />
==Liberalism in the US today==<br />
<br />
Interestingly, nowadays the word 'liberal' is used differently in different parts of the world, reflecting political debates over different types of freedom. <br />
<br />
In the postwar period, 'liberal' [[Democrat | Democrats]] fought for equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom, which are all true liberal causes. At the same time, many Democrats supported government intervention in the economy and [[welfare state]] policies, which are '''not''' liberal policies in the sense of [[classical liberalism]]. Nonetheless, all of these [[leftist | left-wing]] policies became associated with the meaning of 'liberal' in the US today, even though they are close to the views of many [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties in Europe.<br />
<br />
Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals':<br />
<br />
* equal responsibilities for men and women, such as equal participation by men and women in the military<br />
* freedom to follow or not to follow traditional gender roles <br />
* usually in favor of the right to choose about [[abortion]]<br />
* some acceptance of [[same-sex marriage]]<br />
* equal rights for people of any race<br />
* support of [[affirmative action]]<br />
* in favor of [[political correctness]], civility and sensitivity in everyday speech<br />
* equal treatment for all religions<br />
* the prohibition of school-sponsored religious activities in public schools<br />
* government-sponsored education provided for all school-age citizens who choose to use it<br />
* taxpayer funding of public schools<br />
* universal, partially taxpayer-funded rather than strictly private medical care<br />
* labor union rights<br />
*[[income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation on higher income groups.<br />
* preference for a interpretation of the constitution as a "[[living Constitution]]" instead of an unchanging Constitution<br />
* in favor of [[gun control]]<br />
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]<br />
* protection of natural resources and wilderness areas<br />
* [[disarmament treaties]] where appropriate<br />
* reduction of the military when appropriate<br />
* currently, opposition to interventionist foreign policy that involves nation building. Isolationist positions are however traditionally neither liberal nor conservative. There are examples for isolationist positions on both sides of the political divide. <ref>[http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/w-administration/w-bush/bush-2000-against-nation-building-and-poor-nation-debt.txt The Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate] </ref><br />
* refusal to view the current American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> as one that advances human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref> and democracy <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref><br />
<br />
==Liberalism in Europe today==<br />
<br />
In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].<br />
<br />
Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them 'liberals' or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, 'liberal' is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called 'liberal' in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.<br />
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==<br />
<br />
One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> <br />
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...<br />
2<br />
Other definitions from the same source include:<br />
* Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.<br />
* Tending to give freely; generous.<br />
* Generous in amount; ample.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=84669Liberal2007-04-04T09:16:19Z<p>Mathematica: /* Liberalism in the US today */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Original meaning: 'Classical liberalism'==<br />
<br />
'''Liberal''' is a term used in politics to describe someone who favors personal [[freedom]] in all its forms<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>, as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others ('liber' means freedom in Latin). The philosophy of liberalism arose during the [[Enlightenment]], and became influential throught the [[American Revolution]] and [[French Revolution]], and was also spread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the [[classical economists]]<ref>[http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]</ref>. The original philosophy of liberalism (now sometimes called [[classical liberalism]], or [[libertarianism]] in the US), favors many forms of freedom, such as:<br />
<br />
*Freedom of speech<br />
*Freedom of religion<br />
*The right to form political parties and vote<br />
*Freedom to invest in and use private property<br />
*Freedom to work as one chooses<br />
*Freedom to enter into economic contracts<br />
*Sexual freedom<br />
*Equal rights independent of race or sex<br />
<br />
A prominent publication which promotes liberalism in the original sense of the word is the British newsmagazine [[The Economist]].<br />
<br />
==Liberalism in the US today==<br />
<br />
Interestingly, nowadays the word 'liberal' is used differently in different parts of the world, reflecting political debates over different types of freedom. <br />
<br />
In the US today, 'liberal' is usually used to mean someone who is generally [[left-wing]] in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. In the postwar period, 'liberal' [[Democrat | Democrats]] fought for equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom, which are all true liberal causes. At the same time, many Democrats supported government intervention in the economy and [[welfare state]] policies, which are '''not''' liberal policies in the sense of [[classical liberalism]]. Nonetheless, all of these [[left-wing]] policies became associated with the meaning of 'liberal' in the US today, even though they are close to the views of many [[social democratic]] parties in Europe.<br />
<br />
Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals':<br />
<br />
* equal responsibilities for men and women, such as equal participation by men and women in the military<br />
* freedom to follow or not to follow traditional gender roles <br />
* in favor of [[abortion]] rights<br />
* [[same-sex marriage]]<br />
* equal rights for people of any race<br />
* support of [[affirmative action]]<br />
* in favor of [[political correctness]], civility and sensitivity in everyday speech<br />
* equal treatment for all religions<br />
* promoting secularism and the prohibition of group prayer in school<br />
* government-sponsored education provided for all school-age citizens<br />
* increased taxpayer funding of public schools<br />
* universal and taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care<br />
* increased power for labor unions<br />
*[[income redistribution]], with higher progressive taxation on those in the top 10% of earnings.<br />
* preference for a interpretation of the constitution as a "[[living Constitution]]" instead of an unchanging Constitution<br />
* in favor of [[gun control]]<br />
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]<br />
* protection of natural resources and wilderness areas<br />
* [[disarmament treaties]]<br />
* reduction of the military<br />
* opposition to armed intervention in other countries<br />
* opposition to current American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> as one that advances human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref><ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm ''Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil''], Robert Fisk, Independent/UK, 18 January 2003. </ref> and democracy <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref><br />
<br />
==Liberalism in Europe today==<br />
<br />
In Europe, on the other hand, parties that promote economic and business freedom are often called 'liberal' by their opponents. Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them 'liberals' or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, 'liberal' is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called 'liberal' in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.<br />
<br />
The few parties in Europe that actually call themselves 'liberal', such as the German Free Democratic Party, or the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref>, are usually pro-business parties that support [[classical liberal]] policies in favor of all kinds of freedom.<br />
<br />
==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==<br />
<br />
One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> <br />
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...<br />
<br />
Other definitions from the same source include:<br />
* Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.<br />
* Tending to give freely; generous.<br />
* Generous in amount; ample.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=84668Liberal2007-04-04T09:15:54Z<p>Mathematica: /* Liberalism in the US today */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Original meaning: 'Classical liberalism'==<br />
<br />
'''Liberal''' is a term used in politics to describe someone who favors personal [[freedom]] in all its forms<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>, as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others ('liber' means freedom in Latin). The philosophy of liberalism arose during the [[Enlightenment]], and became influential throught the [[American Revolution]] and [[French Revolution]], and was also spread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the [[classical economists]]<ref>[http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]</ref>. The original philosophy of liberalism (now sometimes called [[classical liberalism]], or [[libertarianism]] in the US), favors many forms of freedom, such as:<br />
<br />
*Freedom of speech<br />
*Freedom of religion<br />
*The right to form political parties and vote<br />
*Freedom to invest in and use private property<br />
*Freedom to work as one chooses<br />
*Freedom to enter into economic contracts<br />
*Sexual freedom<br />
*Equal rights independent of race or sex<br />
<br />
A prominent publication which promotes liberalism in the original sense of the word is the British newsmagazine [[The Economist]].<br />
<br />
==Liberalism in the US today==<br />
<br />
Interestingly, nowadays the word 'liberal' is used differently in different parts of the world, reflecting political debates over different types of freedom. <br />
<br />
In the US today, 'liberal' is usually used to mean someone who is generally [[left-wing]] in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. In the postwar period, 'liberal' [[Democrat | Democrats]] fought for equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom, which are all true liberal causes. At the same time, many Democrats supported government intervention in the economy and [[welfare state]] policies, which are '''not''' liberal policies in the sense of [[classical liberalism]] at all. Nonetheless, all of these [[left-wing]] policies became associated with the meaning of 'liberal' in the US today, even though they are close to the views of many [[social democratic]] parties in Europe.<br />
<br />
Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals':<br />
<br />
* equal responsibilities for men and women, such as equal participation by men and women in the military<br />
* freedom to follow or not to follow traditional gender roles <br />
* in favor of [[abortion]] rights<br />
* [[same-sex marriage]]<br />
* equal rights for people of any race<br />
* support of [[affirmative action]]<br />
* in favor of [[political correctness]], civility and sensitivity in everyday speech<br />
* equal treatment for all religions<br />
* promoting secularism and the prohibition of group prayer in school<br />
* government-sponsored education provided for all school-age citizens<br />
* increased taxpayer funding of public schools<br />
* universal and taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care<br />
* increased power for labor unions<br />
*[[income redistribution]], with higher progressive taxation on those in the top 10% of earnings.<br />
* preference for a interpretation of the constitution as a "[[living Constitution]]" instead of an unchanging Constitution<br />
* in favor of [[gun control]]<br />
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]<br />
* protection of natural resources and wilderness areas<br />
* [[disarmament treaties]]<br />
* reduction of the military<br />
* opposition to armed intervention in other countries<br />
* opposition to current American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> as one that advances human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref><ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm ''Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil''], Robert Fisk, Independent/UK, 18 January 2003. </ref> and democracy <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref><br />
<br />
==Liberalism in Europe today==<br />
<br />
In Europe, on the other hand, parties that promote economic and business freedom are often called 'liberal' by their opponents. Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them 'liberals' or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, 'liberal' is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called 'liberal' in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.<br />
<br />
The few parties in Europe that actually call themselves 'liberal', such as the German Free Democratic Party, or the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref>, are usually pro-business parties that support [[classical liberal]] policies in favor of all kinds of freedom.<br />
<br />
==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==<br />
<br />
One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> <br />
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...<br />
<br />
Other definitions from the same source include:<br />
* Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.<br />
* Tending to give freely; generous.<br />
* Generous in amount; ample.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>Mathematicahttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=84667Liberal2007-04-04T09:14:34Z<p>Mathematica: clarifying classical liberal, and liberal in US versus liberal in Europe</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
==Original meaning: 'Classical liberalism'==<br />
<br />
'''Liberal''' is a term used in politics to describe someone who favors personal [[freedom]] in all its forms<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>, as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others ('liber' means freedom in Latin). The philosophy of liberalism arose during the [[Enlightenment]], and became influential throught the [[American Revolution]] and [[French Revolution]], and was also spread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the [[classical economists]]<ref>[http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]</ref>. The original philosophy of liberalism (now sometimes called [[classical liberalism]], or [[libertarianism]] in the US), favors many forms of freedom, such as:<br />
<br />
*Freedom of speech<br />
*Freedom of religion<br />
*The right to form political parties and vote<br />
*Freedom to invest in and use private property<br />
*Freedom to work as one chooses<br />
*Freedom to enter into economic contracts<br />
*Sexual freedom<br />
*Equal rights independent of race or sex<br />
<br />
A prominent publication which promotes liberalism in the original sense of the word is the British newsmagazine [[The Economist]].<br />
<br />
==Liberalism in the US today==<br />
<br />
Interestingly, nowadays the word 'liberal' is used differently in different parts of the world, reflecting political debates over different types of freedom. <br />
<br />
In the US today, 'liberal' is usually used to mean someone who is generally [[left-wing]] in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. In the postwar period, 'liberal' [[Democrat | Democrats]] fought for equal rights between races and sexes, and also about sexual freedom, which are all true liberal causes. At the same time, many Democrats supported government intervention in the economy and [[welfare state]] policies, which are '''not''' liberal policies in the sense of [[classical liberalism]] at all. Nonetheless, all of these [[left-wing]] policies became associated with the meaning of 'liberal' in the US today, even though they are close to the views of many [[social democratic]] parties in Europe.<br />
<br />
Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals':<br />
<br />
* equal responsibilities for men and women, such as equal participation by men and women in the military<br />
* freedom to follow or not to follow traditional gender roles <br />
* in favor of [[abortion]] rights<br />
* [[same-sex marriage]]<br />
* equal rights for people of any race<br />
* support of [[affirmative action]]<br />
* in favor of [[political correctness]], civility and sensitivity in everyday speech<br />
* equal treatment for all religions<br />
* promoting secularism and the prohibition of group prayer in school<br />
* government-sponsored education provided for all school-age citizens<br />
* increased taxpayer funding of public schools<br />
* universal and taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care<br />
* increased power for labor unions<br />
*[[income redistribution]], with higher progressive taxation on those in the top 10% of earnings.<br />
* preference for a interpretation of the constitution as a "[[living Constitution]]" instead of an unchanging Constitution<br />
* in favor of [[gun control]]<br />
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]<br />
* protection of natural resources and wilderness areas<br />
* [[disarmament treaties]]<br />
* reduction of the military<br />
* opposition to armed intervention in other countries<br />
* opposition to current American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> as one that advances human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref><ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm ''Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil''], Robert Fisk, Independent/UK, 18 January 2003. </ref> and democracy <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Liberalism in Europe today==<br />
<br />
In Europe, on the other hand, parties that promote economic and business freedom are often called 'liberal' by their opponents. Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them 'liberals' or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, 'liberal' is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called 'liberal' in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.<br />
<br />
The few parties in Europe that actually call themselves 'liberal', such as the German Free Democratic Party, or the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref>, are usually pro-business parties that support [[classical liberal]] policies in favor of all kinds of freedom.<br />
<br />
==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==<br />
<br />
One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> <br />
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...<br />
<br />
Other definitions from the same source include:<br />
* Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.<br />
* Tending to give freely; generous.<br />
* Generous in amount; ample.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>Mathematica