Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Liberal myths

2010-06-29T17:45:01Z

RoryM:

== Liberal myths are heavily promoted falsehoods motivated by a destructive belief system ==

Liberal beliefs:<ref>http://www.twilightslastgleaming.com/myths.htm</ref> They include:

*The claim that the population has increased by a large amount, and human beings are beginning to overpopulate. (This myth is used as an attempt to justify abortion and anthropogenic global warming)
*The claim that people today are more knowledgeable than in prior centuries.
*The claim that the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the [[budget]] deficit.
*The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
*Anthropogenic [[Global Warming]]. <ref>[http://www.nowpublic.com/some-exasperating-liberal-myths Some Exasperating Liberal Myths] NowPublic.com, August 27, 2007</ref>
*The claim that a [[fetus]] is not a living human being.
*The claim the [[embryonic stem cell]]s will provide many cures. Unlike adult stem cells, embryonic cells have provided no known cures.
*The claim that [[gun control]] reduces crime.
*The claim that [[abortion]] and [[breast cancer]] are unrelated.
*The claim that [[abortion]] and mental depression are unrelated.
*The claim that [[gambling]] financially benefits state school systems <REF>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/17/cbsnews_investigates/main3269456.shtml Is The Lottery Shortchanging Schools?] CBS News, September 17, 2007</ref>
*The claim to support the rights of women, never mention the oppressed women in Muslim countries. <ref>[http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/index.html About the Women's Rights Project] ACLU</ref>
*The claim that the [[media]] is not biased toward the liberal agenda.
*The claim that enabling [[oil]] drilling will not reduce long-term [[energy]] prices. <ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/07/nancy_pelosis_energy_policy.php?comments=show Nancy Pelosi's Energy Policy] Rightwingnews.com, July 8, 2008</ref>
*The claim that enabling oil drilling will not provide [[energy]] security.<ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=33767 Oil Money May Buy Drilling Vote, Liberal Says] CNSNews.com, August 7, 2008</ref>
*The claim that same-sex couple adoptions can replace the [[love]] from a mother and a father. <ref>[http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/families/a/adoption_2.htm Lesbian and Gay Adoption Rights] About.com</ref>
*The claim that an individuals [[sexual]] preference needs to be a protected civil right. <ref>[http://www.civilrights.org/research_center/civilrights101/sexualorientation.html GAYS AND LESBIANS] Civilrights.com</ref>
*That there is a [[vast right-wing conspiracy]] <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359741,00.html THE VAST LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY] Fox News, May 29, 2008</ref>
*The claim that opposing the [[homosexual agenda]] is [[bigotry]]. <ref>[http://www.boycottmcdonalds.com/detail.aspx?id=102 Boycott McDonald's!] American Family Association</ref>
*The claim that the US acted unilaterally in Iraq (The USA and Britain led a 30-nation coalition in Iraq)<ref>[http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm558.cfm The Myth of U.S. Isolation] The Heritage Foundation, September 7, 2004 </ref>
*The claim that [[President Bush]] stole the 2000 elections. <ref>[http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=239 Floridagate] Democrats.com</ref>
*The claim that [[President Bush]] lied about WMD in [[Iraq]] to grab [[oil]].
*The claim that [[Saddam Hussein]] was not seeking to buy yellowcake Uranium. <ref>[http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/14/tenet-niger/ Tenet Agrees To Cooperate With Congressional Investigation Into Niger Fraud] ThinkProgress, May 14, 2007</ref>
*The claim that the [[9/11]] terrorists attacks were an inside job by the [[USA]].
*The claim that Foreign Intelligence & Surveillance Act (FISA) is for spying on Americans. <ref>[http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35928prs20080709.html Senate Passes Unconstitutional Spying Bill] ACLU, July 9, 2008</ref>
*The claim that [[big government]] will benefit its' citizens. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/candidates_public_service/2008/09/11/130009.html McCain, Obama Discuss Views on Public Service] Ap, September 11, 2008</ref>
*The claim that [[military]] recruits are poor and uneducated. <ref>[http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/cda05-08.cfm Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits] Heritage Foundation, November 7, 2005</ref> <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200612/ai_n17197505 Rangel Is Wrong About Recruits] Human Events, December 4,2006</ref> <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/31/kerry.mccain/ Bush on Kerry remark: U.S. troops are 'plenty smart'] CNN, November 1, 2006</ref>
*The claim that [[government]] run [[healthcare]] is better than a capitalist healthcare system. <ref>[http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr009=j7lglh8nq9.app5b&page=NewsArticle&id=9238&news_iv_ctrl=1283 Free, universal health care must be a right!] VotePSL.org, may 30, 2008</ref>
*They claim that going on the offense against [[terrorists]] creates more terrorists. <ref>[http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/madeleine-albright-we-created-more.html Madeleine Albright: "We Created More Terrorists... Our Soldiers Are the Problem"] Gateway Pundit, March 27, 2008</ref>
*They claim that terrorism should be handled by [[law]] enforcement. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902041.html Strategy Against Al-Qaeda Faulted] Washington Post, July 30, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,406901,00.html Bush: War on Terror is Not Law Enforcement Matter] AP, August 20, 2008</ref>
*They claim that the USA should negotiate with rogue [[nations]] and terror groups.
*They claim that [[socialism]] is a better than [[capitalism]].
*They claim that there is a [[gene]] which causes people to be gay, despite the fact that the scientific community rejects this view
*They claim that [[humans]] and [[ape]]s have a common ancestor
*They claim that the [[death penalty]] does not deter [[crime]], despite the overwhelming evidence showing that the death penalty does deter crime
*They claim that [[atheists]] are just as moral as [[Christians]] who regularly go to a church, or, in some cases, claim atheists are morally superior.
*They claim that all [[religions]] teach the same thing.
*They claim that [[intelligent design]] is not a science and has no evidence.
*They claim that no [[climatologist]] or [[physicist]] rejects global warming, despite the fact that the founder of The Weather Channel rejects global warming, as do thousands of other scientists.
*They claim Hitler was a [[Catholic]].
*They claim opposition to [[Obama]] is racism.
*They claim the general welfare clause in the Constitution gives government the right to force you to buy government-run healthcare.
*They claim Jesus was the first [[socialist]].
*They claim [[affirmative action]] works.
*They claim the [[Old Testament]] is immoral.
*They claim that the [[Jews]] aren't the Jews of the Bible.
*They claim that [[feminism]] has no bias.
*They claim [[homosexuals]] do not try to convert [[heterosexuals]].
*They claim that [[gay marriage]] will not result in [[polygamy]] also being written into law.
*They claim that the [[Bible]] is fictional.
*They claim that [[Liberal Christianity]] is compatible with the teachings of [[Jesus Christ]].
*They claim that proper tire inflation can replace the need for additional oil drilling.
*That we should eat less red meat in order to combat [[climate change]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,418801,00.html</ref>
*They claim Jesus was a liberal, or that Jesus was left-wing<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1895/cromwell/09-communism.htm The 'Diggers' movement is held up as an example of good Christianity]</ref>.
*The claim that the [[Nation of Islam]] is unrelated to Islam the religion.
*The claim that portable school vouchers would destroy [[public schools]], yet send their own children to private schools.
*The claim that if you are [[pro-life]], you don't care about people after they're born. <ref>[http://twitter.com/movingleft Obnoxious supporter of Obama Twitter Account @MovingLeft (Warning:Vulgar)]</ref>
*The claim that more black people died in wars of [[America]] than in [[abortion]]. 1,786 blacks are killed '''daily''' by abortion, one of two [[pregnant]] women will be suckered into pro-choice genocide. [http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1685410938.html]
*The claim that renaming [[War on Terror]] to Overseas Contingency Operation will reduce the threats facing America.
*The claim to cutback our country's missile defenses will some how make us more secure than we were.
*The claim that the nation will go bankrupt if we don't spend more tax dollars.
*We as a nation must switch to unproven technologies for the environments sake, such as wind or solar power. Yet, proven clean energy generated by nuclear power is not an option.
*The claim that you are not pro-life if you are [[pro-gun]].
*The claim that guns are responsible for deaths. (by that same logic, pencils are responsible for misspelled words.)
*The claim that 47 million Americans don't have health insurance. (Actual number is between 10 and 15 million) <ref>[[Essay:47 million Americans without health insurance lie‎]]</ref>
*They claim that homosexuality cannot be overcome by therapy and prayer
==Patriotism==
The liberal belief that an individual can claim to support our military, just not the mission and still be considered a 'Patriot'. In fact, the exact opposite is the truth. A liberals patriotism, party-specific position, cannot support the troops if they are an a impediment to their political left-wing strategy. The main reason for this has to due with passionate, partisan hatred for our current commander n chief, the [[President of the United States of America]]. Liberals claim to support the military, claim not to support the mission and refuse to support the Commander. The extremist left discounts the counter effect of troop morale. Understanding the true liberal mindset when it comes to supporting our U.S. troops, observe the often tried protest march. Though frustration boils over, actions lead from protest to outright sabotage or anarchism. <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/01/anti-war-protest-at-gop-convention-turns-violent/ Anti-War Protest at GOP Convention Turns Violent] Fox News, September 1, 2008</ref> Liberal credibility fails and lack of concern for the support of America shows. The left-wing cares so much for our military they condone and actually prop up politicians that abuse troops with reckless accusations <ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0907/Federal_judge_order_Murtha_to_testify_in_Haditha_defamation_case.html Federal judge orders Murtha to testify in Haditha defamation case] Politico, September 28, 2007</ref>, negative media coverage and ego trips <ref>[http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-kerrystuckiniraq.htm Political Humor] About.com</ref>. Liberal protesters look the other way as war memorials are vandalized. Liberals protest our severely injured soldiers at the Walter Reed Medical Center.<ref>[http://www.crosswalk.com/1347570/ Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital] Crosswalk.com</ref> Liberal protesters harass, damage or block military recruitment centers from operating business as-usual. <ref>[http://mfvov.com/blog/?p=505 Recruiting Center Attacks Coast to Coast] Military Families Voice of Victory, March 19, 2008</ref> This leftwing position, the myth is successful in feeding media driven discontent and mediocrity shame. If the news is bad, a liberal is spoon fed. If the news is good, the spoon fed liberal is oblivious. e.g. "a complete suspension of disbelief".

Patriotism, to your brother, who volunteers and risks the ultimate sacrifice out of love, will never be diminished. True patriots will always be in our gratitude and held in the highest light.

==America Perceived==
The myth liberals give says we need to restore America's image in the world. Again, this mostly has to do with liberals' negative view of [[President Bush]]. Liberals want the two linked even though the myth is false. They blame Bush and Iraq for the bad USA image but the truth is that the credibility of the American left is a worse image than America's image abroad. The main need for liberals to propagate this myth is the fact that [[socialist]] governments of Europe oppose the policy of [[Iraq]]. This further fuels liberals' political agenda to remove [[Republicans]] from power. Liberals love Europeans and cite their false socialist utopia at every chance. European opposition automatically reinforces their belief that America's image is damaged. As of 2008, most of the [[European]] leaders that opposed Iraq are no longer in positions of power. The result, European [[conservatives]] were elected who publicly aligned themselves with America.

Those [[liberals]] that use the myth and regularly bash the USA are often called the "Blame America First" crowd. Though they never seem to mention that America gives more in donations, in total dollars, than any other country on Earth. <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm Americans give record $295B to charity] USA Today, 6/25/2007</ref> A sure way to change America's image in the world is to show the world we respect life. The repeal of Roe Vs. Wade would be a start.

Reasons why [[America]] was hated prior to 2003 include wealth, women's rights, support for our democratic ally [[Israel]], democratic government, capitalist economy and exporting immorality.

==Bad Successful Companies==
In the attempt to point fingers and lay blame, the liberals produce the myth that profits made by successful companies are bad for America. Only a select group of companies are targeted for public shame. This is a false myth because successful corporations actually create jobs and [[tax]] revenue. Retirement funds and municipal bonds rely heavily on the profits from these companies. Also, the reason these companies flourish is because the capitalist system rewards their hard work. The liberals will try to create sympathy, that they care for the average American, they are the ones going after wrongdoers to make it right.

[[Liberals]] have demonized such companies as RJ Reynolds, Walmart, Halliburton and Blackwater. Their latest target is Exxon Mobil for their enormous profits and futures market oil speculators. Most of their accusations are absurd. Liberals in [[Congress]] don't blink an eye when it comes time to spend all that tax revenue generated. Liberals in Congress have been called on their [[hypocrisy]] for owning stocks in those companies. Which in turn, they divest their portfolios like nothing was ever wrong. For years, for decades, these companies have lobbied members of Congress, they have worked together for their common goals. In return, hefty [[campaign]] donations are their reward. Then for opportune reasons, liberals will publicly ridicule and verbally attack these bad, greedy capitalists. Corporate heads are brought before congress for a sideshow grilling to explain their actions. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/01/MNU7VU217.DTL Congress asks Big Oil to justify big profits] The SF Chronicle, April 2, 2008</ref> The Windfall Tax is just another example of the sham created by this liberal myth. Those companies make enough money, they should now be forced to give some back. They are threatened with nationalization <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65111 Congresswoman threatens to nationalize oil industry] Worldnetdaily.com, May 23, 2008</ref>
and further government regulation, a socialist scheme. As the price of gas fell, Congress just pretended like nothing ever happened, Big Oil off the hook.

==The Economy From The Previous 8 Years==
In an attempt to spread Bush hatred without mentioning his name, it is common for liberals to lie and say ''"we're in this economic mess because of the policies over the previous eight years."'' This is a myth, perpetuated by the corrupt in order to link bad economics with [[Conservatism]] and Bush policy. These liberals are the very same individuals that would not recognize George W. Bush's economic successes when the economy was creating jobs. Bush, [[McCain]], [[Alan Greenspan]] are all on record as trying to fix the corrupt lending policies and government mismanagement for the past eight years. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1 Financial Meltdown Video]YouTube</ref> All the while Democrats were lining their pockets with [[Fannie Mae]] and [[Freddie Mac]] donations. Democrats are overwhelming responsible if they should point fingers. Democrats [[Barney Frank]], [[Chris Dodd]], [[John Kerry]], [[Charles Schumer]] and even [[Barack Obama]] are as much, if not directly, indirectly responsible for the failed economics of this country over the past eight-years. The same people who got us into this mess are now responsible for getting us out of financial meltdown. Blame can go all around on this one, both Republicans and Democrats. This was the result of many bad decisions over a long period of time. Then out of nowhere, financial calamity that nobody saw coming, except congressmen and women who were privy to bank collapses. They made good money while the rest of America suffered. <ref>[http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2009/06/members_of_us_house_financial.html Members of U.S. House Financial Services Committee snapped up or dumped bank stocks as bottom fell out of market Cleveland.com June 25, 2009]</ref>

{{cquote|The truth of the matter; Bush-era 4.5% unemployment, Obama-era will it go higher than 10%?}}

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

[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:liberals]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-06-29T17:28:44Z

RoryM:

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]]. To date, no fossils of ''H. darwinicus orangutanishicus'' have been found.]]
A [[science|scientific]] [[theory]] proven by the logical principal of [[deduction]] cannot permit any counterexamples. In order to be true, the [[theory of evolution|theory of evolution by natural selection acting upon random mutation]] must be able to explain the origins of '''''all''''' living things in terms of a purely [[naturalism|naturalistic view]]. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is infinitesimally small (only a 6% chance that evolution is true with 54 possible counterexamples).
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# The annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even more unlikely.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.

===Lack of mechanism===
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
# Mutations cause a loss of information, rendering it mathematically impossible for mutations to advance the complexity of life. Similarly, entropy (disorder) increases over time, making it impossible for order to increase on its own.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems. Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.
# [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons: First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.
# evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation
# Evolution cannot explain how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if evolution said that beauty were useful then we would all expect to see the same things as beautiful.
# the fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
# the extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.
# the manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day
# Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>
# Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.
# Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemicals in their blood that essentially act as anti-freeze. Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.
# The blood of tunicates such as the sea squirt is based on the rare element [[vanadium]] instead of the abundant [[iron]] used in other vertebrates, which would have required a complete re-tooling of its entire circulatory biochemistry <ref>http://www.earthlife.net/inverts/ascidiacea.html</ref>.

===Maladaptation===
# [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
# Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.
# The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>
# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism (See especially [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', which denies altruism without providing any evidence to back up his enormous claim)
# Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

===Wrong prediction===
# "the loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps" even though "the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?"<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/4624/</ref>
# Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</ref>
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "junk DNA" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one.
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.

===Missing fossils===
# the remarkable whale, which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different horse like animals appear in the fossil record distinct<ref>Ray comfort, forward to the 150th anniversary edition of On the Origin of Species</ref>
# the enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record.
# No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
# A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.

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

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
# the extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from tree trunks was never true). The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first (see the irreducible complexity argument).<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>
# The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
# Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employ a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# Blood clotting is a unique process unlike any other in the body, without which the smallest cut could be life-threatening. Only a fully developed clotting system is functional and therefore could not have evolved through intermediate stages.

===Uncategorized===
# [[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# If religion were as harmful as evolutionists claim, natural selection would have phased it out, but it continues, meaning evolutionists are wrong about both evolution and the supposed harmful effects of evolution

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

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

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

[[category:Evolution]]

Reagan Era

2010-06-29T16:36:05Z

RoryM: foxed spelling error

The '''Reagan Era''' or '''Age of Reagan''' is the name historians apply to the last 30 years. Scholars left and right are reaching a consensus on the issue, with conservatives pleased and liberals grudgingly conceding.

Five factors were at work. First the failure of liberalism in the 1970s stunned and silenced liberals, who were already under heavy pressure from the far left. Second, that failure energized a new conservative coaliytion involving the Religious Right, the business community, and Americans alarmed by the decline in Ameria's global position. Third, Reagan appeared at the right time with the right skills to mobilize conservatives, and lead the nation --and Congress--to support for his wide-ranging policies. Fourth, the policies worked, as the nation's great enemy the Soviet Union collapsed and vanished, and the economy at home surged forward. And finally the policies reflected the new national mode and thus became a permanent fixture that was largely accepted by moderate Democrats, especially President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
[[File:Rightward-bound.jpg|thumb|280px]]

==Domestic policy==
===Economics===
The Age of Reagan replaced the age of FDR. The liberal regime created by Roosevelt during the [[New Deal]] and sustained by Democrats with some help from liberal Republicans featured the welfare state and tight federal regulations of key sectors of the economy. The process of deregulation began in the mid 1970s, after the resignation of [[Richard Nixon]], a Republican who was liberal on many New Deal issues.
In the 1970s the Keynesian consensus among economists collapsed with when it could neither explain nor provide a remedy for stagflation (simultaneous high unemployment and high inflation). It was largely replaced by a conservative viewpoint heralded by [[Milton Friedman]] and the [[Chicago School of Economics]], which attacked Keynesianism in macroeconomic policy, and attacked regulation as well. The nation's move to the right in economics was also aided by the ineptitude of President Carter, which contributed to the public's collapsing confidence in the government's ability to deal with the nation's problems. Carter's failures fulfilled the conditions that allowed Reagan, as the leader of the conservative movement, to enter from stage right.
===Deregulation, taxes and unleashing capitalism===
===Welfare State===
===Social issues and the Religious Right===
==Foreign Policy==
===Rollback of Communism===
===Spreading Democracy===
==Historiography==
== Legacy ==
By 2009 there was a growing consensus among scholars such that both conservative admirers and liberal critics agree that he has been the most influential president since the death of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] in 1945, leaving his imprint on American politics, diplomacy, culture, and economics. for example "As of this writing, among academic historians, the Reagan revisionists—who view the 1980s as an era of mixed blessings at worst, and of great forward strides in some renditions—hold the field," reports one liberal historian.<ref>Doug Rossinow, "Talking Points Memo," in ''American Quarterly'' 59.4 (2007) p. 1279.</ref>

For more historiographical support see: Ehrman (2007), Troy (2009); Hayward (2009); Wilentz (2008).
==See also==
* [[Cold War]]
* [[Ronald Reagan]]

==Further reading==
* Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)
* Diggins, John. ''Ronald Reagan‎'' (2008), 528 pages, by leading conservative historian.
* Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005), by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Eighties-America-Age-Reagan/dp/0300115822/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258967399&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]
* Flamm, Michael and John Ehrman. ''Debating the Reagan Presidency'' (2009), key issues explained; includes primary sources
* Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48.
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-1964-1980-Liberal-Order/dp/076151337X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258967399&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-Conservative-Counterrevolution-1980-1989/dp/1400053579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861343&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Langston, Thomas S. "Reassessing the Reagan Presidency," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 34, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/read/5006516145?title=Reassessing%20the%20Reagan%20Presidency online edition]
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis of the era
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online]
* Troy, Gill. ''The Reagan Revolution: A Very Short Introduction'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Revolution-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0195317106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861138&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008), major narrative history by liberal historian who says Reagan transformed America

===Foreign policy===
* Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+. [http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=HhHYNGdT18XmGxylZNJQhdSjrtry2j8zYD2pLstvcnSLFqC9JzvF!-313427117?docId=5000522864 online edition] by conservative
* Dobson, Alan P. "The Reagan Administration, Economic Warfare, and Starting to Close down the Cold War." ''Diplomatic History''(3): 531-556. Fulltext in SwetsWise, Ingenta and Ebsco. Argues Reagan's public rhetoric against the USSR was harsh and uncompromising, giving rise to the idea that his administration sought to employ a US defense buildup and NATO economic sanctions to bring about the collapse of the USSR. Yet many statements by Reagan and Shultz suggest they desired negotiation with the Soviets from a position of American strength, not the eventual demise of the USSR.
* Garthoff, Raymond L. ''The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War'' (1994), detailed narrative by a liberal critic [http://www.questia.com/read/29069917?title=The%20Great%20Transition%3a%20American-Soviet%20Relations%20and%20the%20End%20of%20the%20Cold%20War online edition]
* Haftendorn, Helga and Jakob Schissler, eds. ''The Reagan Administration: A Reconstruction of American Strength?'' Berlin: Walter de Guyer, 1988. by European scholars
* [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)
* Lagon, Mark P. ''The Reagan Doctrine: Sources of American Conduct in the Cold War's Last Chapter'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9161896 online edition]
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the US ambassador to Moscow [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0679463232/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194316986&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''(1): 75-88. Fulltext in SwetsWise and Ingenta; Reagan declared in 1985 that the U.S. should not "break faith" with anti-Communist resistance groups. However, his policies varied as differences in local conditions and US security interests produced divergent policies toward "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Angola, and Cambodia. [http://www.questia.com/read/5015817882?title=The%20Reagan%20Doctrine%3a%20Principle%2c%20Pragmatism%2c%20and%20Policy online edition]
* Salla, Michael E. and Ralph Summy, eds. ''Why the Cold War Ended: A Range of Interpretations'' (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/22889072 online edition]
* Suri, Jeremi. "Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus?" ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' - Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 2002, pp. 60-92 in [[Project Muse]]
* Wills, David C. ''The First War on Terrorism: Counter-Terrorism Policy during the Reagan Administration.'' (2004)

===Domestic policies===
* Birnbaum Jeffrey H., and Alan S. Murray. ''Showdown at Gucci Gulch: Lawmakers, Lobbyists, and the Unlikely Triumph of Tax Reform.'' 1987.
* Boskin Michael J. ''Reagan and the Economy: The Successes, Failures, and Unfinished Agenda.'' ICS Press, 1987.
* Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition], by conservative
* Goodman, Marshall R. ''Managing Regulatory Reform: The Reagan Strategy and Its Impact'' Praeger Publishers, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=43165555 online edition]
* Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' (1994).
* Kleinknecht, William. ''The Man Who Sold the World: Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America'' (2009), an old leftist blames everything bad on RR but agrees that he dominates the era
* Sahu, Anandi P. and Ronald L. Tracy; ''The Economic Legacy of the Reagan Years: Euphoria or Chaos?'' 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59361760 online edition]

===Politics and rhetoric===
* Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' (1994).
* Busch, Andrew E. ''Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right,'' (2005) [http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1103/article_detail.asp online review by Michael Barone]
* Cannon, Lou, and Carl M. Cannon. ''Reagan's Disciple: George W. Bush's Troubled Quest for a Presidential Legacy'' (2008) on the continuity of the Age of Reagan to 2008. [http://www.amazon.com/Reagans-Disciple-George-Troubled-Presidential/dp/1586484486/ref=sr_1_30?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258967531&sr=1-30 excerpt and text search]
* Dunn, Charles W. ''The Future of Conservatism: Conflict and Consensus in the Post-Reagan Era'' (2007), essays by conservative scholars [http://www.amazon.com/Future-Conservatism-Consensus-Post-Reagan-Contemporary/dp/1933859229/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258967774&sr=1-6#noop excerpt and text search]
* Kiewe, Amos, and Davis W. Houck. ''A Shining City on a Hill: Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric, 1951-1989.'' (1991).
* Longley, Kyle, Jeremy D. Mayer, Michael Schaller, and John W. Sloan. ''Deconstructing Reagan: Conservative Mythology and America’s Fortieth President,'' (2007) 150 pp.
* Moore, Mark P. "Reagan's Quest for Freedom in the 1987 State of the Union Address." ''Western Journal of Communication'' 53 (1989): 52-65.
* Muir, William Ker. ''The Bully Pulpit: The Presidential Leadership of Ronald Reagan'' (1992), examines his speeches
* Phillips-Fein, Kim. ''Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal'' (2010) [http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hands-Businessmens-Crusade-Against/dp/0393337669/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258961071&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schulman, Bruce J. and Julian E. Zelizer. Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s (2008)
* Sloan, John W. ''FDR and Reagan: Transformative Presidents With Clashing Visions'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/FDR-Reagan-Transformative-Presidents-Clashing/dp/0700616152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258961978&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Stuckey, Mary. ''Playing the Game: The Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' 1990. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24414026 online edition]
* Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.
* Wallison, Peter J. ''Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency.'' (2003). 282 pp.
* Wapshott, Nicholas. '' Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: a political marriage‎'' (2007) 336 pages [http://books.google.com/books?id=5HOuTL508F0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:reagan&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]
* Weiler, Michael, and W. Barnett Pearce; ''Reagan and Public Discourse in America'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59353372 online edition]

===Historiography===
* Ponce de Leon, Charles L. "The New Historiography of the 1980s" in ''Reviews in American History,'' Volume 36, Number 2, June 2008, pp. 303-314
* Strub, ; Whitney. "Further into the Right: The Ever-Expanding Historiography of the U.S. New Right," ''Journal of Social History,'' Volume 42, Number 1, Fall 2008, pp. 183-194
* Phillips-Fein, Kim. "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and Making of History," ''Enterprise & Society,'' Volume 8, Number 4, December 2007, pp. 986-988.

==External Links==

[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[category:New Deal]]
[[category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Fiscal Conservatives]]
[[Category:Tax Revolts]]
[[category:Welfare State]]

Michael Dukakis

2010-06-29T16:31:43Z

RoryM:

'''Michael Dukakis''' (born 1933) was former [[Massachusetts]] [[governor]], who ran for [[President of the United States]] in 1988 as a [[Democrat]]. After obtaining the party's nomination, he lost to President [[George H.W. Bush]] Mostly due to his soft on crime policies. His running mate was Senator [[Lloyd Bentsen]] of Texas.

Dukakis is a US Army veteran, serving in South Korea from 1955 to 1957.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dukakis, Michael}}

[[Category:Democratic Governors]]
[[Category:Massachusetts Governors]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]

Babe Ruth

2010-06-29T16:26:33Z

RoryM:

[[Image:the_babe.jpg|right|thumb|Babe Ruth]]
'''Babe Ruth''', (February 6, 1895 – August 16, 1948), born George Herman Ruth, is baseball's most famous hitter. Ruth was born in southern [[Baltimore]], [[Maryland]]. His parents were Kate Schamberger-Ruth and George Herman Ruth, Sr.

He started with the [[Boston Red Sox]] as a successful pitcher (94-46), but he is most famous for his middle and later career as an outfielder for the [[New York Yankees]]. He hit 714 home runs, a record until [[Hank Aaron]] broke it in the 1970's, and also set a record by hitting 60 home runs in a single season in 1927. That record stood until [[Roger Maris]] hit 61 home runs in 1961. It should be noted that the length of the season had been increased by 1961, and Ruth hit 60 home runs in fewer games. Nevertheless, many polls place him as the number one player of all time, in official baseball statistics, his record was eclipsed.

Ruth is well known for the infamous "Curse of the Bambino" which allegedley was responsible for preventing the Red Sox from winning the World Series from 1918 to 2004.

The New York Yankees, with Ruth on the Team, won seven [[American League]] Pennants and four [[World Series]] titles.

Babe Ruth died at age 53, at Memorial Hospital in New York, in 1948. He was buried in the Cemetery of the Gate of Heaven in Hawthorne, [[New York]]. Since his death, Ruth continues to be formally recognized for his accomplishments.

== External Links ==
*[http://www.baberuth.com/flash/about/biograph.html About Babe Ruth]
*[http://www.baberuth.com/flash/about/facts.html Babe Ruth Facts]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Ruth, George Herman (Babe)}}

[[Category:Baseball Players]]