Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-02-09T23:28:54Z

Sam99foster: /* Humor */ 'much' of the above, perhaps. But all? not necessarily.

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-02-09T17:10:06Z

Sam99foster: /* Humor */ extra colon - I didn't write that unsigned comment

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-02-09T17:09:32Z

Sam99foster: /* Humor */ distinction between 'humor' and things that are funny

Talk:The Daily Show

2009-02-01T22:16:12Z

Sam99foster:

The current title of this show is ''The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'', as the narcissistic Mr. Stewart (nee Liebowitz) has insisted it be called. Please retitle the page accordingly. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 14:02, 2 December 2007 (EST)

Its just a more descriptive title. Also it differentiates from the original Daily Show with Craig Whatshisface. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 21:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)
I have trouble with the fact that almost all of the sources are from comedycentral.com[[User:PastafarianFSM|PastafarianFSM]] 12:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I like how the introduction now reads as though it's arguing with itself.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 17:16, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-19T23:52:33Z

Sam99foster: /* “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? */ A Goldacre fan?

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.--[[user:Rpond|Rpond]]

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Liberal is not an ad hominem, it's a statement of your political views (whether accurate or not), which is completely valid to make in a political arena such as this. Calling someone sarcastic, or making sarcastic remarks about how they live is certainly ad hominem. My two cents--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: The lottery example was valid. Apart from the fact that not every lottery ''does'' have a winner (the prize then jackpots to the following draw), the point is that the 100% certainty (every lottery has a winner) applies to the lottery as a whole, whereas the 1 in 20 million odds applies to any ''given'' individual. The issue here is about a ''given'' individual, Barack Obama.
:: I hope that you are asking that last question ("What's all the fuss about") to Andy, as he is the one insisting on the claim against almost everybody else other than a few acolytes.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::I like maths and logic, so good section. This isn't arguing for the prosecution error, but just about statistical sampling. I suppose you could ask how many muslims convert, but it might be more accurate to ask how many American born muslims convert, or how many muslims that have had a Christian baptism have genuinely converted (I hope there's a special place in hell for those that were faking their baptism)--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:45, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::In [[Dante's Inferno]], I don't think there is. Any kind of liar goes to the bottom of the eighth circle though. I wonder whether covert apostacy was known in Dante's time.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::MylesP, have you been reading [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/0007240198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227138689&sr=8-1 Bad Science?]

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"Facts" as in already repeatedly proven falsehoods such as Obama being a Muslim? This page is filled with outright lies. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

If you are going to repeat a proven lie, you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it-[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
: Bugler, I will concede that point. Instead I'll say that Andy's point that this was a response to was rather unclear as to its aim, and I was reading his comments differently.
: However, I will add another response to your previous post. You say that "the whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he can't possibly be a Moslem." The problem with this claim of yours is that it's ''not'' the way the argument is being used. That is, the arguments are not being used to ''oppose'' the claim that he couldn't possibly be a Muslim; the arguments are being used to ''support'' the claim that he ''is'' a Muslim. If they were being used the way that you say, then at least some of them would have some legitimacy. But being used the way they are is invalid.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: The problem, Ed, is that these things have already been discussed at length. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: They are ''not'' "unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism". When you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, I have repeatedly pointed out that it is ''not'' censorship. Why do you keep repeating that false claim? Also, I have explained ''why'' the claims are "disliked", why do you falsely say that the reasons are unknown? As I said to Bugler above, when you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. And the evidence is not only not compelling, some of it is false and some is logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.
::::::It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".

:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?". That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true". But there is much here on Conservapedia that is ''not'' dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue. To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity. That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that? And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban. Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating. But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Perhaps worth pointing out here that FredX did indeed, as he had predicted, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AFredX&year=&month=-1 receive a 90/10 ban] while trying to debate the content of this article. I imagine he rests his case. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:25, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.

:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.

::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.

::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== compared to wikipedia article ==

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good points, BigMike! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Thanks. Here is a quote "If there is an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process of law, that threatens my civil liberties."--Barack Obama, 2004 DNC speech. (Yes, it is what some would call a quote mine, but it is a direct quote of a complete sentence.) That being said, I agree with others that the article would be better if it were to document the fact that many people are speculating about whehter or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, including adding their reasoning. But trying to make a case that he is a Muslim in this article isn't turning out too well in my opinion. It's good to see some changes have been made. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 22:50, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion for compromise ==

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Not a sysop, but every now and then I have a good idea ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page. What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages? I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::(/signed) Totally agree, if all the arguments are presented then anyone who is open minded can make up their own mind. Those with closed minds won't be convinced either way, no matter what arguments are presented..--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:''"Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)"''[http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7882247&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.11.1 as required]. This was one source found in 5 minutes work and if anyone doubts the quality of the source [http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/AboutUs?pageId=5.1 please look here]. This is just a single source found at 00:25am after being out all night doing charity work. As I find others I will post. I will also point out that I do not consider this, or subsequent evidence put forth, as 'talk' as I am responding to a direct request for information by the creator of this site--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Another, same conditions, contributor makes clear that he thinks that Obama is at best [http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/barack-obama-is-not-a-christian/ a deist], at worst an atheist, but at no point offers an argument for Obama being of an Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:As above, [http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/obama_religion_attacked.html 'Minnery, who served as Dobson's interlocutor on the program yesterday said during the broadcast that Obama was "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."'] Again, at best the argument says that Obama is a deist, at worst is trying to set up his own sect of 'christianity', but no evidence to show that Obama is of Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And again, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317031,00.html "....to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States."]--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Logic argument: I believe it has been mentioned that Obama may be a Muslim because of his lack of dancing or dancing skills. If that belief is true then every man lives in the UK and is either i) not out of his head on 'e' or ii) over the age of 25 is muslim, as no man in the UK that does not fit the two previous definitions ''ever'' dances seriously with full use of his arms, at least, not outside of ballroom dancing. I admitted that is observational evidence, not just of myself but numerous others, but observational evidence is still evidence, and considerably better than suppostition and hearsay, two lower classes of 'evidence' ('that is which is seen').--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:More. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201322.html Washington Post, but hey, ''I'm'' not going to be the person who raises objections as to their factual accuracies], I'll leave that to the lawyers, my knowledge of libel laws just ain't that good. Of course, there are always those that will argue on the point of "Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school....", but then that requires proving that Obama was a Muslim with a level of evidence above supposition and hearsay.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And now it is 01:00 and I need my sleep. Page 2 of Google tomorrow.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:00, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Since CP is the Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia it is, while other points of view should be included, it is wrong to bully it into providing the equivalent of "equal time" to those who are not Christian and/or Conservative. Those who disagree should stop wasting time with this and move on to places that are more accommodating of [[liberal deceit]], Atheist [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:You are absolutely right. This is the Christian encyclopedia, at least one of the online ones. That means the Word is God, and God is truth. Let no argument be hidden, for that is the path of the Fallen, the jealous and the wicked. For those with God are armoured with Faith and armed with the Truth and are truly capable of determining the gleanings of Truth from argument and do not need protection, for the Word that is Truth guides their path--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Accusations of Homosexuality ==

The story is starting to spread that Obama is a homosexual or bisexual and may have been involved in the deaths of some of his past lovers<ref>http://chgocutie.blogspot.com/2007/12/nathaniel-nate-spencer-tucc-sanctuary.html</ref>. In shades of a Vince Foster type scandal I'm wondering if any mention of this development should go into the main page. Larry Sinclair<ref>http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chicago-packet.pdf</ref> was the initial source, but evidence seems to be mounting<ref>http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-sinclair-obamas-bad-penny.html</ref> that Obama has a gay past he's been hiding.

== A better approach to highlighting Obama's negatives - Highlight More Best Arguments against Obama vs. the throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall approach ==

Instead of the article focusing more on claims that are certainly not undisputable (Obama being a Muslim) I think the article could do a better job of pointing out the negative things about Obama that have a much higher degree of certainty.

Examples of things which could be highlighted more:

1. Other than a footnote which few people will read, does the article highlight sufficiently '''his extremely liberal voting record''' as a Senator?[http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/] Perhaps, some of his more extreme votes could be highlighted.

2. There is the '''Obama/infantcide''' issue which might be highlighted more if it is mentioned or mentioned if it is not currently mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

===Consequences of the current state of the article===

It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach. That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama. Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent. Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia [[Bill Clinton]] article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google). I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat. If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President? ==

Should we have an article on the [[First Black President]]? I had created one, but [[User_talk:Ed_Poor#First_Black_president|Ed said we should talk about it here first]].

The citations I found that indicated Obama is not the first were [http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&curid=65751&diff=561761&oldid=561751], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=534592&oldid=534582]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)

*I would suggest "Bi-Racial" as the most accurate term. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Please do create an entry. Thanks for the insight. Of course, the other reason for omitting the liberal claim that Obama is the first black president (aside from its likely inaccuracy) is the dubious significance of the assertion. By now our society is long past judging people by their race, and Obama's election illustrates how exaggerated the liberal claims about continued racism really are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Gee, your right, I mean how do we know he is the first black president. I mean they didn't have photgraphs back then, so maybe John Adams was really a brother! For that matter, how do we know he is the first muslim president? Maybe Iran-contra was Reagan's way of helping his fellow Islamists!
:Seriously though, is it really a liberal claim that he is the first black president? Other than you, who is claiming he isn't? [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 18:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TTerm, perhaps you don't know how to click on a link yet. BHarlan provided several of them above for you. Also, TTerm, this isn't a blog. Contribute substantively, or rant elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Two of those links just link back to conservapedia. The third references "research" by a man named Leroy Vaughn. The claims and evidence seem dubious to say the least. Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is wrong to call this a "liberal" claim since most conservatives believe him to be the first black president as well. [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 20:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Great. Would you mind undeleting [[First Black president]], if the software allows it? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Done, without yet reading it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==How to collaborate==

If you'll notice, me last few edits to this article were sweepingly changed back by [[User:Aschlafly]]. However, neither my initial round of edits, nor his response, has resulted in animosity. On my part, at least, I have nothing but unbounded respect for my co-editor here.

We are not against each other, although our approach is different. We are finding a synthesis which is (probably) better than each of us could do alone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States are collabrative efforts that him withstood the test of time, among others! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good for you, Ed (seriously - I wouldn't have been nearly as sanguine about it). The facts, however, remain that:
:#'''DanH''' - a strong editor and respected sysop - '''quit this project in disgust''' at what he saw as an attempt to "smear" Obama as a Muslim.
:#'''PJR''' - the most patient and eloquent defender of YEC I have ever encountered - '''categorically refutes''' the idea that there is any credible evidence that Obama is a Muslim.
:#'''Conservative''' - principal author of several of Conservapedia's defining articles - remains '''wholly unconvinced''' of the strength of the Obama/Muslim case, and is concerned that its inclusion in the article could '''damage Conservapedia's credibility'''.
:#'''Tim/CPAdmin1''' - one of the original members of this project - has '''repeatedly objected''' to its inclusion.
:#And finally, '''ChrisS''' - again, one of the original Conservapedians - even felt moved to describe this article as '''the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen'''. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=556523]
:What kind of synthesis do you hope to achieve in the face of such ''demonstrably principled'' opposition? These are not lone, liberal voices. These are long-standing contributors who collectively insist that '''this is plain wrong and must be removed'''.

:Good night (and good luck). --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 17:39, 18 November
::: And that's not all of it. At least two other administrators have also made known their opposition, via e-mail (which Andy got copies of at the time). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::We respect the views of a minority among us (and note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education). Regardless, obviously logic prevails over even the opinion of a majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, it is ''your'' view that is in the minority; JohnZ was citing the ''majority''. It seems that Ed (inadvertently) recognised that by his comment below. Hopefully logic would prevail, but unfortunately you are trying to make ''your'' minority and illogical view prevail.
::: And this yet again highlights a major problem here. You are throwing around these personal opinions as though they are factual, denigrating the opposing view and the people that put them, but not actually engaging the arguments and providing a logical response.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The late Michael Crichton said, "The Nazis got 200 German scientists to say that Einstein was wrong, and then somebody asked Einstein, 'How does it feel to have 200 scientists against you?' And he said, 'It takes only one to prove me wrong.' " [http://www.perc.org/articles/article894.php] We don't go by majority vote around here, because the majority are (as our [[Founding Fathers]] indicated) simply not trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: So are you saying that the administrators who are in the majority on this issue are not trustworthy? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Hi Ed,

:I'm not usually known for my poor reading comprehension, but I can't tell which side of this thing your statement above is supporting. Is Andy vs. the 5 listed sysops the minority, or are the five listed sysops the minority as described by Andy ("[w]e respect the views of a minority among us)...")? Merci, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:02, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<-honh honh...''

:: Ed's comment seems clear enough to me. Logic is not the result of majority vote, and even less so the product of a consensus among the minority. Ed is opposing relying on the view of a minority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Good grief, man, must I spell it out? I'm on the side of finding out what is true! As J.M. Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" It is to the principle of truth-seeking which I express my devotion here, as well as to the collaborative process of its discovery. Stop trying to cover this story like a sportswriter trying to figure out which horse won the race. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:And what do ''you'' see as being the facts here, Ed? How do you hope to achieve your synthesis? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, Ed, I'm sorry but I need it spelled out for me. This isn't a vague question for late night dorm hall meanderings. It's pretty concrete: the Obama-is-Muslim material, as Andy wants it presented, belongs in the article, or it doesn't. I can paint those two statements on horses and run them around a track if an over-extended metaphor will help here - only one of those horses can win. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:31, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<- will, however, need to learn to play the bugle (if not the bugler)...''

:Wow, Ed, that's extremely well put!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:ASchalfly - you said, "We...note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education". Might I ask what your own qualifications are in this regard, since you are clearly 'over-ruling' their opinions? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 18:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I'm going to write an article about [[the real horse whisperer]]. I have no more time to entertain you here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Amazing. A simple question, with only two possible answers, that could be answered in fewer characters than you just used to beg off. And if you think I'm entertained you probably do think those horses are talking to you. ''Anybody'' who sticks with the "this conversation is a dragged-out waste of time" is missing the point that the time is being wasted by the continued and false defenses presented. It's only a continuing waste of time because the people in the wrong unfortunately wield all the clout, so they are in fact allowed to say "nuh unh" and ''have it stick''. If SteveRandomperson had inserted this stuff, other regular users could remove it, and when Steve got into an edit war over it any of the five sysops listed above could simply end this thing. It's only dragging on because none of them can pull rank on the proponent of this material.

:''That'' is the source of wasted time here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Aziraphale, your long-winded comment is incoherent, and your list of contributions is a remarkable violation of the [[90/10 rule]] against talk, talk, talk.[[Special:Contributions/Aziraphale]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I'm afraid he can't respond Andy. He's been blocked. --[[User:WOwen|WOwen]] 19:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I had no problem understanding Aziraphale's comment, so it is quite coherent, and he makes a very good point. It would make more sense to take notice of the problem than to brush it aside and silence him with a block. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==You're All Missing the Point==

Ok I've said this once before, but nobody seems to understand so I'll try to make it clearer.

'''YOU ARE ALL MISSNIG THE POINT'''

Sitting around debating whether or not Obama is a Muslim is doing nothing to discredit him, instead it just reflects badly on conservatives. If you stopped using circumstantial evidence to "prove" that he may have told one lie on the campaign trail (which inevitably does not affect his politics) then you would realise there are plenty of valid fronts you can criticise him on:

*Abortion
*Stem cell research
*War on Terror
*Criminal rights
*Lack of substance in policy
*Economic regulation

and so on... If you examined these in detail and explained why they would be bad for America, rather than dedicating copious amounts of the article to a farfetched claim that he's a Muslim in disguise, then you would not only convince conservatives that he is the wrong candidate, but also show politically neutral parties why they should not have voted for him. Instead, the article at the moment reads like a cross between a parody and a far right-wing blog entry, and will do nothing to convince anyone other than the most conservative voter. One of your own sources in the article clearly demonstrates that these attacks actually made people vote FOR Obama, and I can definitely say that if I saw this as the ideology of McCain I would have changed sides for the election.

In debating there is a argument known as an ad homenin attack, where you attack the debator and not his/her arguments. This is weak, because it demonstrates an inability to critically analyse the opposition's position. This is exactly what is happening here, you are ''trying'' to attack Obama's character rather than his politics. If you tried more of the latter, you'll find that you will convince many more people that Obama is not an appropriate president for the United States, and win much more credibility in the process. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== obama, Muslim or "liberal Christian" with a skeptical streak - The duck test ==

Andy, you claim that you are better educated regarding Islam than the oppposing sysops and that gives you deeper understanding of the issue. In response, I will first say that you have not shown that Lolo Soetoro was a staunch Muslim and given that Obama was sent to a Catholic school at some point I don't think you can show that his father had a great influence in his life. Furthermore, it appears as if Obama's mother was not married to the stepfather Lolo Soetoro long. In addition, his skeptical mother appears to have had the most influence in his life. Given that I have spent sometime studying Islam and had a Muslim housemate when I was younger and lived in a area highly concentrated with Muslims in the past, I don't think it is fair to say that I have great ignorance about Islam. I am well aware that patriarchy is present in Islamic families, but I am also aware that Obama's fathers did not appear to have great influence in his life.

I really think at this point that Obama's behavior is key in terms of the likelihood of him being a Muslim.

Most American Muslims are not rabidly pro-abortion, have great antipathy to the homosexual agenda, and abstain from alcohol. On the other hand, most "liberal Christians" who have a philosophical skepticism streak favor the "pro-choice" position and most do not have great antipathy toward the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, most "liberal Christians" have no problem drinking alcohol. Also, there is the fact that Obama's daughters were baptised.

Given the above, if Obama walks like a duck and talks like a duck, he is probably a duck. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)'

Obama's nominally Muslim father was not religious in the first place.[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reversion ==

All three items of evidence that Philip deleted are fully supported and hardly deniable. I don't know why Philip wants to delete them. The entries are educational also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:I'm afraid not one of them is "supported" in any way and all are deniable. None of them are educational, and all are merely unfounded assertion and speculation. The first accusation (for that is what they are) about him not changing his name is dependent on him being Muslim to begin with. If he is not Muslim, then he has no need to change his name, and you haven't provided any evidence he's Muslim. The second accusation, about taqiyya, depends upon him being a Muslim, and you have not provided any evidence to that. The third, about the pronunciation of Pakistan, is irrelevant, as that is the correct pronunciation of that country's name. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 23:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: As FredX says, they are ''not'' supported, and they are most definitely deniable. Simply making those assertions is not a supporting argument. And how can you continue to claim that you don't know why I want to delete them when I've told you several times? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, you have to do better than that before deleting factual and informative material. All three points are enlightening and undeniable, and I doubt you knew any of them before reading them here. We let the readers decide here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

"Letting the readers decide" would ring more true if you simply laid out the facts about Obama instead of riddling the article with unsubstantiated, repeatedly disproven falsehoods to skewer it toward your personal political viewpoint. Do you not realize that simply highlighting the positions he supports that conservatives are opposed to (his support of gay rights and abortion rights as just two examples) would do a better job turning conservatives against Obama than telling easily proven lies about him? The fact that you feel you have to resort to lies makes you look like you are guilty of the very thing you accuse liberals of: not having any actual factual argument to make. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Unbelievable ==

It's understandable that conservatives disapprove of Obama and much of this article reflects that. Smearing is nothing new to politics, but the poor logic shamelessly employed here is an embarrassment to American conservatives. As this site becomes a "de facto" conservative reference, more and more people will begin believing this is how conservatives reason and come up with their ideas. With great power comes great responsibility, and Conservapedia and Aschlafly fail disastrously as representatives of the conservative movement.

Under the pretense of "not censoring" and "letting the readers decide" the article is allowed to introduce deceptive evidence toward building weak and ultimately unproven hypotheses. Simultaneously, the exact opposite policy is used when contradictory evidence is presented.

This stunning hypocrisy can be best illustrated by how the "Obama is likely a Muslim" section is moderated. Several times myself and others have attempted to delete the statement "Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith." Yes he said the words "My Muslim Faith" but this is utterly meaningless as no context for the statement is provided. I could say "I approve of the killing of babies coming to an end" and using the logic here I could be quoted as saying "I approve of the killing of babies"

However, we cannot escape the fact he said the words "My Muslim Faith" and since Conservapedia doesn't censor information, it must remain in the article. Furthermore, it must remain in a section attempting to show secret Muslim faith, however misleading it may be.

Where the hypocrisy comes in is that there is an overwhelming body of information that suggests Obama is not a Muslim and in fact a Christian. For example, he was sworn into the Senate using a bible in 2005, he attended a (albeit controversial) christian church for decades, no one has ever observed him performing Muslim rituals (ie, praying 5 times a day). Even the "My Muslim Faith" comment is evidence of him being a christian when viewed in full context, as it's more than clear he meant to say "My Christan Faith". Attempting to mention any of this in the article will result in an almost immediate undo and block.

The intentions of this section are transparent: to pander to modern American distrust of Muslims to build distrust of Obama. The irony of this and the article as a whole is obvious and almost comedic, as even a semi-informed reader can see through the deception and will likely end up with a reduced opinion of Conservatives.

I expect to immediately be labeled a liberal for posting this. I need to say for the record, I voted for McCain. I attend Church. I have an American flag outside my house. However I cannot stomach this article and quite frankly am ashamed that such cheap hate tactics are being used by people calling themselves conservative.

[[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 23:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Counter Evidence==

If we are letting the readers decide (as written above) then in order to keep this article fair and balanced we should add a section detailing the evidence that Obama is not a Muslim (such as his positions on abortion and stem cell research, his religious history, his Catholic schooling etc). If the evidence is truly overwhelming that Obama is a Muslim then there should be no problem with adding such a section, as readers will quickly be able to see that it is insufficient to counter the claim. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Fine, post your best stuff here first. But claiming that Obama went to Catholic school is counter evidence is, of course, absurd. Stop by your local Catholic school and you'll see Muslims students who never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Dunno if this is counter evidence, but my two cents about the misguided motivations of Obama's Lenin poster.

Most Europeans, East and West, would be severely alienated by any hidden or subliminal message that Obama was Leninist. Eastern Europe suffered under the communist iron heel for 45 years after WW2, including East Berlin. And Western Europe feared invasion. West Berlin was nearly starved by the communist blockade of the late 40s. Eastern Europe's rush to join NATO and the EU to ensure their free economies and societies is testament to this hatred of Soviet Leninist domination. Of course none of this goes to whether the poster was Leninist, only that if it was it was a serious mistake on Obama's part.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:54, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== My innocuous talk page contribution removed? ==

The Lenin poster one. Just wondered why.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Oh figured it out now, sorry --[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== About the Muslim allegations ==

Allow me to play devil's advocate. I am lost. As a conservative, bordering on a paleo-conservative, with a streak of classical liberal in the John Locke/Jeffersonian sense, who also fears the coming administration greatly (I keep thinking Jimmy Carter, stagflation, FDR, Civilian Conservation Corps, prolongation of the depression, and a world war), a man's religion is his own business.

This is the United States. Our forefathers fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In those rights are the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

The freedom of speech does give Conservapedia the right to impune the president elect for his supposed Muslim faith (backed by what looks to me to be evidence that is neither conclusive nor wholly circumstantial). But that doesn't mean Conservapedia should squander that right in an attempt to prove what is ultimately between him and God.

The first amendment also gives every man in this country the right to hold whatever spiritual beliefs he wants, and to share, or not share, those beliefs with others.

While I do think it is appropriate to mention speculation that President elect Barack Obama may be a Muslim, to the extent that such allegations exist and are notable, as I think they are, I do not think it is proper for this encyclopedia to attempt to make the case that he is a closet Muslim. The Muslim speculation should be relegated to later parts of the article, and reworked.

Juxtaposing a reference early on in the article, which, if you scroll to the references, indicates that Keith Ellison used a Koran in his swearing in ceremony, with the statement that Obama is an "apparent Muslim" is tawdry at best, and beneath a serious conservative encyclopedia.

Certainly, President elect Obama's political views deserve much more scrutiny from a conservative perspective, than whether or not he is a closet Muslim.

Senator Barack Obama was rated the most liberal senator, left of a self-declared socialist. I think we should focus on that.

President elect Barack Obama seems to hold political views that go against our Constitution. This raises the question about whether or not he can honestly affirm to protect and defend the Constitution.

President elect Barack Obama may institute nationalized health care, requiring children to be vaccinated in order to receive benefits, while bankrupting the private health care system for middle and lower class Americans. Where will this leave such children?

Barack Obama may very likely work to reduce or control home schooling and private schools.

Barack Obama may work to erode or eviscerate the second amendment.

There is plenty of political evidence for these other fears, and it is more appropriate to focus on these, and not his supposed secret Muslim belief system.

I recommend focusing on his easily provable liberal and possibly anti-American political views, and not waste too much time trying to prove he has some religious belief system. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 10:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:BigMike, I take it you're not an historian. People's beliefs matter greatly, and you can bet a real historian would not tolerate censorship of inquiry into someone's beliefs. Our other entries likewise provide information about the beliefs of other presidents, great scientists, and others. The insistence on censoring a similar inquiry about Obama's beliefs is misplaced and inappropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::I didn't mean to censor it, I just suggested a shift in focus. I meant to focus on extreme liberal political views first, as they are, to me, the most important. Change the prominence within the article, and change the tone. But you're right, I am not a historian. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::OK, your point is well-taken then. But the reality is that many of Obama's positions to date were posturing to win the presidency, and not necessarily indicative of his priorities as president. His beliefs matter more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::No problem. I know this site takes a lot of pointless flack, and it is hard to seperate the wheat from the chaf. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:20, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Perhaps a template would help ==

The discussion on this page keeps covering the same ground over and over again. Aside from the wasted time and effort, a major problem is that new users often edit the page and become instantly embroiled in the controversy, sometimes leading to bad feeling and thus driving away potentially valuable contributors.

As a solution, I suggest a template is created and added to the top of the page and any others in this situation. The wording could be something like:

:''This article deals with a controversial topic and has already been the subject of lengthy discussion. Your input is welcome, but '''please check the talk page carefully''' to make sure that the issues you raise have not been dealt with already. New users in particular are advised to start by editing less controversial pages to get a feel for the site.''

Thoughts and suggestions very welcome.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 15:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

*We do have such. Template "Controversial". But it has problems, and needs some fixing. use the {{ and type in Controversial, and see what I mean. I have read it noted several places it is broken. If you or anyone else knows what is needed, fix the template, and if it is locked, contact Philip Rayment or Ed Poor and let them know. Thanks, good suggestion. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks - I've asked Mr Rayment. If that template's ever going to be used, I think this article could do with it, though the wording could be more diplomatic in my opinion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 16:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::Perhaps it would be better slapped here, on this page? If anyone is going to change the article, hopefully they will look here first? Assuming this page is ever partially archived! :D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== "Captured the White House" ==

Is it just me, or does this memorable line conjure up images of Barry and Joe, the special forces operatives, sneaking across the White House lawn under cover of darkness before launching a daring assault, creating a beach head in the kitchen before ensnaring their ultimate goal: the Oval Office.

Would the phrase "won the presidential election" be more encyclopedic?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 16:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Your phrase would be an improvement. Go ahead, and thanks--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::It would indeed be an improvement, but he cannot make it, as the article is locked. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:41, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Religious Affiliation ==

OK, I do not want to get involved in the whole debate about whether Obama is a covert (or even overt) Muslim. (Although the statistically savvy amongst you can probably predict with 99.9999% certainty what my view is on that matter.)

However, the article currently has two sections dealing with religion. The first ("Obama will likely become the first Muslim President") comes as part of the introduction. It provides a list of evidence supporting the author's view that Obama is a Muslim. The second ("Religious Affiliation") describes various issues to do with Obama's connections in the Christian church, and provides some quotes about his history relating to the Islamic faith. Nobody reading just the second section would come away beleiving the author thinks Obama is a Muslim.

The two seem a little contradictory - either the article does take the view that he is a Muslim, in which case the second piece needs re-writing, or the article takes the view that he is not a Muslim, in which case the first piece needs re-writing, or the article presents the issue as unresolved, in which case both pieces need re-writing.

Given that the subject is so controversial, I do not want to volunteer to do the writing. It would appear that Ed Poor is Appeaser-in-Chief - maybe someone should ask him to have a go?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 17:01, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: So are you now saying both sides should not be presented??? The liberal opposition to the observation that Obama is likely a Muslim is as self-contradictory as it is unjustified.

: By the way, I don't think Obama has had any Christian affiliation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Evolution

2008-10-16T13:47:10Z

Sam99foster: /* My response to your essay */

'''''This is the continuation of a discussion begun on the [[talk:Theory of Evolution|evolution talk page]], and now archived at [[Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 12]]'''''

This post is a response to ATang's post there.

ATang wrote: "''They accept that their religion is not explanation for everything, while Abrahimic religions simply states "this is the truth, there is no more to it". Because of the inherent unknowns of the universe, I am very hesitant to say "this is it" (about anything, science, religion or otherwise).''"

Okay, so ''you'' are hesitant. That doesn't mean that others have to be, or that any criticism of those who are not hesitant is justified. However, I don't agree that the Abrahamic religions state that "there is no more to it".

"''If you want to be hypothetical - why not in the case all religion is wrong? That is not a solid argument!! No one would use that in court. "What if I'm right?"''"

There's nothing wrong with being hypothetical to make a point. The point is that your attitude that people are unjustified in being certain of their beliefs does not allow for the case where their beliefs are correct. You have not explained why someone is unjustified in being certain if they are indeed correct.

"''A viewpoint is more like a methodology, an operating procedure to handle truths - which are facts, what one considers as undeniable and cannot be altered.''"

No, a viewpoint is like a framework into which you put your facts. It's a starting point for how you understand the facts.

"''You say my viewpoint is "never take anything as the one and only, undeniable truth", and that's correct. My viewpoint is not a "fact", or a "truth", and the case is same vice-versa.''"

Should I consider your viewpoint to be true or not? If it's ''true'', then surely it's a "truth"? The point is, it's a self-refuting statement, as if I'm not supposed to take anything as the one and only undeniable truth, why should I take that statement as being true?

"''Later you say my fixed view is that I cannot have a fixed view - a distortion of my idea. One can have a fixed view, but if that view says "Take A as fact, everything else is wrong", then that is a view I reject."''

First, I assume that by saying "everything else is wrong", you are not talking about matters that have no bearing on the matter in hand. To be specific, if it is your view that fixed views are wrong, then either (a) that view of yours is fixed (which means that you condemn yourself for having that view), or (b) your view is not fixed, which means that you can't say for certain that fixed views are wrong. So which is it?

Your explanation regarding survival of the fittest misses the point. You go to considerable lengths to explain how the "fittest" might be determined, pointing out that it might be a complex set of factors, but none of that changes that "survival of the fittest" has the corollary of "non-survival of the less fit", which means "survival of the fittest at the expense of the less fit". If the less fit don't ''die'' out, then evolution stagnates. Thus survival of the fittest is the opposite of the golden rule.

"''In reference to "greater good", I thought it was intuitively obvious that survival of an individual is good.''".

It is to me, a Bible-believing Christian, but not to evolution, which can only work by the non-survival of many. In other words, in the evolutionary view, non-survival of many individuals is arguably "good", because without their non-survival there is no evolution. The other point is that you haven't explained why any survival is necessarily good. Claiming that it is "intuitively obvious" is not an explanation. I believe it is, of course, because that's what God intended. But that rationale doesn't apply to evolution.

"''Based on the evidence, I see that co-operation between individuals suggests it may have evolutionary roots. It may also be because God designed it that way, but because of absence of physical evidence that God designed co-operation between men, the former explanation is more likely.''"

First, yes by "working together", I was referring to co-operation. I don't see any physical evidence that co-operation has evolutionary roots. You see co-operation in real life being beneficial, and you believe that evolution is how these things came about, so you ascribe the origin of co-operation to evolution. But there's no physical evidence of that.

Similarly, I see co-operation, and I believe that God created everything, so I ascribe the origin of co-operation to God. However, you reject that, on the grounds that there is no physical evidence of it, yet you have no physical evidence of evolution being the cause. And whilst I have no ''physical'' evidence, I do have ''eye-witness'' evidence (the Bible). You don't even have that, so on that basis, I consider my explanation more likely.

"''Your accusations of my preconception clouding my judgement can be applied to you as well. Bias in inherent in any debate, and such accusations could only waste time and space - that's why I've try to avoid it all together! Each person of course believes that they're non-biased, while the other will beg to differ.''"

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that a person's preconceptions are clouding (distorting) their judgement if there's grounds for doing so, as I believe there is here. It's not a waste of time if the result is that the person becomes aware of that. I for one don't believe that I'm not biased—I know that I am—but there's nothing wrong with being biased if the bias is correct.

"''I wasn't aware that the books of the Bible were written by a divine hand. I thought each of them has a mortal author (Luke, etc.).''"

Then you've learnt something! God used human authors to write the Bible, much as a celebrity might use a "ghost-writer" to pen their autobiography.

"''You say that my statement was contrary to the Bible's own claim - but that's just like an article referencing itself as proof of its correctness!''"

No it's not, because that's not how I presented it. That is, I did not say "The Bible is written by God because it says that it is". What I said was that the view that the Bible was written by God is not agreed nor self-evident, given that acceptance of such is widespread and that the Bible itself claimed this.

In effect, what you have done is argue, "Because the Bible is not written by God...". I've jumped in and said, "That is an unjustified assumption". Your response is, "I don't accept your evidence that the assumption is wrong, so it is right". However, I wasn't offering evidence that the assumption was wrong. I was arguing that the onus is on you to justify that assumption, and you've failed to do that.

"''It does not stand under my viewpoint (and the scientific method, because it is not peer-reviewed).''"

There was no formal peer-review process in those days, so of course there won't be what we today think of as peer-review, but the Bible was accepted as accurate by readers who were witness to its events, so there ''was'' a peer-review type of process.

"''Is there a third party "reference point" that points at the authorship of God?''"

Numerous authors have pointed to various factors in the Bible other than the Bible's own claim on the matter indicating God's authorship. These include such things as the consistency of the book written by numerous human writers over a period of going on for 2000 years, and the prophecies which have come true.

"''If my statement is contrary to Christian belief, then of course, it will not make sense to a Christian. To a non-Christian, however, this argument does not stand. Christianity is a point of contention in this debate.''"

Again, this is not an argument for Divine authorship. It's an argument that there is an onus on you to justify the assumption that all those Christians are wrong. You can't argue that because it is a belief of Christians, it can be ignored and doesn't need to be refuted.

"''A quick study of ancient mythologies, and examination of each of the deities, will show that they were in fact made up. That's what "history" tells us. You may argue that this does not apply to Christianity, but it's perfectly acceptable practice to draw parallels between past and current events.''"

Drawing parallels is one thing. But coming to firm conclusions on the basis of a loose parallel is unjustified. But if you want a parallel, remember that forgeries exist because there's a real one to make a forgery of.

"''I attempt to use common ground - and I thought the scientific method, and the use of physical evidence is the agreed rules of the debate. Maybe that's why there's such divide! Religion is incompatible with the scientific method!''"

The scientific method works on physical things in the present. It doesn't work on non-material things (such as ideas, beliefs, the soul, etc.), and it doesn't work on past events. It's not that "religion" (whatever is meant by that) is incompatible with the scientific method, but that the scientific method is incompatible with studying historical events (although it can help by being used in the study of historical artifacts).

Furthermore, I'm quite certain that you don't do all the scientific studies yourself. Instead, you rely on reading the accounts of studies done by others. You assume that in most cases their accounts are accurate, particularly if others have reviewed them and not disagreed. And I'm sure that you do the same for accounts outside the area of science, such as recent history. What scientific studies have been done on, for example, World War I? I'd bet that essentially everything that you know, and accept as true, about World War I was as a result of reading (or seeing on TV, or hearing on the radio or direct from someone who was there) the accounts of those who were there and witnessed the events, or others who themselves rely on those accounts. I do the same, including for the Bible. That is, when studying ''history'', the best source is eye-witness accounts, not laboratories, and that is why I rely on ancient documents such as the Bible rather than the non-empirical (non-scientific) ideas of (generally atheistic or agnostic) scientists for learning about history.

"''That's why trying to attribute motive in a court case is so difficult - because it's hard to get inside someone's mind.''"

Yet courts often do just that. It depends on how well you (get to) know the person.

"'' Basically, it's irresponsible to attribute something to God if we only have a partial understanding of it - because if we find out something that seems to go against the nature of God (the part we know anyways), we can always attribute that to the part of God we don't understand.''"

That's basically an argument to say that if we don't know everything about someone, we can't explain anything. That argument is nonsense.

"''How do you explain stillbirths? If the parents are bad people, then yes, it's easy to justify that by saying God is trying to punish them. If the parents are good Christians, who try their hardest not to sin? How do we explain that? Do we just say "God works in mysterious ways"?''

If anything, that's an argument as to why agnostics should not use this sort of argument. That is, atheists and agnostics claim that because they can't explain why God would do something, nobody else can either. Stillbirths? The result of a deteriorating creation, itself the result of us (mankind) rejecting God. It's actually quite easy to explain, and your inability to do so is no justification for arguing that others are incapable of doing so.

"''The proof of miracles that I ask is anthropological, scientific proof.''"

Then you are being unreasonable, because, as I have explained above, you can't scientifically study past events.

"''The fact that I exist, you argue, is proof of God - but it could be proof of a million other things. Why isn't my existence the proof of Hindu Gods? Allah? How about extraterrestrial aliens who brought life to Earth? One could just as easily say my existence is proof of evolution! This is why my existence isn't proof of ANYTHING!''"

No, I did not argue that. Not at all.

"''If I right about events A, B, and C in a book, then provide historical proof that A and B occurred, would you simply believe that C occurred as well?''"

Yes. Given that the author has been shown to be accurate on A and B, and assuming that there was no reason to believe that C did not also occur, it seems entirely reasonable to also believe that C occurred. And I have no reason to assume that the miracles did not also occur.

"''An argument by continual existence is as weak as it sounds - would you say that Scientology is true because it's still existent today? I will peruse the page you've provided when I have time, and write up an appropriate response.''"

A rebuttal to an argument that you've not read is likely to be just as weak. But notice that I said "likely", not "is", as you did.

"''Actually, I've never explicitly stated what my Mr. Good/Bad book was going to be published as. If I published it as history, 2000 years later one cannot see the difference! Furthermore, my intention was that the book was written NOW, not 2000 years later. The examination of the work is what occurs in 2 millennia.''"

Why would nobody bother examining it for 2000 years? Answer: They wouldn't: There would be people examining it from the day it was published.

"''I've added no additional physical events, so one cannot know if it was God who actually created Katrina.''"

A miracle is a ''physical'' event. Your disagreement is about ascribing a source to the miracle, not to the veracity of the account of the miracle itself.

"''These books cannot be effectively refuted by the masses, because they don't have the information highway that we do today.''"

That sounds like a bit of chronological snobbery to me. Of course they could be refuted by others. People did disagree with others in those times.

"''You say proof of God is in the Bible, while I disagree that the Bible is a factual account of history in all aspects.''"

No, I didn't say that ''proof'' of God is in the Bible. I said that the Bible contains ''evidence'' for God. Okay, you disagree that the Bible's always accurate. But do you have good reason (physical evidence?) that it's not always accurate?

"''... my questions regarding the authenticity of the Bible is not satisfactorily answered!!''"

I think mostly we've been arguing about assumptions and starting points, and haven't really discussed much the reasons that the Bible is authentic history. So that criticism is somewhat premature.

"''... since I've repeated stated my distrust of the Bible, why use it as an argument when you know it wouldn't stand from my viewpoint?''"

I've not used the Bible as an argument. I've argued that your reasons for dismissing it are not justified, and pointed out some facts about it (such as it claiming certain things) but that's about all.

"''The Bible states God created everything (including the Bible). This self-referencing is suspicious.''"

Suspicious? So if a book says that it was written by Joe Bloggs, you would be suspicious about that book? This sounds like a classic time-wasting bibliosceptic tactic of trying to find any possible criticism of the Bible that can be made to sound at least half plausible, no matter how little rationality it has.

"''Further exploration for direct physical evidence yields inconclusive proof of God's existence...''"

Perhaps you are looking at it the wrong way, such as trying to find experimental proof of a past event?

"''The believes of Christianity (and religion) inherently dismisses all other believes without reason.''"

Huh? Another ridiculous bibliosceptic argument. Christians have offered ''plenty'' of reasons for rejecting (not dismissing) other beliefs.

"''This is an obvious ploy to ensure continual perpetuation of the religion, and it's also why it is so enticing and easy to believe.''"

A conclusion based on a faulty premise is unsound, and in this case, wrong.

"''Because of the lack of conclusive proof of God outside the Bible, and the suspicious "Bible as the proof of itself" circular logic, I reject Christianity as a logical, reasonable, and scientifically correct viewpoint to take on.''"

Of course, what you consider sufficient evidence as "conclusive proof" others may not, and as I've pointed out the problems with the rest of your arguments, I see no grounds for your conclusion.

"''I truly believe that religion is created as a "God of the gaps" ...''"

Yet you've put no compelling argument for that view.

"''Christianity may satisfy the people of past times, when there is considerably less understanding of the physical world; it will no longer appeal to the increasingly educated populous - at least when the stories of the Bible is interpreted literally.''"

Well, bibliosceptics have been claiming similar for centuries, and have yet to be proven correct, so I take that with a grain of salt. And it has a touch of chronological snobbery and evolutionary belief in it. To explain, as a Christian, I believe that man was created without defect, but that we have deteriorated since. So I am not more intelligent than Adam, but less intelligent. Sure, we as a civilisation have more accumulated far more knowledge than Adam had, but are inferior in most other ways.

In contrast, the evolutionary view is that we are ''better'' (smarter, wiser, etc.) than our predecessors.

So to suggest that people of past times would be satisfied with something that we would not be satisfied with today is to ''presume'' an evolutionary view of us being smarter than those in the past.

"''Already, young-earth creationism, as told by the Bible, is doubted by the majority.''"

You have that back to front. Young-Earth creationism was all but dead as a viewpoint until the early 1960s, when it was revived with the publication of the book, ''The Genesis Flood'', by Morris and Whitcomb. It is not losing ground, but gaining it, from that low point of acceptance. Sure, acceptance of it has a long way to go yet, but it is increasing, and it is increasing (in my opinion, and ignoring God's role in this) mainly due to the strength of the evidence and arguments in favour of it. That is, people are accepting it (when they do) because it makes sense, and rejecting it (when they do) because of an atheistic ideology and/or peer pressure.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:44, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== My response to your essay ==

I'm glad you wrote this. It provides a good platform on which to discuss evolution and also sets out your views in a clear way conducive to debate, so thanks. I'm going to go through it bit by bit.

First of all:

{{QuoteBox|The argument is often made that evolution just is; it has no meaning, or, to put it another way, it is not prescriptive. Therefore evolution could not, for example, be said to be a racist idea.

We really have two questions here:

* It is proper to use the "facts" of evolution (or any idea for that matter) to derive meaning, purpose, or justification for actions?
* If it is proper, are any particular given claims the correct or incorrect meanings, purposes, or justifications?}}

I really do not think those two questions can be derived from that first couple of sentences. The question it would be reasonable to derive is this:

* Can the "facts" of evolution (or any theory; 'idea' if you insist) make political, moral, or social statements (and the like) inherently?

The answer to this question is 'no'. Gravity does not tell us falling is good, thermodynamics does not insist that it would be immoral for heat to pass from a hotter object to a cooler one, and evolution does not deride or condemn species that are less fit.

With regard to your two questions, they seem to me to be a bit vaguely phrased, but specifics are added in the following sections so I'll deal with them as they arise.

<blockquote>
"'''Is it proper to derive meaning?'''"
</blockquote>

You provide a number of examples of people deriving 'meaning' from evolution. No problems there; in fact, it put me in mind of another [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Pa34orcwwA example] of someone drawing meaning from facts. Obviously, people can and do use evolution to support their views. I don't really think anyone has argued that it ''cannot'' be used in that way; rather people have been arguing that it ''should'' not, or not in the way that it has been anyway.

Your examples demonstrate how broad 'drawing meaning' is. I would be willing to bet that I could 'draw meaning' from quite literally anything whatsoever. The question of how appropriate my inference would be is (as you rightly distinguish) completely seperate, but honestly, overall this first section seems a little pointless.

<blockquote>
"'''Are particular meanings proper to derive? '''"
</blockquote>

As a general question my answer is a resounding 'perhaps'. I might be wrong about what you would consider constituted a derived meaning, but it seems to me any derived meaning would be, to one extent or another, a personal viewpoint. Take Carl Sagan's observation on the insignificance of the earth in the universe. This seems to me to be a reasonable statement, but insignificance is relative and ultimately up to anyone to decide for themselves. Another example. Scientific statement: the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Derived meaning: That is an extremely long time. Most people might agree with that, so you could say it was a 'proper' meaning, but it isn't 'true' in the same way the original statement is either true or false.

However, I could state more strongly that some meanings are (clearly) not proper to derive. If I looked at cellular structure and thought it meant I should become a travel agent, this would be illogical and an inappropriate way to think about cells and jobs.

<blockquote>
"'''Moral values in general'''"
</blockquote>

I pretty much agree with this, although I find the last two paragraphs to be a little strange.

{{QuoteBox|So at the very least, even if evolution doesn't provide justification for given acts, neither does it provide any objection to those acts.}}

Replace the word 'evolution' there with 'chemistry' or 'astronomy' and the sentence remains correct. It would even be correct if you stuck a noun like 'a table' into it. Scientific theories have no obligation to contain moral precepts.

{{QuoteBox|If a person murders and claims that it was the Christian thing to do, the person is clearly acting inconsistently with the belief he claims to follow, as the Bible considers murder to be wrong. But if a person murders and claims that it was the '''geologically''' correct thing to do, the person is not acting inconsistently with the belief at all, as '''geology''' provides no objection to murder.}}

<blockquote>
"'''Racism'''"
</blockquote>

You still have yet to provide any foundation whatever for the statement "evolution is a racist idea". Even if it caused many people to become racists, this would not make evolution a racist idea. Evolution cannot be racist any more than paleontology can be socialist. Scientists observe phenomena, form hypotheses, and then subject the hypthoses to rigorous tests to attempt to determine how valid they are. There is no room in this method for a subjective judgement about racial superiority or anything of the sort.

Your section on consequences doesn't add anything significant to your argument.

<blockquote>
"'''Conclusion'''"
</blockquote>

Even taking everything in your essay as valid, it certainly does not demonstrate that evolution has terrible social consequences. All that you can demonstrate is that a consequence of evolutionary theory is that racists used the theory to support their ideas. Show me a case of someone studying evolution and then becoming a racist based on that.

You'll note that Stephen Jay Gould, very importantly, does not say evolutionary theory resulted in more racism. He says it resulted in more 'biological arguments for racism' - this is entirely different and also completely sensible. Racists started to use more biological justification for their beliefs; but did more people become racist? I don't believe so, and you have offered no evidence that they did.

My own conclusions on this essay can be summed up as follows:

'''1)''' Your argument does not really address the matter raised in your opening paragraph (the prescriptive or descriptive nature of evolution).

'''2)''' Like all scientific theories, evolution is descriptive and offers no social or moral judgements, and you make no arguments to the contrary.

'''3)''' And although it is a secondary matter, you do not provide an argument that evolution has caused people to become racist; merely that racists use evolutionary rationale.

I hope I have not blathered too much, and I look forward a great deal to hearing your thoughts.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:19, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for your well-stated response, Sam99foster.
: Regarding what is the "right question", I believe that I was correct in deriving the questions I did. We humans are not computer programs or robots that will provide clearly-defined outputs according to the inputs, but are, by our very nature, creatures who see meaning in things. My first derived question was deliberately broad because asking the question that you derived ignores this point that people do derive meanings from facts. Perhaps to some extent my question presupposed the answer, but I think yours does too, and it's often the case that you have to know the answers in order to know what the right question is to ask.
: True, gravity does not tell us falling is good, but you've heard the saying that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it? That's because you ''learn things'' from history, and not just learning ''what happened'', but learning that particular ''ideas have consequences''. That is, you learn, for example, that people who get absolute power generally end up abusing it. Does that mean that abuse ''inherently'' and ''unavoidably'' follows from absolute power, like water unavoidably follows from combining oxygen and hydrogen? No, but it's not sufficient to say "it doesn't inherently follow" and then ignore that things ''do'' follow anyway.
: I'm at work at the moment and can't view the Youtube link, so I'll comment later on that if I feel the need once I've seen it.
: Yes, people have been arguing that meaning ''should not'' be drawn from evolution, but who's to say that it ''should not''? ''That'' doesn't inexorably follow either, does it? Simply by saying that it "should not" follow, they are themselves not talking about whether meaning is inherent, but expressing a ''view''. And the view of many others is that meaning ''can be'' drawn from evolution.
: Yes, insignificance (or other meaning) is up to people to decide for themselves. I agree with that, and would therefore argue that racists who use evolution to justify their racism cannot thereby avoid responsibility for the views. They ''decided'' to go along with that idea. Nevertheless, when you have (a) experts (e.g. evolutionists) claiming that evolution means such-and-such, and (b) large numbers of people ''accepting'' those claims because they appear reasonable, it's kind of missing the point to dismiss that by saying that they have to decide for themselves.
: I disagree that "the Earth is 4.6 billion years old" is a scientific statement, but that's beside the point for this discussion, so I won't comment further on that now.
: I totally agree that some conclusions are improper to derive. That's half the point of my second derived question (the other half is that some meanings ''are'' proper to derive).
: As to whether chemistry, geology, or etc. is different to evolution, it ''is'' different because evolution is tantamount to a religion (unlike chemistry, geology, etc.).
:Shallis said:
{{QuoteBox|It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing).[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3819/]}}
:Michael Ruse commented:
{{QuoteBox|Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
 
‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139]}}
: And that's the point: evolution is not merely the study of something; it is a ''substitute'' for Christianity. As Christianity has moral values, evolution ''replaces'' those moral values (with nothing). Perhaps I do need to elaborate on that point in the article itself, however.
: Evolution is racist because it contains the idea that some people are less advanced than (or inferior to) others.
: My article ''does'' show that evolution has had terrible social consequences. Your dispute is whether people acted properly in basing their views on evolution or not. But whether properly or not, they ''did'' base them on evolution, with terrible consequences.
: When you ask for an example of someone becoming a racist by studying evolution, you seem to be asking for an example of someone who was not a racist but became a racist as a result of studying evolution. I have little doubt that such examples could be found, but off the top of my head I can't think of any. However, the ''main'' factor in this regard would not be people ''becoming'' racists from non-racists from studying evolution, but ''growing up'' as racists as a direct ''and indirect'' result of evolution. For example, a teacher who may have been a racist to begin with studies evolution, finds "biological arguments" there to support his racism, and then teaches that to his students. Without the biological arguments he may not have had much to say, and his students may not have been all that convinced, but ''with'' those biological arguments, his case is stronger and his students more likely convinced. Of course this is not limited to teachers, but anybody who has influence on others, including parents and journalists. Evolution-based racist ideas were rife in the early 20th century, including in textbooks (see the George Hunter quote in the article) the mass media, and publications of the Ku Klux Klan[http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1/j18_1_65-70.pdf]. Do you really think that all these things had ''no influence'' except on those who were already racists? Many of these things would have been seen by children who were still forming their ideas about humanity. They may never have been non-racists, but that doesn't mean that evolution played no part in them becoming racists.
: My argument doesn't really address whether evolution prescribes moral values. But my argument was that even if it technically doesn't, it still effectively does.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:32, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Instead of going through your response (which you made admirably swiftly by the way, it takes me forever to get round to doing this sort of thing) point by point, I'd like to concentrate on what I consider to be the most important area of the discussion, hopefully without ignoring or shrugging off what has gone before. First of all I want to clarify what it is precisely that you are trying to demonstrate with this essay. Here's how I interpret it:

:: The matter under discussion is whether evolution is or is not a racist idea. To come to a conclusion about that two things must be established - whether meaning can be derived from facts, and whether this meaning can be 'correct' or not. Having established the first, you try to show that not only do people derive racist ideas from evolution, but that they are ''correct'' in doing so because of the nature of evolution. Therefore evolution ''is'' a racist idea.

:: This is the problem with your essay - you really want to say ''two'' things, and the essay does not clearly distinguish between them. You want to say '''a)''' evolution is a racist idea, and '''b)''' evolution is a cause of racism and the problems that follow from racism. Maybe you consider this distinction to be a technicality (as I gather from the final sentence of your response), but I want to stress that it is vital to make it clear. This is because if we reject a) and accept b), the blame for racism falls upon people, by their representation of science, rather than the science itself. At that point, by all means criticise racist scientists and racist 'evolutionists', and racists who use biological justification for their beliefs, but do not criticise the science (evolution itself).

:: If evolution is not a racist idea, then logically it follows that anyone becoming a racist after studying it has done so in error - they have falsely derived meaning. If Darwin or anyone else had their racism strengthened by evolution, then they must have been wrong in their interpretation of the science. This is why point a) is so important, and yet your support for it in your essay and in your response has been limited to this sentence: "''Evolution is racist because it contains the idea that some people are less advanced than (or inferior to) others.''" All your other argument has gone towards showing point b).

:: I will now attempt to show why we should reject forever the notion that evolution is a racist idea, and if you accept my argument we can discuss evolution's consequences with regard to racism later.

:: Others before me have explained why evolution does not describe any species as inferior or superior to the others, and I will do so again. First of all, because of common descent all lifeforms have been around for about as long as each other, so in that sense they are all equally advanced because they have spent as much time as each other evolving under natural pressures. Another perspective would be that because bacteria go through generations so quickly, they have had far more opportunity to evolve than larger organisms like humans, and so we could legitimately describe them as the most 'advanced'.

:: If you thought that complexity equalled 'more advanced', this could in a sense be true, but complexity certainly does not necessarily confer survival advantages. Humans might be 'more advanced' than malaria by several orders of magnitude, but it is not proving simple to defeat malaria. Is it superior to humans?

:: The point I'm trying to make is that notions of superiority or inferiority can only be applied to evolution in a hopelessly arbitrary way, and it's meaningless to try to speak of some species as superior to others in a way comparable to notions of racial superiority.

:: Two more things. Firstly evolution has nothing to do with showing that "people are less advanced than (or inferior to) others." From an evolutionary perspective, all people are equal, since the differences between races have been shown to be entirely superficial. Secondly all the accusations you level at evolution are just as applicable to natural selection, because none of them concern mutations. Natural selection is a process accepted by creationists, and regardless of the direction of genetic change, creationists still seem to be comfortable with this apparently racist idea.

:: I do not accept that evolution is a cause of racism, but before that can be discussed we need to talk about how evolution is racist itself, and I think this is something missing from your essay and from your response.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 15:48, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Philip, is this discussion still active? I would like to continue to talk this through, although please do not feel obliged. [[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 09:47, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Evolution

2008-10-04T19:48:35Z

Sam99foster: /* My response to your essay */ an attempt to narrow the discussion down a little

User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Evolution

2008-10-02T22:19:40Z

Sam99foster: a counter-essay

Talk:Free will

2008-09-19T12:38:59Z

Sam99foster:

It is a logical inconsistancy to claim that foreknowledge of an individual's actions allows that individual to possess free will. If the will is known, it is not free. If the will is free, it cannot be known.

Thus, if a deity has foreknowledge of an individual's actions, then that deity has denied the individual's free will.

If an individual's will is genuinely free, then any claim that a deity can have prior knowledge of an individual's actions is false.

''Free will'' and ''an omniscient deity'' are mutually exclusive. If either is encompassed by a theologically honest position, the other must be denied. --[[User:OmnusErudito|OmnusErudito]] 14:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This argument assumes that the future is capable of being the subject of knowledge (a fairly widely held assumption, but one I, and many other philosophers, reject). That is, it assumes that a statement about the future is true or false, rather than indeterminate. If the future is indeterminate then an omniscient deity would be able to know all that is knowable and still not know what I am going to do in the future. Of course, this position raises problems with respect to prophesy and that may be a problem for some theists (but not necessarily for all theists if they reject prophesy or if they view prophesy as a promise of what God intends to do in the future). So, while you are right, free will and the common understanding of an omniscient deity are at odds, free will and an omniscient deity are not necessarily at odds.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:34, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Knowing all possible outcomes does not make a being omniscient - I know all possible outcomes of a dice-roll, but I am not omniscient. Given time and inclination, I could work out all possible results to a general election, but I will still not be omniscient. No matter how complex a system, no matter how many possible outcomes exist in potentia, knowing all the possibilities does not make a being omniscient, merely clever. Omniscience would require that the being know ''which'' of the possible outcomes will occur, bringing us right back to my original point. (I like your rewrite of the article, by the way)--[[User:OmnusErudito|OmnusErudito]] 14:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. My point was simply that it could be the case that the future is not something that is knowable--at all--so even an all knowing entity (one that knows everything that is knowable) would not know the future. Such an entity would know all the posable outcomes (just as we know what results a dice-roll may have), but it would not know the future. this assumes a non-static future (which is an understanding of the nature of the future that is more compatible with free will than a static, even if unknown, future). This would mean an all knowing God would still not know the future--so God's foreknowledge would not be in conflict with free will. I'm not saying it is the right answer, I'm not sure what the right answer is, but it is one way to make free will and the existence of an all knowing being compatible.
:::Thank you for the compliment on the edit, I'm of the opinion that it is better to note where the debate is than pretend knowledge of the truth.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::That is much clearer, and a response needs much more thought on my part, not something I will have time to do for at least a week or two.--[[User:OmnusErudito|OmnusErudito]] 14:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::No hurry, I have this page on my watchlist so when you get a chance to respond I will see it.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Angels and animals==

Removed:
*<s>Within a totally naturalistic system, freewill does not exist.</s>
*In the Christian faith it is believed that humans were created with freewill so that they would chose to worship God, <s>unlike angels who were created without the choice to worship God</s>.

#I don't understand the reference to [[naturalism]]. Are you saying that '''your''' actions are all determined by physical law, L.T.?
#Which denomination says that angels are incapable of making choices? Haven't you read Jude 1:6-7? (It mentions angels who sinned, and sin is a [[choice]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:33, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

==Section on morality==
This article on free will seems quite brief so I've added a section here. It's not fantastically well written and it's a bit waffly but hopefully it'll do until it can be expanded, either by my or another person.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 10:51, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
: I like the first sentence, bu I find the rest confusing. It seems to be starting with the assumption that determinism is the opposite of free will, then redefines free will to be determinism! This means that it's not actually the opposite after all, but simply another name for the same thing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Yeah sorry, I should've made that clearer but I hoped I could leave it a little implicit. Essentially Hume draws a distinction between two kinds of freedom - freedom of action and freedom of will. The former is the freedom to do as you choose (i.e. it would be compromised if you were in jail or tied up or something), and the latter is the freedom to determine your own will. Hume says that confusion between these two terms is at the root of many discussions of free will, since often people use free will to mean the latter thing when in reality it doesn't make much sense - either things are determined or they are random (because of cause and effect). Is that at all clear? --[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 11:58, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::Re-reading myself I really don't think it is. When people talk about lack of free will negating morality, they mean lack of freedom of will (as opposed to of action). Hume says that lack of freedom of will results in randomness, because thought processes are subject to the same laws of cause and effect as any other event. So an apple falling is caused by gravity or something else, and if its caused by nothing then the occurrence must be random; and the same with decisions, which are caused by a variety of external stimuli.--[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Your addition and your writing here are not necessarily clear. If you wish to break up the article into two sections, then do so showing clearly that Hume is using his own definition of free will to make his point. In the absense of free will it is obvious that there is no blame for actions as free will would be a necessary precursor for free action. You also seem to be confused that lack of free will does not equal random. Indeed much of what occurs is structured and orderly; there is just no will involved. In nature an apple falling from a tree does so due to gravity - and will do so each and every time unless some other outside stimulus intervenes. The apple has no free action to suddenly fall up, nor does it have a free will to consider that. It reacts based upon the bio-chemical nature of its makeup. Humans are no different when considered from this same naturalistic setting. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:35, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I agree that my writing is not clear. I'm afraid you misunderstand me entirely. What I mean by 'freedom of will' above is the idea that people can engage in thought which is essentially ''uncaused'', since if thought has a cause (like the apple falling from the tree) it's not 'free', in the same way the apple is not 'free' to fall upwards. Hume points out that logically if thoughts are uncaused then they must be random, which is obviously a problem for libertarians. This is sometimes referred to as the 'randomness problem'.

::::Anyway I agree that my contribution is lacking as it is, and when I have a bit of free time on my hands I'll re-write it substantially. Thanks for the feedback.--[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 16:31, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I'm questioning (your explanation of) Hume's view, rather than the content of the article, but without understanding the view better, I'm limited in how much I can do to fix the wording.
::::: By way of analogy, diseases can be (a) genetic/hereditary, (b) non-genetic/non-hereditary, or (c) genetically-''influenced'', but not genetically-''determined''. Hume's argument seems to be that if it's not "caused" (determined), it is ''uncaused'' (random). But what about the will being ''influenced'' by causes, but not ''determined'' by them? This would make it non-random.
::::: Further, Hume's argument appears to be materialistic, i.e. not allowing for a non-materialistic, or perhaps ''spiritual'' component.
::::: Comments?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::With regard to causation - there's no logical reason that things could not be only ''influenced'' by causes rather than entirely determined by them. However, you are left having to explain what it is providing the rest of the event (the part of the disease which is not genetically influenced). If it's randomness, then you are still left with the determined/random problem. If it is some third possibility, you would have to explain what this could be and how it would work.
::::::I think it's correct to say that Hume's approach is materialistic, although on a logical rather than ideological basis. What form would a 'spiritual component' take?
::::::Thanks by the way for the reply and for the continued discussion - it helps to sort out exactly what my arguments are to have them questioned coherently like that.--[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 08:38, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::P.S. I am not completely positive what Hume's precise rebuttal would be to your arguments, I'm just putting forward my view since I agree with Hume. I am however reasonably confident that I've expressed his view accurately.

Ann Coulter

2008-09-17T21:34:24Z

Sam99foster: /* Quotes */ deleted a quote that was on here twice

{{merge from|Coulter on Hillary and McCain}}
[[Image:Coulter2006.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Coulter on the ''Tonight Show with Jay Leno''.]]
'''Ann Hart Coulter''' (b. 1961) is an [[attorney]], legal affairs correspondent, and social commentator.
She has written five bestselling books on U.S. politics. U.S. Federal Judge [[Richard Posner]] called her one of America's top public intellectuals. <ref>[http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/publicintellect.htm] "Data for tables in Chapter 5 of Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline" where Posner talks about the data he used for his book ''Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline''.</ref> <ref>[http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/TABLE%20II.pdf] Table II, which is Posner's data for 607 public intellectuals. A PDF search of "Coulter" will show she is on Posner's list.</ref>

Coulter's primary focus is exposing the faults of [[liberalism]], and she has enjoyed a popular following for her strong defense of family values against [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]].
She is well known for her forthright statements against those who wish to hurt the [[United States]].

Coulter is a high profile female [[conservative]], in line with [[Phyllis Schlafly]] and [[Condoleezza Rice]]. Her books and strong speaking style have endeared her to fans and infuriated opponents.

As a [[Christian]], Coulter attributes to the [[Judeo-Christian]] tradition the view that [[human being]]s are utterly and distinctly apart from other species.

Being an unabashedly conservative pundit, Coulter's social commentaries often draw the ire of [[liberal]]s. Her comments are frequently controversial and her critics often feign being offended.<ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)]</ref><ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'f*****.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html]</ref>

Coulter made headlines during the 2008 Presidential primaries by endorsing [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] for President instead of [[John McCain]]. Coulter asserted that McCain is not conservative, but [[liberal]].

==Books==

Some of her books include
*''[[High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton]]'' (2002)
*''[[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right]]'' (2003)
*''[[Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism]]'' (2004)
*''[[How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)]]'' (2005)
*''[[Godless: The Church of Liberalism]]'' (2007)
*''[[If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans]]'' (2007)

In ''Godless'', Coulter illustrates how liberals make a [[religion]] out of their beliefs, which they follow with the sort of intolerant zeal which they claim [[fundamentalist]]s do. "Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man's immortal soul [and] that we are moral beings in God's image." (pg. 3)

==Quotes==

* "Whether they are defending the [[Soviet Union]] or bleating for [[Saddam Hussein]], liberals are always against [[United States of America|America]]. They are either traitors or idiots ... " <Ref>''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.''</ref>
* "My only regret with [[Timothy McVeigh]] is he did not go to the [[New York Times]] Building." She later clarified "Of course I regret [saying] it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-09-coulter-roemer_x.htm 9/11 Commissioner Criticizes Coulter's 'Hate-Filled Attack'] Associated Press story in USA Today. "'My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building,' The New York Observer quoted her as saying on Aug. 20, 2002. She clarified those remarks with RightWingNews.com: 'Of course I regret it. I should have added, "after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."'"</ref><ref>Hawkins, [http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/anncoulter.php An Interview With Ann Coulter], Right Wing News.</ref>

* "We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say."

* "Saddam's barbaric rape rooms, chemical attacks and torture — those, liberals could live with. But now they want us to send troops to [[Darfur]], a country from which no one anticipates terrorism anytime in the next millennium. If you're looking for a good definition of "no imminent threat," Darfur is it... These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever — and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?...Darfur is not the threat... though a hostage-taking, [[Holocaust]]-denying lunatic who doesn't own a necktie but is within two years of having a nuclear bomb comes to mind. You can already hear [[Harry Reid]] and [[Nancy Pelosi]] saying, "If the Democrats were in charge, the use of military force wouldn't be necessary because we'd constructively engage them and appease their stated desire to kill us." <REF>This appeared on Coulter's web site on April 4th, 2007. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=177</REF>

* "If you want a shorter rebuilding process, then we're going to have to wage less humane wars. The enemy — as well as innocent civilians — must be bombed into quivering terror. Otherwise, we displace aggression but don't destroy it. Americans are weaker for having seen that kind of carnage in [[World War II]]. Recall that the Worst Generation was raised by the Greatest Generation. That tells you how awful war is. The Greatest Generation was so exhausted by the war, it didn't have the spine to stand up to pot-smoking, draft-dodging hippies occupying administration buildings." <REF>This appeared on Coulter's web site on April 4th, 2007. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=177</REF>

* "I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your [[Communists]] will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." <ref> ''Politically Incorrect'', Feb. 26, 2001 </ref>

* "...a cruise missile is more important than Head Start." <ref>Nov. 2001 speech rebroadcast by C-Span in Jan. 2002</ref>

* On Sept. 13, 2001 she wrote this about the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|Sept. 11 terrorist attack]]: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." <ref>''National Review Online'', September 2001 [http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml]</ref>

* "We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; "when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was 'We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV'. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred. " <ref>[http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/coulteriffic.php RWN's Ann Coulter Interview #2] John Hawkins. </ref>

* "Liberals are driven by [[Satan]] and lie constantly. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21345 That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 06/28/2007.</ref>

* "Every concrete example of the racism allegedly sweeping the nation's campuses keeps turning out to be a fraud. Far from "institutional racism," there is "institutional racial hoaxism" run amok in this country."<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22909&email Another Liberal Noose-ance], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 10/17/2007,</ref>

* "Rather than own up to their moral blindness to Soviet espionage, Democrats fired up the liberal slander machine, which would be deployed again and again over the next half century to the present day.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23316 McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone of Liberal Lies], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 11/07/2007.</ref>

* "By exposing the Democrats' absolute blindness to Soviet [[totalitarianism]], [[McCarthy]] shattered forever the nation's confidence in the Democrats' capacity to govern. For that, the [[Stalin]]ist [[liberal hate speech|hate machine]] attacked him viciously and has never let up."<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23824 They'll Never Forgive You], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 12/05/2007.</ref>

* "How about having [[Tim Russert]] ask Hillary if she believes the [[New Testament]] is the [[perfection]] of the [[Old Testament]]? She claims to be a [[Christian]]. Let's get it on the table: Is she or isn't she? It doesn't get any more bare-bones than that.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23174 How Long Before the A.D.L. Kicks Out All its Jews?], By Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', October 31, 2007.</ref>

* "[The New York Times'] reaction to al-Zarqawi's death was to lower the U.S. flag at the Times building to half-staff. (Ha ha — just kidding! Everybody knows there aren't any American flags at The New York Times.)" <ref>[http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter071306.php3 ''N.Y. Times: Better dead than read]]</ref>

* "I think our motto should be post-9-11, ‘raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'" <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2006/02/12/ragheads-and-sambos-and-gooks/</ref>

* "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot."

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Ann Coulter|Articles about '''Ann Coulter''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Lou Dobbs]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi AnnCoulter.com]
*RealClearPolitcs.com [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/poll_most_americans_love_coult.html Poll: Most Americans Love Coulter Columns], accessed 6 May 2007.
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html The Long Fuse on Ann Coulter's Bomb] - ''Washington Post'' - March 6, 2007
*[http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2095 Media Research Center 'Funny Video's from 2007'] Watch Ann Coulter present funny videos from 2007 at the 2008 MRC DisHonors Awards in DC.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Coulter, Ann}}

[[Category:Women Authors]]
[[Category:Conservative Commentators]]

Talk:Free will

2008-09-17T20:31:20Z

Sam99foster: /* Section on morality */

Talk:Free will

2008-09-14T16:03:20Z

Sam99foster: /* Section on morality */ baaargh must sign

Talk:Free will

2008-09-14T16:03:01Z

Sam99foster: /* Section on morality */

Talk:Free will

2008-09-14T15:58:40Z

Sam99foster: /* Section on morality */ keep forgetting to sign...

Talk:Free will

2008-09-14T15:58:16Z

Sam99foster: /* Section on morality */ attempt to explain myself, maybe not too well

Talk:Free will

2008-09-14T14:51:13Z

Sam99foster: /* Section on morality */

Talk:Free will

2008-09-14T14:48:50Z

Sam99foster:

Free will

2008-09-14T14:47:02Z

Sam99foster: added section on morality

'''Free will''' is the concept that it is possible to make choices by an act of will based on independent thought. This would appear to be impossible in a solely naturalistic system in which biochemical processes obey natural laws, not will.

[[Incompatibilism]] views free will as being in conflict with the doctrine of [[determinism]], while [[Compatibilism]] sees no conflict between the two.

In some denominations of the [[Christian]] faith it is believed that humans were created with free will so that they would choose to worship [[God]]. Other Christian traditions, such as [[Calvinism]], believe that humans were created without free will, but that God's will determines our actions.

== Free Will and Morality ==

For many, freedom of will is required for a functioning morality; that is, if we were not free we could not be held responsible for our actions, having been incapable of making a moral choice. However some philosphers (e.g. [[David Hume]]) have held that not only can morality and determinism co-exist, but in fact that morality ''requires'' that our actions were determined. The reasoning is as follows:

Decisions are just like any other event in that they have causes. The relationship between a reason and a decision is broadly similar to that between a cause and an effect; if an effect lacks a cause, it must necessarily be [[random]], and the same is true of a decision. Every element of the thought process that goes into making a choice must be either caused by external stimuli (the reasons for deciding one way or the other) or completely random. We could not be considered moral beings if our actions were random and therefore responsibility can fall only on determined individuals. Hume considered free will to be the freedom to do as one chooses (freedom of action), and therefore moral blame falls upon those who have acted immorally when they were at liberty to act otherwise.

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Christian Theology]]

Talk:PNAS Response to Letter

2008-09-14T14:13:15Z

Sam99foster:

Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.

In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a "climate scientist". If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Toffeeman's comment seemed to me to be substantive in any sense you could name. In what way was it a 'misrepresentation'? [[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 10:13, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:PNAS Response to Letter

2008-09-14T14:13:01Z

Sam99foster: deletion of Toffeeman's comments seemed unfair and unnecessary

User:Sam99foster

2008-09-14T14:10:01Z

Sam99foster: hello

I struggle to think of something to write here as much as I do when presented with "About Me" boxes on social networking sites, since they seem far too open-ended. Anyone possessed with a strong desire to know something specific about me can always ask.

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2008-09-14T13:53:05Z

Sam99foster: might this continue?

== Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution ==

Many people assume the "Theory of Evolution" is a single theory. It is not. Rather, it is a collection of 1,000,000+ theories, papers, experiments, observations and tests, all of which contribute to the overall theory of evolution". The Bible is similarly comprised of a collection of books which are a collection of verses.

A common false assumption made is that disproving one of the underlying theories, invalidates the entire theory of evolution. Unlike the Bible, evolutionary theory does not claim to be Inerrant. An error in a single theory does not disprove the larger body of knowledge. Falsifying the "Theory of Evolution" would require disproving thousands of supporting theories.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 16:23, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:So you are agreeing that evolution per se is not falsifiable? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:::I think that Perpetual is correct. Maybe in fact Evolution should be considered a separate branch of science itself like Physics, Chemistry or Biology. No one would claim that Physics is not falsifiable because Physics is a field of study that is made up of laws, theories and hypothesis all of which are falsifiable. In the same sense Evolution is the study of the laws, theories and hypothesis that describe a larger process of evolution. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
::::A process upon which there is no agreed definition, and which, unless a meaninglessly-broad [[Definitions of evolution|definition]] is adopted, there is no conclusive evidence that that this "field" even exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:02, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
::With apologies to Mr. Rayment, I must take issue with Angst's claim that "The Bible claims to be inerrant." It makes no such claim. And even if it did claim to be inerrant, finding an error would only disprove the individual proposition of inerrancy -- it would not prove that everything in the Bible is wrong. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]]
:::Correction accepted. The Bible makes no claim to be inerrant. Instead, others make this claim of the Bible. Similarly, finding an error in the theory of evolution would only disprove the individual proposition -- it would not disprove evolutionary theory in it's entirety. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::The Theory of Evolution is still falsifiable. Tens of thousands of papers and supporting theories would need to be refuted before one could claim the larger evolutionary theory has been refuted. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::Okay, that's your position, but clearly it's not something that even all evolutionists agree on. And I did notice the error in claiming that the Bible claims to be inerrant, but whilst the Bible doesn't directly explicitly claim that, I believe that is a reasonable deduction from what it does claim, and furthermore it wasn't the key point that PerpetualAngst was making, so I decided to ignore that point (which is not to suggest that there was anything wrong with Ungtss responding to it). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:30, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
::::''The Theory of Evolution is still falsifiable. Tens of thousands of papers and supporting theories would need to be refuted before one could claim the larger evolutionary theory has been refuted.''
:::::Could you be more specific in defining what "Theory of evolution" could only be falsified by disproving all the papers and supporting theories? Do you mean the idea that all life evolved from a single protocell? Or do you mean the idea that all life changes gradually as the result of variation and natural selection? If you mean the latter, I think you're right -- there are a lot of papers showing that life changes over time by variation and natural selection, and it would take a lot of work to disprove it. But if you mean the former, then explain what you mean: what papers are out there providing scientific evidence for ''universal common ancestry'' that would have to be disproven? How would you falsify the proposition that all life evolved from a single protocell? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:24, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Without an answer to my question above, your argument fails. Creationists don't dispute the falsifiable, scientific, and obvious proposition that life changes over time by variation and natural selection. They dispute the unfalsifiable and unscientific proposition of universal common ancestry. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 08:10, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html for a much more detailed argument in favor of common descent.
::::According to Steven J Gould: "Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution." - "Evolution as Fact and Theory", May 1981.
::::http://www.google.com/search?q=evolutionary.biology
::::http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcevolbiol/ [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::But my friend, that wasn't the question:). I know there are arguments out there in favor of universal common ancestry. There are also arguments against it. But is the proposition ''falsifiable''? What experiment could be performed to prove it ''wrong?'' That's the issue here. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:34, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::My original point was that there is no single potential falsification test for evolution, the same as there is no single falsification test for particle physics. For example, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html gives a falsification test for each of its 29 predictions. There is no single test to falsify the proposition that all life evolved from a single protocell. Instead, you would need to refute the lines of evidence with lead to that conclusion. (See link).[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::I agree that evolutionists present "a number of lines of evidence that reasonably lead to a conclusion." But I submit that this doesn't comply with a meaningful falsificationism. When you have a number of different lines of evidence that "lead to a conclusion," you still have room for interpretation. For example, "I believe Joe murdered Jane because he was seen running away from the scene, covered in blood." A reasonable conclusion -- but ''not'' a falsifiable conclusion. And the reason is this: Somebody else might look at the same facts (Joe running away covered in blood), but interpret the facts differently, saying, "Joe was walking with Jane when she was murdered by somebody else, got covered in blood trying to do CPR, and was running for help when he was seen." The same facts can reasonably lead to either conclusion -- and that's why it's not science. Falsifiable science leaves no room for alternative explanations. The force of gravity is 32 ft/second squared. The earth revolves relative to the sun. The human heart pumps blood through blood vessels. There's no doubt. There's no interpretation. The answers are right up there for us to see and test. ''That's'' what falsifiable science is. The same problem applies to the "potential falsification" provided by the link you cited. Consider, for example, the section in the article you linked on "Common metabolism." They say that evolution predicts that "we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the 'standard genetic code' or a close derivative thereof." But there are two problems with this. First, even if a phylum was found with a non-nucleic acid genetic material, the theory of evolution could be altered to say "Well, early in our evolution, life evolved two different types of genetic material by variation and natural selection." Second, a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life." In other words, falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution; and the facts as we observe them are consistent with both creationism and evolution. In sum, I submit that '''falsifiable science is not science where there are "lines of evidence that lead to a conclusion, but which still require interpretation of the evidence." Falsifiable science consists of specific propositions that can be specifically and experimentally tested.''' What do you think? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:09, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::''falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution.'' Exactly my point: To discredit evolution would require refuting millions of data points. There is no single theorem which, if disproved, will invalidate the encompassing theory of evolution.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::But even refuting millions of data points would only alter evolution. Find human bones in precambrian rock -- "Oh! Must not be precambrian rock, because there's a human in it!" No matter what findings are made, they can all be "fit into" evolution, because it's such a malleable concept that it cannot be held to account. "I cannot see your dragon!" "That's because it's invisible!" That's why I'm arguing that universal common ancestry is not a falsifiable proposition -- because it's too malleable to test. However, the experimental datapoints you mention ARE falsifiable science. Those datapoints can be interpretted any number of ways with respect to the origins of life, but the datapoints ''themselves'' require no interpretation. Science has nothing to say (yet) about how life originated. But it has a lot to say about how it works today. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::''Falsifiable science leaves no room for alternative explanations.'' I disagree. No science is absolute, including the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution. Nor do they claim to be. Any competing theory must explain all the observations and data points, at least as well as the original theory, and in a manner which is consistent at every level. The objective of science it to reduce the margins of error as much as possible.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::I think that your point of view is exactly what Popper (and earlier creationist proponents of falsifiability, like G.K. Chesteron) was arguing against. It's always possible to come up with alternative explanations that completely explain the data points as well as the original theory in a manner which is consistent at every level. "Gravity is caused by little invisible strings on every object, and a little gopher named George is pulling them down at exactly the same rate." It explains the facts. But it's not testable. So it's no better than any other nonsense we can concoct. Just because you can hypothesize an explanation doesn't mean we can TEST it. And until you can TEST an alternate explanation, it's no better than any other crazy explanation I can come up with. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::What is the force of gravity on the mars? How do you know?[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::::Approx .38G at the equator. I know because if the gravity calcs were off, the spacecraft orbiting and landing on it would not have been successful. Also readings from Mars Global Surveyor. Those readings are testable. That's falsifiable science. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 17:57, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::: As given, you answer is correct to within 5x10-3G. That is what science seeks to do: make the error bars as small as possible. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 17:36, 25 Jun 2007 (PDT)
::::::::::::: Agreed. And the magic of falsifiable science is that you ''can'' move toward that improvement. But with unfalsifiable hypothesis, you can just pick one error you're emotionally attached to, and stick with it 'cause it can't be tested. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:56, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Hubble Deep Field image showed light from galaxies 12 billion light years from earth. The estimation of the time it took the light to reach earth was based on the observed redshift values of galaxies in the image. Do you contend that this estimate is false because it is not falsifiable? The light was emitted 12 billion years ago. Is it wrong because it is simply an ''interpretation of the evidence''?[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::::No, I'm not saying it's ''false'', I'm saying it's ''unfalsifiable''. From a scientific perspective, it could be true and it could be false -- we don't know with ''scientific'' certainty, because we cannot test it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::Actually we can create a falsification test for it. Disprove Hubbles Law, the doppler effect or the speed of light and my statement ''The light was emitted 12 billion years ago'' will be false. Falsification can be established by refuting principals used interpret the evidence. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::::::Not necessarily. The Doppler effect (and by this I mean specifically the proposition that light emitted from receding objects is red-shifted) could be wrong and the light still 12 billion years old. The stars might still be 12 billion light-years away, even if they are not receding. Same with the speed of light. The speed of light might be twice what we think it is -- and the stars could still be 12 billion light years away (although that would be twice as many AUs). Just because the assumptions underlying a proposition are proven false does ''not'' necessarily disprove the proposition itself. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::''Second, a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life." In other words, falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution; and the facts as we observe them are consistent with both creationism and evolution. In sum, I submit that falsifiable science is not science where there are "lines of evidence that lead to a conclusion, but which still require interpretation of the evidence." Falsifiable science consists of specific propositions that can be specifically and experimentally tested.'' Using your own definition of falsification, would you agree that creationism is not science?
::::::::I'd agree that ''parts'' of it aren't science ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Evolution is so ''malleable'', it would accept creationism if creationism decreased the margins of error! Science rejects creationism because creationism widens, (not narrows), the error bars. '''Creationism tries to explain complexity by creating an even larger unexplainable complexity: (a creator or designer).''' Evolution explains complexity using observable facts. For Example: We know that retroviruses insert a copy of their DNA into their host's genome; if the DNA is inserted into a sperm or egg cell, the mutation will be passed to offspring. If the mutation enhances the viability of the recipient it will be passed to future generations,if it does not, the recipient will die before pro generating (also known as natural selection). The same mutations, across different species, indicate common descent. It is not just the commonality of the genetic code that supports common descent, it is also the differences. The differences in the genetic code indicate accumulated mutations over time. Common descent is not a single theory. It is a explanation of existing falsifiable theorems explaining observable facts. ''...a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life."'' In so doing the creationist has introduced more complexity, (an unknown creator), without reducing existing complexity.
::::::::"Reducing complexity" is not a fair measure for the "scientificness" of a proposition. General relativity introduced more complexities than Newtonian physics, which introduced more complexities than Aristotle's Physics. Quantum physics introduces more complexities than ancient atomism. Modern biology introduces more complexity than the doctrine of humors. Science says, "if experimental data indicates that reality is more complicated than we thought, then reality is more complicated than we thought. same thing if the experimental data indicates simplicity. We just follow the experimental data." Just because creationism introduces more complexity to the equation does not make it "unscientific" any more than genetics makes biology "unscientific." [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::I do not claim science "reduces complexity". I claim science reduces the margins of error. General relativity reduced the error bars provided by Newtonian physics. Creationism, by comparison, increases the Error Bars, (to infinity), by introducing new unknowable complexity, (creators). Creationism provides no new knowledge to science. Hence, creationism can make no new predictions about science. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable. So I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions, while applying the same conclusion to evolution. At the same time, I think both hypotheses are worthy of investigation, because they may somebody yield falsifiable results. Creationism ''may indeed'' add new knowledge to science, ''if we were created''. Because then, ''common ancestry would be false''. Were we created? I think so, but neither of us can prove it or disprove it with science. Yet. Hopefully someday science will get there. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::''the theory of evolution could be altered to say "Well, early in our evolution, life evolved two different types of genetic material by variation and natural selection."'' Absolutely. Guess what? You just falsified an evolutionary biology theory supporting common descent! Because science can not deal in absolutes, (with the exception of mathematics) , it is forced to make self corrections. Disproving a theorem is just as valuable to science as proving a theorem. Richard Feynman said it best: "If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."
::::::::But the real point is that the point of contention, ''common descent itself'' remains unfalsifiable. Maybe someday it will be falsifiable. Then we can either call it science, or call it fiction. But for the moment, it remains steeped in the interpretation of evidence, which reasonable people can interpret differently. In my opinion, you may call it "obvious," but you cannot call it "scientific," because you cannot test it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::One falsification test for common descent: find an example of an organism that fails to conform to the unified genetic code by using some method, other than DNA, to store genetic information. Common descent can be falsified by disproving its predictions. So far, every new species tested verifies a unified genetic code. This testing supports common descent because it continually reinforces the prediction of common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::That wouldn't falsify common descent. As I said above, it would only modify it to either "one form of genetic material evolved to the other," "both evolved separately," or "both diverged." Common descent might still be true. Only "All genetic information is contained in nucleic acid" would have been falsified. I can make the same sort of pseudo-falsification with creationism. "Finding the missing link between land mammals and whales will falsify the proposition that they were created separate." You find a fossil with characteristics of both and I say either "They're not related" or "Those two are related, but they're not related to insects." You haven't falsified creationism -- you've just modified it.

:::::::Copyright laws prevent me from including the text here, but I would urge you to read '''http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/''' It presents 30 evidences supporting common descent ''including falsification tests''! [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::I've read them -- but in my opinion, they do not provide experiments to test ''the point of contention'' -- common ancestry. They provide ''hypothetical findings'' that could ''alter'' evolution, and which are ''consistent'' with creation. That's not falsificationism in any meaningful sense. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::To give but one falsification test for common descent, show that a single-celled organism can not evolve into multi-cellular form. Common descent requires this to be true for evolution to occur. Proving it would refute common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::It's virtually impossible to prove something impossible -- one can only point to the absence of evidence that it ''did'' happen, and the myriad difficulties it would have to overcome. (e.g. prove it's impossible to fly at the speed of light -- it might be impossible now, but that might only be because ''we don't know how''). A better example, I think, would be the evolution of sexual reproduction. Which came first, the male or the female? The egg or the sperm? One without the other is useless. Both had to appear at the same time. And both are enormously complex, even in their simplest forms. Nobody's provided any plausible explanation as to how it happened. All the efforts to provide such an explanation strike me as absurd. Does that mean it's ''impossible?'' Naw. It might have happened -- we just might not know how. But please don't call it scientific, because it's not. It's bald speculation, devoid of experimental or observational support. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] closing remarks:

The problem is not that common descent is potentially falsifiable, the problem is that the level of proof requested in this forum is impossible meet.

The first clue came with the discussion of the falsifiability of the age of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Space photograph. After reading irrefutable falsification criteria, Ungst made the argument that if two of the criteria were falsified, the proposition would still be theoretically possible. This level of falsification far beyond normal levels of proof. For the theoretical possibility to be true, two alternative theories would have to be proved.

When presented with the potential falsification of unified genetic code, Ungst argues that is invalid because evolution will adapt it's theories to accommodate the falsification. ''the theory of evolution could be altered to say...'' Falsification results invalidate the original theory. Arguing that an alternative theory might be the presented to explain the data points, does not negate the original falsification. That a new theory might be proposed is completely irrelevant.

Again, when faced with a link containing 29+ falsification tests, it was summarily dismissed because ''they do not provide experiments''. Not all proofs are performed in a laboratory. For example, fossil evidence.

Again, when presented with the single-cell the multiple-cell falsification proof, which would unequivocally refute common descent, it was dismissed as ''virtually impossible to prove''.

Why summarily dismiss perfectly valid proofs? Ungst answers this question with two statements. First, ''It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable.'' Second, ''I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions'' Given that creationism is not falsifiable, it removes itself from the realm of science. The only way left for creationism to compete with evolution is to try to also remove common descent from the realm of science by claiming there are no valid falsification arguments for evolution.

As demonstrated, there are multiple valid potential falsification proofs for common descent.

Quod erat demonstrandum [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 10:00, 27 Jun 2007 (PDT) 
p.s. [http://www.google.com/search?q=virgin.birth+zoo Which came first the egg or the sperm?]

''The first clue came with the discussion of the falsifiability of the age of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Space photograph. After reading irrefutable falsification criteria, Ungst made the argument that if two of the criteria were falsified, the proposition would still be theoretically possible. This level of falsification far beyond normal levels of proof. For the theoretical possibility to be true, two alternative theories would have to be proved.''
: You're stating without showing that the falsification criteria are irrefutable. I believe I have refuted them. Let me reiterate: Even if light didn't redshit, the stars we observe might still be 12 billion light years away -- that would just be a lot farther in kilometers. Why? Because our measurement of distant stars has nothing to do with redshift. You failed to address my point. Similarly, alternative forms of genetic information were found to exist, both common descent and creationism might be true. Evolution could be true and either both forms arose separately, one arose form the other, or both diverged. Creationism could be true and either both forms were created separately, or one descended from the other. The proposed falsifications would ''not'' falsify the core propositions. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

''When presented with the potential falsification of unified genetic code, Ungst argues that is invalid because evolution will adapt it's theories to accommodate the falsification. ''the theory of evolution could be altered to say...'' Falsification results invalidate the original theory. Arguing that an alternative theory might be the presented to explain the data points, does not negate the original falsification. That a new theory might be proposed is completely irrelevant.''
:The original theory ''was not falsified.'' The original theory was "common descent." A ''different'' proposition, "All life shares a common genetic structure," was falsified and replaced with "All life does ''not'' share a common genetic structure." The original theory, "common descent" was not touched. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

''Again, when faced with a link containing 29+ falsification tests, it was summarily dismissed because ''they do not provide experiments''. Not all proofs are performed in a laboratory. For example, fossil evidence.''
:First, I did not dismiss them that way. Second, fossil evidence is not "proof" -- it is ''evidence'' that can be interpretted in a number of different ways, consistent with both evolution and creation. You haven't grasped falsification, my friend. Falsification involves ''testing''. You can't "test" fossil evidence to determine whether it evolved or was created. You can look at it, and decide what you think reasonably explains the facts. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Again, when presented with the single-cell the multiple-cell falsification proof, which would unequivocally refute common descent, it was dismissed as ''virtually impossible to prove''.
:You are consistently misrepresenting what I am writing. I did not say it was virtually impossible to prove -- I said "it is virtually impossible to prove something is impossible, because someone can always say "Maybe we just don't know how yet!" I provided you with an example. You didn't respond. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

''Why summarily dismiss perfectly valid proofs? Ungst answers this question with two statements. First, ''It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable.'' Second, ''I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions'' Given that creationism is not falsifiable, it removes itself from the realm of science. The only way left for creationism to compete with evolution is to try to also remove common descent from the realm of science by claiming there are no valid falsification arguments for evolution.''
:You are stating, without showing, that your "proofs" are perfectly valid. I am telling you they are ''not'' valid, because they do ''not'' meet the criteria of falsificationism. I have explained why above. You are ignoring my arguments. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

p.s. [http://www.google.com/search?q=virgin.birth+zoo Which came first the egg or the sperm?]
:This doesn't answer the question. Parthenogenic species have the capacity to produce both sexually and asexually. The question of how they developed the capacity for ''sexual'' reproduction remains unanswered. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

As demonstrated, there are multiple valid potential falsification proofs for common descent.
Quod erat demonstrandum [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 10:00, 27 Jun 2007 (PDT) 
:Not yet. But a valiant effort. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

=== Religion bending to science ===

Note that falsifiability is itself not a universally accepted criterion for a valid hypothesis.[http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/16478]

Setting that aside, allow me to make a different point by using [[Falsifiable|an example from your own wiki]]:

"'Joe beats his children because his father beat him' is unfalsifiable, because we cannot perform a test in which Joe was not beaten by his father, and see if Joe still beats his children."

The above is true enough, but only in respect to Joe. What we can do, and have done, is observe randomly sampled families and draw the logical inference that parents who were beaten as children are more likely to beat their own children. So what might not be falsifiable on an individual level, may indeed be so on a broader level.

As to the question at hand, I would only note that religion conceded the point of natural selection to science, such as it has, only after it was left with no other choice. Indeed, scientific advancement can be marked by noting the religious concessions to discoveries which have refuted its claims. In effect, religion is continuously "evolving" to maintain its privileged position in society -- it cannot hope to maintain that position while standing by its previous claims which are now openly mocked by society. Before secularism, there was no need to concede, as religion held all the power and could simply burn the books and, if need be, the bodies of scientists who threatened that societal pride of place.

We are getting nearer every day to a time when religion will be left standing on its tip-toes on the last piece of disputed ground -- its "ace in the hole," if you will -- when the entirety of its ancient texts and dogmas will have been necessarily abandoned. I believe Ungtss has already hit upon that last and most important scrap: there really is no way to ''satisfactorily'' falsify something like common descent or the big bang. Of course, logical inference has already been reached to such a degree that those things are considered working theories, but there will always be enough wiggle room there for religion to have a voice. It might want to begin cultivating that ground aggressively right now, while it still can, as the rest of it will soon be on the historical ash heap.

The good news for freethinkers is that religion will forever be squirming under the glaring light of science, without so much as a scrap of evidence to justify its use of words like "law," "theory," or even "hypothesis" to describe its supernatural explanations for natural but unexplainable phenomena. [[User:Bicycle|Bicycle]] 20:45, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

: Your example about Joe is interesting, but I don't see how it meaningfully applies to evolution.
: As for the rest of your post...
: "''...religion conceded the point of natural selection to science, such as it has, only after it was left with no other choice.''": On the contrary, natural selection was first described by a creationist. So there's been no "concession" there.
: "''...scientific advancement can be marked by noting the religious concessions to discoveries which have refuted its claims.''": I'd love to know what you are talking about here. Most early scientific advancement was done ''within Christianity''. And I know of nothing since that fits your description. The only things that "science" has "discovered" that ''some'' religious groups have conceded to are things like evolution, which is not a ''discovery'' but a ''explanation'' of how we came to be.
: "''In effect, religion is continuously "evolving" to maintain its privileged position in society ...''": Biblical Christianity is not "evolving". It stays true to the Bible, which doesn't change.
: "''...it cannot hope to maintain that position while standing by its previous claims which are now openly mocked by society''": The sections of Christianity that are falling by the wayside are the sections that have compromised with the atheistic worldview. The sections standing firm against that are growing. And Christianity has been mocked for centuries, yet it is still here and arguably as strong as ever.
: "''Before secularism, there was no need to concede, as religion held all the power and could simply burn the books and, if need be, the bodies of scientists who threatened that societal pride of place.''": Yet there was very little of that going on, particularly with the Church encouraging and facilitating science.
: "''The good news for freethinkers is that religion will forever be squirming under the glaring light of science, without so much as a scrap of evidence to justify its use of words like "law," "theory," or even "hypothesis" to describe its supernatural explanations for natural but unexplainable phenomena''": You wish! Christianity has nothing to fear from true science, only from atheistic views such as evolution promoted under the guise of being science. And creationists have just as much evidence as evolutionists: the difference is in how that evidence is interpreted. Creationists are free to see whether supernatural design or natural forces formed something. Atheists, if they are to remain atheists, are not free (so much for "''free''thinkers"!) to consider the first possibility, unnecessarily restricting themselves to the second, and thereby closing their minds to even considering a possible explanation.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::"''Your example about Joe is interesting, but I don't see how it meaningfully applies to evolution.''"
::I alluded to the relationship, but was perhaps unclear. Just as we can use the example of Joe (with its unfalsifiable but reasonable assumption that he was beaten as a child) to draw a logical inference that applies to the broader question of child abuse, so to can we use the unfalsifiable but reasonable concept of common descent in the broader picture of evolutionary theory.
::"''...natural selection was first described by a creationist.''"
::The kernel of the idea goes back at least as far as ancient Greece. What the overwhelming majority of people are referring to when they say "natural selection" are the ideas as formulated by Darwin. If you prefer some other name, you're welcome to it, but we'll be speaking a different language and on different terms. If you want to argue Darwin's religious beliefs, that's a whole other kettle of fish, but I hope we can agree that to call him a "creationist" would be quite a stretch, whatever his views on "first cause" may have been.
::"''Most early scientific advancement was done ''within Christianity''.''"
::This always makes me laugh. We will never know what people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance actually believed. To be sure, geniuses and artists have always used religion as their outlet, but what choice did they have? Little to none, depending on the times and climes. History is replete with examples of "radical" new ideas being squelched by religion. Please don't insult me with your feigned incredulity on that matter. Also, when you say "some religious groups," I know that you're hiding a "not my sect" card for later. Please don't play that one, OK?
::"''[Biblical Christianity] stays true to the Bible, which doesn't change.''"
::Horse hockey. Christians have abandoned innumerable "customs" of the past. Shall I name a few? I'd rather avoid opening my Bible for quotations, it always depresses me to read about the cruel slaughter and human depravity that it mandates.
::"''The sections of Christianity that are falling by the wayside are the sections that have compromised with the atheistic worldview.''"
::There is no such thing as an atheistic worldview. I say this as a person who agrees with this wiki's understanding that the definition of "atheism" is what some atheists like to call "strong atheism." That is to say, it is more than a mere '''dis'''belief in deities, it is '''un'''belief, which is a somewhat stronger statement. Regardless, there is no common "worldview" among atheists, any more than there is one among people who profess a strong belief that there is no such person as Santa Claus -- one of the few beliefs that I'm sure you and I both share. Common unbelief does not constitute a worldview; common belief, however, ''may'' (or may not), depending how deeply entrenched that belief has become. Islamism would be an example of a common belief taken to such an extreme that it has become the predominant worldview in some cultures. There have been similarly fanatical Christian cultures, but the world is fortunate enough to have had several centuries longer to temper Christianity than Islam. Theists like to claim that atheists have a common worldview in order to make debate more convenient, but I'm sure you will agree that this is unfair (not to mention intellectually lazy), just as it would be unfair of me to presume that all Catholics and Protestants share the same worldview just because they all happen to be Christian.
::"''The sections standing firm against that are growing. And Christianity has been mocked for centuries, yet it is still here and arguably as strong as ever.''""
::Growing by what measure? New church construction has followed a downward trend for many generations now, while the total American population has been rising fast. The various Christian denominations may be unifying as a voice against atheism, in a desperate (and rare) act of solidarity, but that's the most you can claim in regards to Christianity "growing." (I've seen no evidence of this solidarity occurring, but I'll throw you that bone.) As to being mocked for centuries, that is indeed true from without, but not from within. Not until it was safe to do so without being slaughtered by the self-appointed defenders of God's reputation.
::"''...there was very little [burning of books and people] going on, particularly with the Church encouraging and facilitating science.''"
::Again with the comedy. Except this time it's not so funny, because you've mingled it with the disgusting, unthinkable, unforgivable, yet typical Christian behavior of downplaying centuries of documented, well-established, universally-accepted history. Oceans of blood stain the robes of your religion. Its denial of this is not unlike Holocaust-denial, and is equally offensive and infuriating.
::"''Christianity has nothing to fear from true science, only from atheistic views such as evolution promoted under the guise of being science.''"
::Does Christianity not fear being made fools of for believing in a 6,000 year old universe? Oh that's right, most Christians conceded that one long ago. Only a few fringe sects still feel no shame in preaching that nonsense. I know I asked you not to play your "get out of jail" card, but if you wish to distance yourself from the kook fringe, this would be a good place to do it. I guess I can't begrudge you that.
::"''...creationists have just as much evidence as evolutionists...''"
::OK, shoot. I'm listening. Show me your evidence that a supernatural deity named Yahweh created the universe.
::"''...the difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.''"
::Exactly. And whereas evolutionary theory at least ''attempts'' to draw logical inferences for things like common descent, the creationist "interpretation" is to posit fanciful mythologies that any child can see through.
::"''Creationists are free to see whether supernatural design or natural forces formed something.''"
::How convenient! With such freedom, creationists can explain away any problem! When in doubt, "God did it!" That method is certainly much less stressful than trying to piece together the admittedly maddening puzzle using science as a guide. Unfortunately for creationists, it's also much less plausible.
::"''Atheists, if they are to remain atheists, are not free (so much for "''free''thinkers"!) to consider the first possibility, unnecessarily restricting themselves to the second, and thereby closing their minds to even considering a possible explanation.''"
::Something tells me that the word "freethinker" bothers you; I would be quite pleased if that were the case. The word should bother you, as it is a clear rejection of the stifling religious environment that trapped the human mind for centuries. That doesn't make it synonymous with "atheist," however, although the two words are at least cousins, in that freethought will necessarily lead to agnosticism (but not atheism). You are correct that atheists have closed the door on deities, and that if one were to suddenly appear to an atheist, s/he would be forced to reconsider their position. Likewise, if a believer were to be shown similarly irrefutable proof that there were no deities, they would have some 'splaining to do. I don't think either side has anything to worry about.
::Anyway, thanks for not stifling me (it happens a LOT, I assure you). I've enjoyed the discussion so far. :-) [[User:Bicycle|Bicycle]] 14:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...we use the unfalsifiable but reasonable concept of common descent in the broader picture of evolutionary theory.''": Sorry, but that's no clearer. In the example of Joe we can run actual test to find out whether the claims are true in a general sense, then apply them to Joe. How is similarly done with evolution?
::: "''What the overwhelming majority of people are referring to when they say "natural selection" are the ideas as formulated by Darwin.''": But that's the point. The idea of natural selection "formulated by Darwin" was ''not'' formulated by him, but ''adopted'' by him. It was explained by a creationist just before Darwin, and Darwin seems to have got it from the creationist (Darwin had a copy of the creationist's book explaining it.)
::: "''We will never know what people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance actually believed.''": I'm not talking about people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance, whoever they might be. I'm talking about the leading lights of the scientific revolution. We know what they believed, because they wrote about it.
::: "''Please don't insult me with your feigned incredulity on that matter.''": Please don't insult me with bigoted nonsense.
::: "''Also, when you say "some religious groups," I know that you're hiding a "not my sect" card for later. Please don't play that one, OK?''": Please don't play the game of lumping all theistic religions in as one, whilst holding atheistic religions in a separate category as somehow special. If you are going to make accusations, specify who you are making them against. Don't just refer to "religions" as though they are all the same, the various religions are very different.
::: "''Horse hockey. Christians have abandoned innumerable "customs" of the past. Shall I name a few?''": Yes. But don't include people who ignore the plain teaching of the Bible, such rejecting six-day creation, and don't treat biblical laws applicable to Old Testament Jews as applicable now, as so many bibliosceptics do so often.
::: "''There is no such thing as an atheistic worldview.''": Can I now say "horse hockey"? There, I guess that proves it. Granted there is not a single atheistic worldview, just as there is not a single Christian worldview. But that's about all I'll grant.
::: "''Common unbelief does not constitute a worldview; common belief, however, may ...''": Atheism is a ''belief'' in no God. Calling it an ''un''belief is inaccurate.
::: "''Theists like to claim that atheists have a common worldview in order to make debate more convenient, but I'm sure you will agree that this is unfair (not to mention intellectually lazy)...''": It's not unfair at all, and certainly not as unfair as lumping all religions in together. Certainly, as I said above, there are variations on the worldview, but there's also common elements, and there's nothing wrong with addressing those common elements in common.
::: "''...it would be unfair of me to presume that all Catholics and Protestants share the same worldview just because they all happen to be Christian.''": Yet here you are, not just lumping Catholics and Protestants together, but religions in general!
::: "''Growing by what measure?''": Numbers of attendees at churches.
::: "''New church construction has followed a downward trend for many generations now, while the total American population has been rising fast.''": There is a trend (here in Australia at least) to hire existing premises rather than build new. Also, the number of churches being built ignores what I actually said, that ''some'' sections are falling by the wayside and ''some'' sections are growing. Isn't it fairly obvious that the sections that are falling away would thus be making church buildings available for the growing section to make use of? Furthermore, I wasn't talking about just America. There is more to the world than just America, you know.
::: "''Again with the comedy. Except this time it's not so funny, because you've mingled it with the disgusting, unthinkable, unforgivable, yet typical Christian behavior of downplaying centuries of documented, well-established, universally-accepted history.''": Really? I don't think so. Sociologist and agnostic (apparently) Rodney Stark wrote:
{{QuoteBox|...for more than three centuries [the claim of inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science] has been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on faith. From Thomas Hobbes through Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, false claims about religion and science have been used as weapons in the battle to “free” the human mind from the “fetters of faith”.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4115]}}
::: "''Oceans of blood stain the robes of your religion.''": Nowhere near as much as stain the religion of atheism.[http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm]
::: "''Its denial of this is not unlike Holocaust-denial, and is equally offensive and infuriating.''": It appears that you are the one in denial.
::: "''Does Christianity not fear being made fools of for believing in a 6,000 year old universe?''": We can't be "made" fools for believing the truth.
::: "''Only a few fringe sects still feel no shame in preaching that nonsense.''": It has wide support among a number of Christian denominations, definitely including major (i.e. non-fringe) ones. And it is you who is spouting nonsense. A 6,000 year old Earth is not nonsense.
::: "''...if you wish to distance yourself from the kook fringe, this would be a good place to do it.''": I believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth and I'm no kook.
::: "''Show me your evidence that a supernatural deity named Yahweh created the universe.''": I didn't make myself clear. When I said that creationists have just as much evidence as the evolutionists, what I meant was that we have the ''same'' evidence. You are familiar with the evidence the evolutionists use? That's the evidence I'm talking about. Just different explanations for the evidence.
::: "''...whereas evolutionary theory at least attempts to draw logical inferences for things like common descent...''": Based on their naturalistic presumptions.
::: "''...the creationist "interpretation" is to posit fanciful mythologies that any child can see through.''": Really? Then perhaps you could explain why so many evolutionists have become creationists ''because of the evidence''. The point is, your allegation is merely an assertion based on your ideology. It has no basis in fact.
::: "''How convenient! With such freedom, creationists can explain away any problem! When in doubt, "God did it!"''": That is ''not'' what I said, and ''not'' what I meant. I'd appreciate you not constructing straw-man argument to demolish.
::: "''Something tells me that the word "freethinker" bothers you...''": It connotes an air of superiority which is unjustified.
::: "''...the stifling religious environment that trapped the human mind for centuries...''": That "stifling environment" that gave rise to science? Try again.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Evolution Is False ==

For the sake of argument, assume that all the theories contained by evolution are false. What now? [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 17:36, 25 Jun 2007 (PDT)
:Your hypo is too theoretical to be useful. Nobody's arguing that it ''is'' "totally false." Evolution contains a lot of theories that are obviously true. Variation and natural selection is demonstrable and obvious. If ''every theory contained by evolution were false,'' we'd have to reexamine everything we know about life. But nobody's arguing that "everything contained by evolution is false." Creationists are arguing that some of the things are true, some things are false, and some things are unfalsifiable. "Evolution" is too broad a label. We need to be more precise in our analysis. The key question to me is, "What if ''common ancestry'' is false?" [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:55, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

The entire article is about how evolution could be proved wrong (which it can't), however the argument is never turned around. Creationism is not falsifiable. If you are to debate a subject, you must give BOTH sides of the argument. {{unsigned|DrCody}}

:No, this article is ''not'' about how evolution can be proved wrong; it's about how it ''can't'' be proved wrong (as you agree), i.e. how it is ''unfalsifiable''.

:And you are incorrect to claim that the argument is never turned around. On the contrary, the argument is ''usually'' how creation is unfalsifiable, but rarely is ''that'' argument turned around to see if evolution itself is also unfalsifiable.

:I agree that the creation model itself is also unfalsifiable ''in principle'' (although specific claims about it ''are'' falsifiable). So creation and evolution are therefore both in the same boat. Agreed?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:38, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

== What is science? ==

Falsifiablity is only one criteria for scientific discovery.

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/science.html
http://www.aapt.org/Policy/whatissci.cfm
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0025.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761557105

[[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
: Falsifiability is necessary but not sufficient for a particular proposition to be scientific. The point of this article is that the controversial aspects of evolution are not falsifiable. The fact that aspects of creationism are also not falsifiable (which is not in dispute) does not change the fact that ''evolution'' is not falsifiable, and is therefore not scientific. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== Edit summary ==

Rewrote definition of falsifiability as the corrent definition is incorrect; falsifiability is NOT a complete test of the scientific validity of a concept in and of itself, and not strictly necessary for a proposition to be considered scientific except in the philosophy of science of certain non-bayensians.

Updated definitions of evolution to reflect current trends in biological research.

Elaborated on possible tests of evolution

Provided context for quotes from evolutionists.

[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 17:21, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
: I like some of your wording changes, but other of your changes are more problematic. For example, you say "''However, natural selection as the sole driving force of evolution is an outdated concept ...''", as though the previous paragraph said that natural selection ''was'' the sole factor. But it didn't. It said "''if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended ... '''by variation and''' natural selection alone''" (my emphasis). So your "rebuttal" of the previous paragraph is not a rebuttal at all. And it merely points out that ''particular models'' of evolution make some testable predictions, ignoring that the whole point is that evolution is so flexible that ''evolution itself'' is not thereby challenged, just the particular models.
: Also, you "counter" the quote from Whitten with a later quote, but the later quote really ''confirms'' the earlier quote, that no experiment can challenge the theory of evolution, i.e., it's not testable.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

: I have serious problems with the added possible falsifications of evolution, as follows:
:* Just because someone proposes some possible falsification doesn't mean that it really ''would'' falsify it. The article already has examples of proposed falsifications which were found (such as magnets and wheels), but the hypothesis survived anyway: that is, evolutionists did ''not'' consider it falsified by the supposed falsifications! So would these fare any better? See my last paragraph, below.
:* Earlier in the article it says that "A scientific theory seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions." But do these proposed falsifications really propose ''testable'' predictions"? They seem to be more in the category of "if we happen to find" rather than real testable predictions. Also, testable predictions need to distinguish between the hypothesis and competing ideas. Creationism accepts that mutations accumulate, we already know that they accumulate, so proposing that the discovery that they ''can't'' accumulate as a testable prediction of evolution is nothing but hand-waving.
:* How would direct observation of the creation of life falsify evolution? That some being is found to be capable of creating life doesn't mean that evolution can't (also) occur.
:* The one about chimeras seems very contrived. What is a platypus, for example, if not a chimera? Okay, it's perhaps not a "true" chimera, but that's the ''contrived'' part. The point really is that creatures from different lines that have similar features are actually quite common, but are "explained" as "convergent evolution". But again, this has failed to falsify evolution (because it truly is not falsifiable).
:* The last one, about dissimilar DNA, is too vague. How dissimilar is dissimilar? Human and ape DNA ''is'' dissimilar, and too dissimilar to be explained by evolution. But again, this has failed to falsify it.
: I've heard various proposals on how evolution could be falsified, but none so far seem convincing to me. I therefore think that the only proposed falsifications that should be included in the article are those made by professional or widely-accepted evolutionists. The first three are from TalkOrigins, so they can stand (pointing out their flaws), but the fourth, unsourced, I will remove.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Hi Philip, I'll try to address your concerns as best I can here:

I think a great deal of the problem is a lack of distinction between three concepts: evolution, natural selection and common origin. While all three support each other, they're separate concepts that are all being lumped together and referred to as evolution.

The Merriam Webster's applicable definition of evolution is as follows (the other definitions are unrelated to biology):

4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Essentially, this is in line with the first definition of evolution, and essentially regarded as fact by most scientists.

Natural selection is a proposed mechanism by which evolution may occur. I'm pretty sure you're more than familiar with it, so I won't bother detailing it, but the important distinction is that disproving natural selection does not mean disproving evolution. The other important point on natural selection is that modern evolutionary theory has itself evolved and only considers natural selection one of many forces driving evolution. For instance, the discovery of horizontal gene transfer revealed that DNA can actually be exchanged between different organisms coming into contact with each other. There are a host of factors at play beyond natural selection and variation by mutation, so this aspect of the definition is somewhat misleading.

The theory of common descent of course is the theory that all living organisms descend from a common ancestor, which is the point the second definition speaks to. It's important to realize that this is not the same thing as the most primitive form of life or the first living organism. In fact, research supports the theory that our common ancestor was not a "protocell" or even a single celled being, but a primitive multicellular organism: [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/12/6854]
However, common descent is not necessary for evolution to hold, and the opposite is true as well; it's hypothetically possible for the descendants of a single ancestor to be wildly different for reasons unrelated to evolution. After all, if you're a creationist, you must believe in the possibility of divine intervention. Transformationism is the idea that organisms can evolve, but have evolved from multiple ancestors instead of a common one.

* The test of falsifiability is simply whether a theory could POTENTIALLY be falsified based on a test of its predictions. If it IS falsified, the next step is to adjust the theory to account for the discrepancies. Theories are not static, unchanging things, but working models that are adjusted to account for observation. That being said, the argument about wheels and magnets is essentially an older version of the doctrine of intelligent design; namely that the discovery of biological structures with no possible evolutionary path would invalidate evolution. The discovery of wheels and magnets in nature has nothing to do with evolution unless we're talking about wheels and magnets in biological structures, and even then, only if no reason could be found that a less evolved structure could be advantageous. The existence of wheels and magnets alone, even in a biological structure would NOT be a test of evolution. Unfortunately the current treatment of Haldane's quote lacks the context to make this distinction.

* All the proposed tests are logically possible, but not necessarily logistically. This isn't a strike against the theory though because falsifiability only requires that the theory be CAPABLE of being tested, not necessarily testable with our current technology. Testing the theory of relativity requires either the technology to accelerate matter to fantastic speeds and incredibly accurate clocks. Had we not invented particle accelerators or atomic clocks, it's likely we still would not have tested Einstein's theories. That being said, the lack of this technology would not have affected the falsifiability of relativity. Testable predictions do NOT need to distinguish between the hypothesis and competing ideas. The example of gravity in this article is a perfect example of this. The theory of gravitation predicts the rate at which an apple will fall from a tree (possibly injuring any physicists sitting beneath it) and because this can be tested the theory is falsifiable. However, it does not rule out the possibility that said apple falls to the ground for reason other than gravity. The discovery that mutations can't accumulate is actually would falsify evolution wholesale, and so it's a legitimate test, just as testing whether apples don't fall. The fact that the results of the test do not falsify the theory is irrelevant. If the question is whether the overarching theory of evolution can potentially be falsified, testing whether mutations can accumulate within a species is a valid test, not just hand waving.

* The platypus is a monotreme like the echidnas (which also lay eggs.) While its bill superficially resembles that of a bird, it's actually an elongated pliable snout with covered in sensitive skin. Its spines are poisonous, but the venom is chemically unlike that of snakes and reptiles, or any other animal for that matter. A true chimera would incorporate elements that were structurally, not just superficially, identical. Similarity is not enough to qualify as a chimera, and not all chimeras would falsify evolution. The lineage of monotremes diverges from that of other mammals from a point far in prehistory when mammals first began to evolve from reptiles, explaining why they share characteristics with them (i.e. laying eggs.) The discovery of a chimera composed of elements from organisms whose phylogeny is widely divergent would thereby disprove evolution.

* Direct observation: If we observed new organisms being created that did not inherit characteristics of their progenitors, clearly evolution would be disproven.

* Dissimilar DNA: if an organism was shown to be less similar to a phylogenetically close organism than a phylogenetically distant one, evolution would be disproved. Example: if humans were found to be more similar genetically to chickens than apes.

If you read Whitten's quote carefully, you'll not he speaks about challenging "the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution" and not about evolution per se. The article is about the institutional bias against challenging established viewpoints. In his original quote, you note that he states "they may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions." If it's even possible to test these predictions, clearly evolution is falsifiable! [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 08:56, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

: A lack of clear definition is certainly a problem, and I agree that natural selection is distinct from evolution (although many evolutionists conflate the two), but common ancestry is a key part of the definition of evolution. Without it, you don't have evolution, but something else, such as creation. On the other hand, this is one of the problems with evolution: The term is so flexible that it can cover almost everything, whether that be descent from a single common ancestor or descent from multiple common ancestors, descent with modification or merely a change in allele frequencies. The term is so flexible that ''everything'' (except creation) comes under the umbrella. Thus you can potentially falsify key parts of evolution, such as descent form a common ancestor, and you ''still'' haven't falsified evolution, because it can mean something else quite different! In other words, the concept cannot even be nailed down enough to be ''able'' to falsify it.
: As for "research" supporting a theory of a multicellular organism, the paper you linked to seems to be very short on actual research! Rather, it is wild imagination, a just-so story.
: The wheels and magnets ''are'' in biological structures. The rest of that paragraph of yours basically tried to explain away the fact that a proposed falsification of evolution ''was'' put to the test, evolution failed, but evolution was not thereby falsified! So if falsification tests manage to falsify, but the theory stands anyway, why should we believe that any ''other'' proposed falsifications would actually have the potential to falsify evolution? I've had several people put to me that finding dinosaur fossils in recent strata would falsify it, but I have absolutely no doubt that if such were found (and something equivalent ''has'' been found), evolution would not be falsified, because it would be quite easy to simply say that they didn't die out 65 million years ago after all, without discarding evolution itself.
: You make an interesting point about the difference between logically-possible and logistically-possible falsifications. I'm not disagreeing, but wonder where that leads. Does that mean that 6-day creation 6,000 years ago is falsifiable because, logically though not logistically, we could one day invent a time machine and go back and observe it happening (or not happening)? Or does the falsifiability of creation depend on current thinking about the theoretical possibility of time travel (which has wavered between it not being possible to it being theoretically possible)?
: I understand what you are getting at with potential falsifiability and accumulation of mutations, but let me put an absurd example to you so that I can see how you explain it. Creation (the alternative to evolution that so many say is unscientific because it's not falsifiable) predicts that we exist. Because we can test if we exist, creation is therefore falsifiable. I could probably think of a slightly less absurd example, but hopefully that makes the point.
: I understand why the platypus is not a true chimera, but the point of the chimera example is that evolution supposedly cannot explain it. Neither can it adequately explain many other similarities not due to common descent, but evolution is not thereby falsified, because someone can always invent ''some'' explanation, no matter how fanciful. Also, the chimera example says "chimeras ... unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis". Is such a thing ''possible''? That is, is it ''possible'' to have chimeras ''unable to be explained'' in an evolutionary context? I doubt it, and that's part of the example being contrived. If they occurred, evolutionists would come up with ''some'' explanation. That's the point: it's so flexible it can explain ''anything''. So the argument amounts to saying, "Evolution would be falsified if there something was discovered that couldn't be explained by evolution". Duh!
: Your "explanation" of the direct observation of creation does not explain why evolution would be falsified.
: And the dissimilar DNA argument is just as silly. It basically says that if two organisms were found to be more similar than expected according to the evolutionary family tree (i.e. common descent), then evolution would be wrong. But this has been found numerous times. All that happens is that the family tree is rearranged (you said yourself that the "next step is to adjust the theory to account for the discrepancies") rather than evolution being discarded.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::"(although many evolutionists conflate the two)," - not to mention many creationists. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 10:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Amateur creationists, perhaps, but not the leading ones such as those with Creation Ministries International, the Institution for Creation Research, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: So do you assert that the leading evolutionists make this mistake as well? If so, do you care to name a few examples? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 10:42, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: Essentially, yes. I can't recall any particular ones at the moment, other than what's mentioned in [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2722/ this article] (search for "As does CMI", and read that and the next paragraph). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Er, the only person named there is Darwin, who is hardly representative of current evolutionary science. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:12, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Yes, he's the only one ''named'', but they also refer to the promotion of the peppered moth example of natural selection being used by evolutionists as evidence of ''evolution''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

-
The concept CAN be nailed down enough to falsify it, because every one of the definitions is falsifiable! If evolution is a change in allele frequencies within a population over time, observation of a mechanism that prevents the hereditary passing down of genetic information would falsify evolution. This alone makes ALL of evolution falsifiable, because ALL of evolution would be falsified were this the case.

I'm not arguing that I necessarily agree with everything in the paper, but it serves to support the point that common ancestry does not necessarily descent from a single protocell; it simply means descent from a single gene pool.

The discovery of wheels, magnets, or even nuclear reactors would not disprove evolution unless no evolutionary path could possibly account for them. That being said, this is a really weak falsification, because it presupposes that we never will discover such a path in the future. It's an argument fundamentally based on ignorance, and it's part of the reason ID is so derided.

The arguments about strata are weak too, because there are a host of processes that could account for the distribution of anomalous fossils, one of which is a simple misunderstanding of when species went extinct.

6-day creation 6,000 years ago is eminently falsifiable; the discovery of anything over 6000 years old logically falsifies this. The reason creationism is unfalsifiable is because it relies on supernatural causes.

Creationism does predict (correctly!) that we exist, but presupposes the existance of God, which is not even hypothetically falsifiable.

To qualify as a true chimera to a degree sufficient to disprove evolution, an organism would have to incorporate elements of multiple organisms that are widely separated phylogenetically. This means completely identical; it's perfectly normal for two organisms facing the same pressures to develop the same adaptations. It would falsify evolution to come across a centaur and discover its genome was composed of sections of human DNA and horse DNA, because both evolutionary lines diverged. However, finding a centaur with a unique genome would not falsify evolution.

Evolutionary would be falsified in my example of direct evolution because evolution predicts that organisms inherit characteristics or their progenitors. If two blondes had a brown haired child together, evolution would be disproven, as no possible combination of genes from two blonde haired persons combine to form a genotype for brown hair (this is of course discounting mutation) Essentially, the argument is that if direct observation contradicted evolution's model of heredity (currently the mendellian genetic model) evolution would be disproven.

The phylogenetic tree predates evolutionary theory actually. It's primarily based on morphology (observation of similar characteristics.) The reason that it's important to evolutionary theory is that evolution predicts this sort of heirarchy, predicts that it's because of common descent, and predicts that the distance on this tree will be reflected on the genetic tree of life. While rearrangments have occured, and continue to occur, these are generally due to errors in taxonomy. However, testing the genetic distance between organisms we are reasonably certain are correctly classified and comparing it to the phylogenetic distance allows us to test evolution's prediction that genetics will reflect phylogeny.

While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded, with the exception of an observation that refutes the most basic definition of change in a population over time. Instead, the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution. This new synthesis would still retain the aspects of the previous one that were not affected by the implications of the observation. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 11:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:"''The concept CAN be nailed down enough to falsify it, because every one of the definitions is falsifiable!''": Including definitions (versions) that we've yet to propose? Of course not. As you said, "While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded...Instead, the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution.". And that's precisely the point: Evolution would ''not'' be discarded, because it would not be considered falsified. All that would be falsified are specific versions of the idea, not the idea itself. Even if ''all'' past and current versions are falsified, evolutionists will just invent a new version. Hence falsification is illusory. You've admitted it yourself! As for your exception, again, you are basically saying that the only thing that could possibly falsify it is something that we already know not to be the case. You failed, by the way, to directly answer my point about creation being falsifiable ''because we exist'' (more on that below), as well as my question about it being falsifiable by time travel.
:"''The discovery of wheels, magnets, or even nuclear reactors would not disprove evolution unless no evolutionary path could possibly account for them.''": Again, my point is that a proposed falsification of evolution was put to the test, evolution failed, but the failure is rationalised away. So why couldn't any future failures be rationalised away? You've already admitted that they would be ("...the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution.").
:"''...this is a really weak falsification, because it presupposes that we never will discover such a path in the future.''": Again, my point: ''nothing'' can falsify evolution, because there's always the rationalisation that an evolutionary mechanism will be found. And it could be too, given how flexible the idea is.
:"''6-day creation 6,000 years ago is eminently falsifiable;...''": Thank you for agreeing that young-Earth creationism is falsifiable, and therefore should not be classified as inherently unscientific.
:"''...the discovery of anything over 6000 years old logically falsifies this.''": Assuming the dates are correct, but that's a separate issue.
:"''The reason creationism is unfalsifiable is because it relies on supernatural causes.''": Huh? What has the cause got to do with its falsifiability? Falsifiability is, according to you, based on being able to test predictions made by the theory, not according to its causes.
:"''Creationism does predict (correctly!) that we exist, but presupposes the existance of God, which is not even hypothetically falsifiable.''": Again, what does the cause, or presupposition, have to do with its falsifiability? Nothing. So if it makes a testable and correct prediction, it should be accepted as a valid scientific theory, shouldn't it?
:"''To qualify as a true chimera to a degree sufficient to disprove evolution...''": But would it disprove evolution? Again, "... the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution".
:"''...it's perfectly normal for two organisms facing the same pressures to develop the same adaptations''": Sorry, but that's begging the question. You are ''presuming'' that evolution is capable of doing this in order to argue that evolution can do this. Have you (or any scientist) ever ''observed'' two organisms develop the same adaptations? No.
:"''If two blondes had a brown haired child together, evolution would be disproven, as no possible combination of genes from two blonde haired persons combine to form a genotype for brown hair (this is of course discounting mutation)...''": Huh? Why "discount mutations"? Mutations are an integral part of evolution. You are basically saying that evolution can't explain it without invoking a key feature of evolution! Duh! That's the point, evolutionists could simply invoke mutations! You don't even have to go as far as "...current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution".
:"''While rearrangments have occured, and continue to occur, these are generally due to errors in taxonomy.''": Isn't that what I said to you? You put in the article, "Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms". I replied that they would simply rearrange the tree. You now say that rearrangements are due to error. Of course it would be called "error"! The point is, such things would ''not'' disprove evolution, but just cause someone to say "we got that part of the tree wrong (i.e. an "error"), so we will rearrange it".
:"''While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded...''": Thank you. That's the whole point of all this. Unless you are trying to say that evolution would continue to be accepted in full knowledge that is had been falsified, what you are essentially doing is ''agreeing'' that any falsifications of particular aspects or versions ''would not (because they could not) falsify evolution itself''!! Hence evolution itself is inherently unfalsifiable. If you agree with this, why do you keep disputing it? Is it due to being so philosophically opposed to the only real alternative, special creation, that you have to cling to evolution no matter what? That's the view of many, including, for example, Sir Arthur Keith, who said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.", or D.M.S. Watson who said, "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible"
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

''Including definitions (versions) that we've yet to propose? Of course not.''

This is a straw man argument; you're saying the theory of evolution can't be falsified because we can't falsify formulations of the theory that nobody has thought of yet. No theory could ever be falsifiable by this definition!

''And that's precisely the point: Evolution would not be discarded, because it would not be considered falsified. All that would be falsified are specific versions of the idea, not the idea itself.''

Why on earth would falsifying a theory mean we discard it entirely? Until the discovery of the electron 1897, atomic theory held that atoms were indivisible, the smallest possible form of matter. When the discovery of the electron falsified this, the theory was adjusted to reflect this new information. However, the concept of the atom was not abandoned, simply an untrue proposition about its properties.

''Even if all past and current versions are falsified, evolutionists will just invent a new version. Hence falsification is illusory.''

You're making a critical error here; theories are not static things. Scientists will continue refining the theory of evolution unless it reaches a dead end.

''You've admitted it yourself! As for your exception, again, you are basically saying that the only thing that could possibly falsify it is something that we already know not to be the case.''

But this is still a valid grounds to establish falsifiability. The test of falsifiability isn't whether a theory can be falsified in light of other things we know, or even if it can be falsified with a plausible test. To establish falsifiability, we only need establish that a hypothetical test or observation exists in the realm of logical possibility that would disprove the particular formulation of the theory we're evaluating, not logistical possibility.

''Again, my point is that a proposed falsification of evolution was put to the test, evolution failed, but the failure is rationalized away. So why couldn't any future failures be rationalized away? You've already admitted that they would be''

A theory's falsification does not mean the theory is to be discarded unless the theory can't be modified to account for the results. Science is based on the concept of empirical knowledge. The theories we consider true today stand on the shoulders of those disproven in the past. See the example of the atom above.

''Again, my point: nothing can falsify evolution, because there's always the rationalization that an evolutionary mechanism will be found. And it could be too, given how flexible the idea is.''

This doesn't make sense. You appear to have misunderstood what falsification is. Older syntheses of the theory of evolution have been falsified already, and the current synthesis is as falsifiable as they were.

''"6-day creation 6,000 years ago is eminently falsifiable;...": Thank you for agreeing that young-Earth creationism is falsifiable, and therefore should not be classified as inherently unscientific.
"...the discovery of anything over 6000 years old logically falsifies this.": Assuming the dates are correct, but that's a separate issue.
"The reason creationism is unfalsifiable is because it relies on supernatural causes.": Huh? What has the cause got to do with its falsifiability? Falsifiability is, according to you, based on being able to test predictions made by the theory, not according to its causes.''

The theory that the earth was created by some natural process over 6 days 6000 years ago is falsifiable. It's falsifiable because of the dates; they are the proposition that can be tested. The theory that the earth was created by an omnipotent being such as God is unfalsifiable, because it allows the possibility that said being changed the properties of things to the point that measurement is meaningless. Tools like radiocarbon dating work because we understand the decay of matter as a predictable, natural process. If we add an omnipotent being to a theory in any field, the result of ANY test or measurement becomes inconclusive because said being could manipulate the results in ways that were impossible to detect. For that matter, why are you bothering to argue that creationism is falsifiable if you think falsifiability is illusory?

''"Creationism does predict (correctly!) that we exist, but presupposes the existence of God, which is not even hypothetically falsifiable.": Again, what does the cause, or presupposition, have to do with its falsifiability? Nothing. So if it makes a testable and correct prediction, it should be accepted as a valid scientific theory, shouldn't it?''

No. The presuppositions in a theory are part of the theory itself. If I formulate the theory that "The sky is blue because God decreed it so," does going outside and observing a blue sky prove the existence of God? The theory hinges on the existence of God, so it could be rewritten as "God exists, and decreed the sky to be blue." This theory makes the prediction that the sky is blue, which is correct, but its still not falsifiable because no possible observation exists that could disprove the existence of a God who does not wish to be found. I think you can see pretty clearly how this analog maps to creationism, or any other theory involving God.

''"To qualify as a true chimera to a degree sufficient to disprove evolution...": But would it disprove evolution? Again, "... the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesizing a new theory of evolution".''

I suppose the correct wording here is "to a degree sufficient to falsify the current theory."

''"...it's perfectly normal for two organisms facing the same pressures to develop the same adaptations": Sorry, but that's begging the question. You are presuming that evolution is capable of doing this in order to argue that evolution can do this. Have you (or any scientist) ever observed two organisms develop the same adaptations? No.''

Species of spiders, snakes and shellfish all have developed
poison to defend themselves from predators and assist them in hunting prey, but all of them have developed this ability independently of each other.

''"If two blondes had a brown haired child together, evolution would be disproven, as no possible combination of genes from two blonde haired persons combine to form a genotype for brown hair (this is of course discounting mutation)...": Huh? Why "discount mutations"? Mutations are an integral part of evolution. You are basically saying that evolution can't explain it without invoking a key feature of evolution! Duh! That's the point, evolutionists could simply invoke mutations! You don't even have to go as far as "...current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesizing a new theory of evolution".

Sorry, this one actually was incorrect; I brought up the blondes and brown haired child by accident, having confused it with blue and brown eyes, a classic example taught in genetics classes. Essentially, eye colour is regulated by not one, but two alleles on the locus. To have blue eyes, both must be the allele for blue eyes; if one or the other is not, a different eye colour is produced. We each carry one of these genes from each of our parents.
If both of your parents were blue eyed, then all four alleles in the pool of possible alleles to pass down to you specify blue eyes. Logically then, you must also have blue eyes, because there's no combination of alleles that could be passed to you without causing blue eyes. If you were born with brown eyes, one of three things must have happened. Either some sort of mutation must have happened to alter your genotype during or after the combination of those genes, you must have received genetic information from a source other than your parents such as lateral gene transfer or your eye colour must not be a hereditary characteristic. If the latter is the case, evolution would be falsified.
Numerous tests exist to detect mutation, and lateral gene transfer is also testable, so it's possible to test which of these causes is responsable.

''"While rearrangements have occurred, and continue to occur, these are generally due to errors in taxonomy.": Isn't that what I said to you? You put in the article, "Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms". I replied that they would simply rearrange the tree. You now say that rearrangements are due to error. Of course it would be called "error"! The point is, such things would not disprove evolution, but just cause someone to say "we got that part of the tree wrong (i.e. an "error"), so we will rearrange it".''

The rearrangements in the phylogenetic tree I'm talking about are rearrangements among close cousins, not massive changes like saying birds are descended from apes. If we found genetic evidence of this, evolution would be falsified.

''"While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded...": Thank you. That's the whole point of all this. Unless you are trying to say that evolution would continue to be accepted in full knowledge that is had been falsified, what you are essentially doing is agreeing that any falsifications of particular aspects or versions would not (because they could not) falsify evolution itself!! Hence evolution itself is inherently unfalsifiable. If you agree with this, why do you keep disputing it?''

You've misunderstood the consequences of falsification in science. The basic concept of evolution would only be discarded if the process of formulation/falsification/adjustment/reformu
lation reached a dead end in which no possible adjustment of the theory could account for the observations we've made, or a competing theory was developed that better explained those observations. However, the theory could still be falsifiable at every step along the way; indeed it must be for the cycle to continue. This is true for ALL science, not just evolution.

''Is it due to being so philosophically opposed to the only real alternative, special creation, that you have to cling to evolution no matter what? That's the view of many, including, for example, Sir Arthur Keith, who said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.",''

Can you find a source for this quote other than a creationist website? Do you know of anywhere it's possible to aquire the edition of the Origin of the Species he supposedly stated it in? The guys at talk.origins tried and failed: [ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote81]

''or D.M.S. Watson who said, "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible"''

An exhaustively researched explanation of this quote is available at [http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie031.html]. Taken in the proper context, Watson does not state that the evidence isn't there to support evolution, he simply states that the only competing theories are evolution and creation, and that zoologists thus support evolution by the process of elimination, due to the numerous problems with creationism as a scientific paradigm.

I would argue instead that it's you who is arguing on ideological grounds. You've tried to argue simultaneously that evolution is unfalsifiable and falsified. You vigorously defend the falsifiability of creationism while claiming that falsifiability is an illusion. Finally, you've cherry picked quotes and statistics out of context to support your argument. Are you so philosophically attached to creationism that you're willing to contradict yourself, or are your arguments are founded on a misunderstanding of the philosophy of science? Please don't take this as an insult; for the most part you've made intelligent, logically consistent arguments and presented them with the grace befitting a gentleman, but you seem content to fiddle with the definition of science to fit creationism under its umbrella. I bear no grudge against those who honestly believe in young earth creationism, but it's a religious belief, not a scientific one. That doesn't discount the possibility that its true, but to attempt to define it as science makes a mockery of the scientific method. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 10:48, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::I have just seen this discussion and read it with a great deal of interest... is it possible for Philip Rayment to respond to Xyrophile? Both participants have demonstrated themselves to be respectful and coherent debaters and I think it's important that the discussion continue, since this matter is so important. [[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 09:53, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

2008-09-14T13:52:23Z

Sam99foster: