title stringlengths 1 132 | page_id int64 27 231k | revision_id int64 9.23k 2.78M | timestamp timestamp[s]date 2007-06-01 18:48:36 2026-02-20 03:44:49 | contributor stringlengths 0 51 | is_redirect bool 2
classes | redirect_target stringlengths 2 118 ⌀ | text stringlengths 15 503k | url stringlengths 31 268 | categories listlengths 0 74 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
"I AM" Activity | 199,411 | 2,021,936 | 2018-12-14T11:44:48 | Annanoon | true | Great White Brotherhood | #REDIRECT [[Great_White_Brotherhood#I_AM_related_groups]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/%22I_AM%22_Activity | [] |
"I AM" Movement | 199,517 | 2,053,352 | 2019-03-20T11:32:54 | D | true | Great White Brotherhood | #REDIRECT [[Great White Brotherhood]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/%22I_AM%22_Movement | [] |
"I used to be an atheist" | 183,856 | 2,772,988 | 2025-12-29T07:33:01 | false | null | {{atheism}}
'''"I used to be an atheist"''' is a [[PRATT|trope]], often used by [[Apologist|religious apologists]] <s>usually so they can make lots of money selling books on how they allegedly "saw the light"</s>, in which the speaker asserts that they were previously an [[atheist]] before converting to the [[religion]] they currently follow.<ref>[http://thoughtcatalog.com/austin-wiggins/2016/02/the-religious-journey-of-a-rational-man-away-from-atheism/ I Used To Be An Atheist Until I Could No Longer Rationally Defend It], [[Thought Catalog]].</ref> The [[argument]] is usually that since they were once like you, the arguments and/or experiences that convinced them will likely convince you as well, and that you should follow the same path that they took.
==Flaws==
In essence, it’s just the [[friend argument]], but made in reference towards one's (former) self rather than a current friend. The trope is fallacious because since the person making this argument now thinks differently than they once did, it is virtually impossible for them to reliably describe the way they once were, due to the [[bias]] that the person now has that their current view is correct. This often makes their opinion of their former [[atheist]] self at least somewhat [[Straw_man|straw-manned]]. Indeed, said opinion is often ''extremely'' strawmanned, to the point of making the apologist's claim to have once been an atheist appear dubious.
When someone claims to have once been an atheist, it is usually pretty clear from the way they describe their former selves that their "atheism" was at least somewhat less than well grounded, if not outright made up. Frequently, they seem to define "atheism" as actions like not attending church, using porn, lashing out at authority figures, or other things that are not atheism, but which their religion teaches are wrong. This is sometimes accompanied by comments like "I did all that because I was angry at my pastor", "I refused to accept that I need [[God]] in my life", or for bonus points, "because I [[Atheists hate god|didn't want to follow God's rules]]".<ref>[https://creation.com/atheist-god-hate Why do atheists hate God?]</ref> Other times, their commitment to the idea appears to have been founded on rather shaky ground, such as teenage rebellion (rarely), or abuse at the hands of a religious authority.
Oftentimes, they claim that their "conversion" had come about upon meeting someone who didn't trigger the same reaction from them ("I befriended a Christian who told me that Christians weren't all like that, that my abuser would be punished after death, and that I could be free of all this anger by embracing [[Jesus]].").{{cn}} For obvious reasons, such a situation is very unlikely in most countries, where they would be more likely to encounter different types of people who are [[religious]], since theists are currently the majority almost everywhere on [[Earth|the planet]].
==History==
The trope is almost as old as Christianity itself, with Paul playing up his hatred and persecution of Christians before he himself converted. In his case, though, he converted from Judaism, another religion.
The "I am the best at repenting because I used to be the biggest sinner" line of argument also crops up with [[Augustine]], who gives us the sob story that he converted to Christianity when he — despite being illiterate at the time — was commanded by an angel "Tolle! Lege!" and pointed towards a Bible, which he — [[miracle]] of miracles — [[Bullshit|read, devoured, understood, and which made him convert on the spot]].
In more recent times, Christian [[apologists]] like [[C.S. Lewis]], [[Kirk Cameron]], and [[Lee Strobel]] have used their conversion stories in their writings. It also appears to be very popular on Christian websites, who try to convince others that their experiences (like [[near-death experience]]s) prove the existence of (the locally popular) God. In addition, they also seem to be very popular on anti-atheist websites, like the [[Freedom From Atheism Foundation]], a <s>[[webshite]]</s> website/[[Facebook]] page on which right-wing Christians [[Persecution complex|whine about nonexistent injustices]] done to them by [[atheists]] and how [[Reductio ad Stalinum|all atheists are a bunch of little Joseph Stalin clones]],<ref>[https://www.facebook.com/FFAF.International Freedom From Atheism Foundation (FFAF)]</ref> in a fashion not unlike [[MGTOW]] with women.
==See also==
*[[Zeal of the convert]]
*[[Straw man]] - what often happens after you change your views
{{otherlang
|fr=« J'étais athée autrefois »}}
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:I used to be an atheist}}
[[Category:Fallacious arguments]]
[[Category:Clichéed sayings]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/%22I_used_to_be_an_atheist%22 | [
"Fallacious arguments",
"Clichéed sayings"
] | |
"Lightcone Infrastructure" | 226,373 | 2,656,198 | 2024-06-18T02:09:48 | Bongolian | true | LessWrong | #redirect [[LessWrong]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/%22Lightcone_Infrastructure%22 | [] |
$1 | 220,117 | 2,496,293 | 2022-10-30T02:06:49 | Plutocow | true | United States dollar | #REDIRECT[[United States dollar]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/$1 | [] |
$2 | 220,118 | 2,496,294 | 2022-10-30T02:07:21 | Plutocow | true | United States dollar | #REDIRECT[[United States dollar]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/$2 | [] |
$cientology | 105,379 | 664,471 | 2010-10-05T14:13:23 | Jsonitsac | true | Church of Scientology | #REDIRECT [[Church of Scientology]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/$cientology | [] |
'Gina tingles | 174,176 | 1,507,596 | 2015-08-11T12:45:07 | David Gerard | true | Manosphere glossary | #REDIRECT [[Manosphere_glossary#.27Gina_tingles]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/'Gina_tingles | [] |
'Oumuamua | 225,517 | 2,630,677 | 2024-02-29T20:53:22 | Plutocow | true | ʻOumuamua | #REDIRECT [[ʻOumuamua]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/'Oumuamua | [] |
((())) | 222,583 | 2,559,473 | 2023-07-04T15:44:01 | true | Triple parentheses | #REDIRECT[[Triple parentheses]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/((())) | [] | |
((( echo ))) | 183,394 | 1,708,882 | 2016-07-29T16:53:51 | Adrian232 | true | Triple parentheses | #REDIRECT [[Triple parentheses]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/(((_echo_))) | [] |
(((echo))) | 183,393 | 1,708,881 | 2016-07-29T16:52:25 | Adrian232 | true | Triple parentheses | #REDIRECT [[Triple parentheses]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/(((echo))) | [] |
.clos | 184,322 | 1,736,829 | 2016-09-25T12:00:07 | Deku-shrub | true | Fake top level domain names | #redirect [[Fake top level domain names]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/.clos | [] |
/b/ | 103,708 | 1,865,945 | 2017-09-02T03:03:10 | Bigs | true | 4chan | #redirect[[4chan#/b/ — Random]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki//b/ | [] |
/pol/ | 183,014 | 1,865,944 | 2017-09-02T03:01:35 | Bigs | true | 4chan | #REDIRECT [[4chan#/pol/ — Politically incorrect]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki//pol/ | [] |
/r/ChonglangTV | 217,854 | 2,773,425 | 2026-01-01T07:14:57 | Avionfoudingue | false | null | {{alt-right}}
'''/r/ChonglangTV''' (冲浪TV, literally ''Surfing TV'') is a Chinese-language [[Reddit]] community comprised of people from China who hate not only the authoritarian [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP), but also the [[Chinese]] people as a whole. During its period of existence, the subreddit was the headquarters for the ''làngrén'', or ''{{w|Rōnin}}'' (浪人) community, a community of nihilistic Chinese internet dissidents who espoused national self-hatred, and who were formerly based at the Great Wave of Kanagawa subforum of the Baidu Tieba forum (神奈川冲浪里吧).<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20230309072218/https://www.reddit.com/r/real_China_irl/comments/11mltsg/%E4%BB%80%E4%B9%88%E6%98%AF%E9%BC%A0%E4%BA%BA%E6%B5%AA%E4%BA%BA%E6%88%96%E7%A5%9E%E5%8F%8B/</ref>
Since it was banned by [[Reddit]] in March 2022,<ref name=RFA>{{cite news|title=声援乌克兰Reddit中文社区 “冲浪TV”遭封杀 疑涉中共长臂审查|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220305102548/https://www.mingjingnews.com/article/409893-14|date=4 March 2022}}</ref> many of its users have moved to '''/r/CLTV''' and a variety of Discord channels.{{cn}}
ChonglangTV users have an edgy 4chan-like culture that is heavily inspired by ''[[netto-uyoku]]'', the nationalist Japanese right. They use politically-incorrect slurs against Chinese people, make calls to "kill the Chinese" that are of varying levels of seriousness, and often proclaim countries like [[Japan]] as their true home. (See {{w|Jingri}}) Like much of [[alt-right]] rhetoric, there is room for plausible deniability and [[dog whistle|dog whistling]].
ChonglangTV users express disdain for the CCP, combining legitimate criticisms with outright racism, by associating the party's authoritarianism with the "Chinese nature" as a whole. It also make fun of [[Falun Gong]] practitioners and Chinese pro-[[democracy]] activists, whom they see as being [[cuck|too weak]] or too Chinese.
During the 2022 invasion of [[Ukraine]] by [[Russia]], ChonglangTV users launched the form the Great Translation Movement (大翻译运动). The online campaign seeks to undermine the CCP's foreign-facing propaganda, which portrays the country as peace-loving and a neutral party to the conflict, by translating inward-facing propaganda posts by Chinese state media and nationalistic Chinese influencers that cheer on Vladimir Putin's invasion and posting them on [[Twitter]].<ref>{{cite news|title=The Twitter account giving a window into China’s internet|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/great-translation-movement-china-russia-ukraine-rcna25693|first1=Angela|last1=Yang}}</ref> The movement has drawn praise from pro-democracy groups normally made fun of by ChonglangTV users, including anti-CCP political discussion websites like ''Pincong'' and Falun Gong-linked news organizations. It has also been criticism in linking extreme Chinese nationalists with the Chinese population as a whole, which Chonglang has ironically depicted as "bloodthirsty", thus [[Hypocrisy|deserving of extermination]].
== Terminology ==
ChonglangTV posts can be hard to decipher for those not well-versed in its lingo, which includes politically-incorrect and controversial terms, modern Chinese internet slang, and variations thereof based on the homophony and wordplay permitted by the Chinese language that are employed to avoid [[censorship]] by Reddit administrators, who have, allegedly, become more pro-CCP due to Chinese company Tencent's stake in Reddit. /r/CLTV, which remains on Reddit, uses an automod notification to tell users to avoid the un-bowdlerized versions of the terms.
* '''支 (zhī)''': derived from 支那 ({{w|Zhina}} or {{w|Shina}}), an archaic term for China that has now become politically incorrect. 支 may be used as a pejorative adjective to describe something that is, looks, or feels Chinese.
* '''支猪 (zhī zhū)''': literally ''Shina pig'' or ''Ch*nk pig'', is a derogatory term for Chinese people. The term is often replaced with homophones like 蜘蛛 (spider), or even the spider emoji, to avoid censorship.
* '''屠支 (tú zhī)''': this term means "kill [the] Chinese", and may be used in a tongue-in-cheek or deadly serious way depending on the person, with a heavy dose of [[dog whistle|plausible deniability]] involved. It is often replaced with the similar-sounding 图纸 to avoid censorship.
== Positions ==
=== "Killing the Chinese" ===
A common refrain among users of /r/ChonglangTV is calls to "kill the Chinese" (屠支). These calls come with varying levels of seriousness, just like calls for violence against Jews on [[alt right]] websites that are often thinly veiled as "jokes" with terms like "in Minecraft". One user on /r/CLTV puts it this way:
{{blockquote|这个词这里很多人爱用，但是对于图纸的目的各有定论，甚至魔怔到图纸的目的就是图纸也不少见。图虽然很容易理解但是用什么方式也是各有看法，是选择高效率还是残忍，是组团还是独狼，是无差别还是有选择都看各自理解。而支似乎已经被模糊化了，认通大一统是支，党员是支，菜人是支，讲中文是支，长得像支就是支。搞到这种地步别说要统一概念，哪怕是真约好了线下一起图纸都能在路上吵起来。说到底真图纸的已经死了或者进去了，剩下的其实多半口嗨而已，甚至连小共同体都建立不起来。不必太过在意。<ref name=CB86>{{cite web|url=https://archive.ph/GDv01#selection-1977.0-1977.231|last1=Competitive_Bonus_86|title=关于“图纸”的疑问}}</ref>}}
{{blockquote|This is a term that a lot of people here like to use, but when it comes to the purpose of "killing the Ch*nks", they each have their own conclusions—it's not even rare to see the oddball claim that the goal of killing the Chinese is simply to kill the Chinese.
Although "killing" is easy to understand, people have divergent views on how it is to be achieved, whether it ought to be high-efficiency or cruel, whether it ought to be in groups or as [[terrorism|lone wolves]], whether it ought to be indiscriminate or selective. And "Ch*nk" has seemingly become a blurry term, some people say those who support Chinese unification are "ch*nks", that Communist Party members are "ch*nks", that overseas Chinese<ref group=notes>The poster uses 菜 ("vegetable") due to its similarity to 華, the Traditional Chinese character for "Chinese".</ref> are "ch*nks", that those who speak Chinese are "ch*nks", that those who look ch*nky are ch*nks.
At this point, if we were to really arrange to meet offline and kill ch*inks together, we'd start fighting each other on the road; much less is it possible to unify our conception of it. To be frank, those who are truly killing ch*nks are already dead or in [jail], and those who remain are mostly just half-joking around; we can't even build a small, unified group around it, so there's no need to take it too seriously.}}
==== Purported real-life actions by ChonglangTV users ====
A few /r/ChonglangTV users have bragged about engaging in real life activities in order to further the cause of "killing the Chinese", although these are often tongue-in-cheek stories in the same vein as 4chan greentexts of dubious reliability.
One user on /r/CLTV wrote:
{{blockquote|被强制拉去当大白，准备图🕷️了
在上海某小区做抗原时候给全小区的人共用一根针，爽！ <ref name=unod>{{cite web|url=https://archive.ph/4baQ8#selection-1537.7-1537.9|title=被强制拉去当大白，准备图🕷️了|last1=usernotobserved}}</ref>}}
{{blockquote|I got forcibly recruited to be a pandemic prevention worker;<ref group=notes>In the coronavirus pandemic, volunteers working for the Chinese government to enforce pandemic restrictions and lockdowns (which are often onerous and have led to severe violations of human rights) are called "大白" (big whites) due to their white protective suits.</ref> now I'm prepared to kill ch*nks
While doing antigen tests in a neighbourhood in Shanghai, I used the same needle for everybody in the neighbourhood; that really hit the spot!
}}
This story is most likely just a joke; as one user in the comments points out:
{{blockquote|抗原检测是居家自己做的 少鸡吧意淫了 <ref name=unod/>}}
{{blockquote|Antigen tests are done at home; stop dicking around}}
=== Dislike of pro-democracy activists and Chinese dissidents ===
/r/ChonglangTV users have a notable disdain towards [[Falun Gong]] practitioners, Chinese pro-[[democracy]] activists, and Chinese human rights activists. The common denominator of the groups they dislike is they believe in reforming China to become democratic—as opposed to an 8chan-esque fantasy of Chinese genocide.
As the (now banned) /r/chonglangTV states in its rules:
{{blockquote|反五毛、皇汉、民运、轮子、葱、姨、魔怔逼、瞎骂 <ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20220208073453/https://www.reddit.com/r/chonglangTV/ Archive of /r/ChonglangTV]</ref>}}
{{blockquote|We oppose {{w|wumao}}s, Chinese nationalists, democracy activists, Falun Gong practitioners, {{w|Pincong}} users, supporters of Liu Zhongjing,<ref group=notes>[https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8A%89%E4%BB%B2%E6%95%AC 劉仲敬] is a Chinese right-wing dissident who supports not just independence for oppressed ethnic minority groups but also the total balkanization of China, including Han-majority portions of it.</ref> schizoposters, and indiscriminate insults.}}
== Notes ==
{{reflist|group=notes}}
== References ==
{{Reflist}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:ChonglangTV}} | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki//r/ChonglangTV | [] |
/r/Conspiracy | 221,094 | 2,757,727 | 2025-09-14T19:24:19 | ResurrectingDeadLinks | false | null | {{Bronze}}[[File:R-Conspiracyicon.jpg|thumb|right|165px|The subreddit icon, referencing [[men in black]]]]
{{conspiracynav}}
'''r/conspiracy''' is the [[conspiracy theory]] subreddit on [[Reddit]] and the front page of [[paranoia]] on the Internet. The subreddit made [[alt-right glossary#Did nothing wrong|''Hitler Did Nothing Wrong'']] their official documentary long before [[Trump]] ever had a chance at being president. Theories discussed here run the gamut from [[9/11]] to [[chemtrails]] to [[lizard people]]. Watching the history of a long-time user can sometimes be an insightful observation of how someone can [[crank magnetism|go from]] "9/11 is an inside Job" to "Everything is wrong and [[simulated reality|the world is a simulation]]" in the span of a year. As of November 2024 it has 2.2 million members.<ref>[https://archive.ph/khdly R/Conspiracy homepage. Archived on November 2, 2024.]</ref>
==Antisemitism==
{{main|Antisemitism}}
A contributor believes that [[George Soros]] funded [[Nazis]] to confiscate the properties of [[Jews]],<ref>[https://archive.ph/4tXFn Klaus Schwab's dad supplied weapons to Nazis, was praised by Hitler. George Soros helped Nazis confiscate property of Jews, then funded neo-Nazi takeover of Ukraine in 2014. Canada Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland's grandfather normalized genocide of Jews in media, worked directly with Nazis] by Ok_Magician_1194 (05 Oct 2022) ''Reddit'' (archived from 28 Jan 2023 09:08:15 UTC).</ref> even though he was 15 when [[WW2]] ended. The subreddit believes that it is bad that there is a law against antisemitism.<ref>[https://archive.ph/fiEJB In Florida, It is Now HIGHLY ILLEGAL to Say ‘Jews Control Hollywood] by OB1_kenobi (07 Jun 2019) ''Reddit' (archived from 28 Jan 2023 16:31:44 UTC).</ref> Another contributor cited an article<ref>[https://archive.ph/Soa7o In Florida, It is Now HIGHLY ILLEGAL to Say ‘Jews Control Hollywood’] (Jun 6, 2019) ''The Truth Seeker'' (archived from 26 Nov 2022 07:30:27 UTC).</ref> that goes on to say that [[hate speech]] laws violate the [[First Amendment]], [[Stopped clock|which they do]]<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment] (May 7, 2015) Eugene Volokh in The Volokh Conspiracy, published in ''[[The Washington Post]]''</ref>. Another contributor even posted that Trump is a [[Rothschild]] asset and [[Breitbart]] is founded by Jews.<ref>[https://archive.ph/pBGyw Let me explain exactly how Trump is a Rothschild asset and has been for decades. How his advisers, policies, alternative media talking heads all emanate from the Cabal, via Rothschild financial influence. We'll begin with Alex Jones and make our way down] by elnegroik (25 Mar 2017) ''Reddit'' (archived from 27 Mar 2018 05:25:19 UTC).</ref> Another contributor believes that the Rothschild family is five times richer than world’s 8 richest billionaires.<ref>[https://archive.ph/skKBl Rothschild Family Wealth Is Five Times That Of World's Top 8 Billionaires Combined] by OB1_kenobi (21 Jan 2017) ''Reddit'' (archived from 28 Jan 2023 16:56:19 UTC).</ref> Another contributor believes that 'The Jews' killed [[JFK]].<ref>[https://archive.ph/0Ihrq From recent JFK release: 11/21/63 - subject allegedly told the informant: "We now have plenty of money — our new backers are jews — as soon as 'we' or (they) take care of Kennedy..." JFK was killed in Dallas the next day] by Question_History (18 Dec 2017) ''Reddit'' (archived from 20 Dec 2017 22:08:00 UTC).</ref> One poster claimed that George Soros owns 250 media outlets: ''[[The New York Times]]'', ''[[The Washington Post]]'', the Associated Press, [[CNN]] and ABC, and again claiming that he confiscated the properties of Jews under Nazi occupation.<ref>[https://archive.ph/WmISQ George Soros, the multi billionaire owner of over 250 media outlets including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, CNN and ABC, talking about how he helped the Nazis confiscate property from fellow Jews] by mickeybuilds (11 Dec 2022) ''Reddit'' (archived from 3 Feb 2023 18:42:29 UTC).</ref>
==Covid-19==
{{main|COVID-19 pandemic}}
According to R/Conspiracy, [[YouTube]] removed the dislike button because people were disliking the [[COVID-19 vaccine]]
videos.<ref>[https://archive.ph/IZHBC YouTube took away the dislike button because Covid vaccine videos were receiving an insane amount of dislikes. They want to make you feel like you’re the only one that doesn’t want the vax. There are MILLIONS of us that don’t want it and that shows in all content responses that aren’t regulated] by bobsmith0193 (07 Dec 2021) ''Reddit'' (archived from 8 Dec 2021 20:52:47 UTC).</ref> However the real reason that YouTube removed it was to "protect the creator's mental health".<ref>[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kxOuG8jMIgI Update to YouTube's Dislike Count] (Nov 10, 2021) ''YouTube''.</ref> One contributor believes that [[India]] ended the Delta variant in their country due to Indians taking [[ivermectin]] and that Dr. Fauci could have prevented 500k deaths if he encouraged people to take ivermectin.<ref>[https://archive.ph/PUHei India has ended the Delta variant covid pandemic using a broad-spectrum 100% efficacy virus killer called Ivermectin for $3 a treatment. Indians now simply take a few Ivermectin tablets at first sign of symptoms and obliterate the virus fast. Only 6% vax rate. Fauci could have prevented 500k deaths] by RealKeeny7 (19 Jul 2021) ''Reddit'' (archived from 20 Jul 2021 14:59:36 UTC).</ref> Another poster believes that serious Covid-19 cases can be prevented by taking [[vitamin D]]. <ref>[https://archive.ph/YZM2D Vitamin D is cheap, widely available, and reduces serious Covid cases by 97% - yet governments barely mention it] by ukdudeman (07 Nov 2020) ''Reddit'' (archived from 7 Nov 2020 14:30:54 UTC).</ref> Another poster believes that Pfizer is mutating Covid-19 viruses.<ref>[https://archive.ph/m9qDq Pfizer EXPOSED - Executive Discussing "Mutating" the Covid-19 Virus] by chriswick48 (3 Feb 2023 18:56:11 UTC) ''Reddit'' (archived from ).</ref>
=== Covid-19 vaccine ===
Most respondents believes that Covid-19 is a [[depopulation scheme]], with most people answering the question in post saying that it makes people sterile.<ref>[https://archive.ph/K15d4 who believes the COVID vaccine was a depopulation plan?] by Otherwise-Hat2849 (17 Dec 2022) ''Reddit'' (archived from 28 Jan 2023 19:27:45 UTC).</ref> Another poster believes that the reason why people are becoming sicker is not because they have a cold or anything else but that people's immune systems have been weakened by the vaccine.<ref>[https://archive.ph/0Knvl The 'vaccine' has weakened people's immune systems, that's why they're sick.] by Jax_Gatsby (20 Dec 2022) ''Reddit'' (archived from 1 Feb 2023 19:34:08 UTC).</ref> Another poster thinks that the vaccine is free because the [[government]] wants to harm people, including a screenshot from noted [[antivaxxer]] [[Candace Owens]].<ref>[https://archive.ph/eUtDy Makes sense her point(only her point I don’t follow politics) is the covid vaccine 💉 made for good purposes or is this all another scam from the goverment? I think is a scam with its real purpose hidden behind. Healthcare should be free in the US for all I know not only the covid vaccine] by Wallstreetmonkeybets (30 Jul 2021) ''Reddit'' (archived from 31 Jul 2021 00:07:51 UTC).</ref> Another poster believes that the Covid-19 vaccine killed a 17-year old boy.<ref>[https://archive.ph/iW07y Safe and Effective: 17 year old dies 33 days after receiving the COVID-19 "vaccine."] by Widener6408 (22 Jan 2023) ''Reddit'' (archived from 3 Feb 2023 19:05:23 UTC).</ref> Another poster thinks that over 23,000 kids were killed by the Covid-19 vaccine in Europe, citing an article from ''The Exposé'', a conspiracy theory website.<ref>[https://archive.ph/cwNMF Over 23,000 Children have died across Europe since the EMA first approved the Covid-19 Vaccine for Children according to official data] by Oh-TheHumanity (03 Oct 2022) ''Reddit'' (archived from 3 Feb 2023 19:09:46 UTC).</ref><ref>{{wpa|The Exposé}}</ref>
==Extraterrestrials==
{{main|Extraterrestrial}}
The existence of extraterrestrials on Earth is one of the more harmless conspiracy theories that this subreddit pushes (doubtless fueled by [[credulous]] and [[bored]] people binge-watching ''[[Ancient Aliens]]''). One contributor believes that the real reason the [[Iraq War|US invaded Iraq]] was not because of [[WMDs]] or even [[oil]] but [[
ancient astronauts|ancient alien]] stargate portal in Iraq.<ref>[https://archive.ph/cKIwc This is the real reason we invaded Iraq. Ancient alien Stargate portal located in the Great Ziggurat of Ur in Iraq] by PalatableMahogany (11 Dec 2022) ''Reddit'' (archived from 17 Dec 2022 09:16:09 UTC).</ref> Another contributor also claimed that aliens are actually [[demons]] that are working with world leaders against [[god]].<ref>[https://archive.ph/Y9wzT Aliens are demons] by RickySauce_98 (26 Jan 2023) ''Reddit'' (archived from 29 Jan 2023 21:14:56 UTC).</ref> Another poster believes that [[NASA]] and the government know that aliens exist, the poster proceeds to use a GIF as evidence.<ref>[https://archive.ph/Q1WVu Aliens exist in front of everyone. NASA knows. The Government knows. This is one of their ships caught refueling directly from our Sun.] by SilentConsciou5 (05 Oct 2022) ''Reddit'' (archived from 3 Feb 2023 13:22:32 UTC).</ref> Another poster believes that {{wpl|Jack Parsons}} {{lived|1914|1952}} was an [[occult]] leader who summoned portals to aliens.<ref>[https://archive.ph/gmXhZ You wouldn't have NASA/SpaceX without Jack Parsons. He's the occult self-proclaimed Antichrist Rocket Man who communicated with off-world entities, opened portals for demons/aliens with Babalon Working ritual. UFOs then skyrocketed, culminating in UFOs swarming DC 1952. Then Eisenhower Greada Treaty] by PalatableMahogany (11 Dec 2022) ''Reddit'' (archived from 3 Feb 2023 19:21:10 UTC).</ref>
==Russian-Ukraine war==
One contributor believes [[Putin]]'s [[propaganda]] that [[Russia]] is trying to denazify [[Ukraine]] and destroy biolabs in Ukraine.<ref>[https://archive.ph/LutOA NATO interventionism in Ukraine ✓ Nazi's in Ukraine ✓ Bio Labs in Ukraine ✓ Should we revisit the concept of Russia's "Special Military Operation" in Ukraine? I think it is time to analyze the "reporting" from the Western Mass Media & determine if they should be held accountable for misinformation] by iblameautocorrect (01 Feb 2023) ''Reddit'' (archived from 1 Feb 2023 19:06:41 UTC).</ref> Another contributor thinks that the alleged biolabs are linked to [[Joe Biden]] and [[Hunter Biden]],<ref>[https://archive.ph/yD28O more on biolabs in Ukraine tied to Joe and Hunter] by mikepompeosjockstrap (01 Feb 2023) ''Reddit'' (archived from 1 Feb 2023 19:13:45 UTC).</ref> which links to a post on [[Twitter]] claiming that the Russian Ministry of Defense recognized the US response to the biolabs.<ref>[https://archive.ph/t0qKX 1) Russian Ministry of Defense recognized the widespread US response to the biolabs. I’m going to post some quotes from the Russian MoD report yesterday (see link attached). Russian MIL recognize the global realization about the Biolabs in Ukraine.] by @WarClandestine (1:19 AM · Feb 1, 2023) ''Twitter'' (archived from 1 Feb 2023 19:19:53 UTC).</ref> Another contributor believes that [[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]] was installed by the [[CIA]], that Zelenskyy banned opposition media, and that Joe Biden allegedly gave him tanks for his birthday.<ref>[https://archive.ph/TuWSF Remember when Zelenksy was installed by CIA in Ukraine, hid money in offshore accounts (Panama Papers), banned all opposition media, imprisoned his opponents, virtually becoming a dictator? Guess what now? Biden is giving him TANKS for his birthday] by Standard-Radish1803 (25 Jan 2023) ''Reddit'' (archived from 3 Feb 2023 13:39:30 UTC).</ref> Another contributor believes that Ukraine is CIA/Soros [[puppet state]] and that Ukrainian [[Nazis]] are killing eastern Ukrainians.<ref>[https://archive.ph/WE6pl Ukraine is a CIA/Soros puppet state. Putin was a WEF Young Global Leader for a while. Ukraine and Russian troops and people I wish could somehow all lay down their arms and hug it out. If it's true that Ukraine Nazis have been bombing innocent civilians in eastern Ukraine for 8 years that's nasty] by Ok_Magician_1194 (07 Oct 2022) ''Reddit'' (archived from 3 Feb 2023 19:32:26 UTC).</ref>
==Other conspiracy theories==
===Microchips===
{{main|Microchip implant}}
They cite an article from the British [[tabloid]] ''[[The Sun]]'' that claims an [[AIDS]] or [[swine flu]] vaccine will microchip people. They also claim the same article was copied directly from the conspiracy book ''[[Behold a Pale Horse]]'' by [[William Cooper]].<ref>[https://archive.ph/cGkvZ The Sun article from August 1, 1989. It was featured in William Cooper's "Behold a Pale Horse." It speaks of using a Swine Flu pandemic and vaccine or AIDS vaccine to get people injected with nano microchips for surveillance "The doctors themselves may not even know what they're injecting." Crazy] by PalatableMahogany (21 Jan 2023) ''Reddit'' (archived from 29 Jan 2023 17:13:01 UTC).</ref><ref>[https://archive.org/details/pdfy-fK_LIU_yIP8YBTfX/page/n443/mode/2up?q=microchip ''Behold a Pale Horse''] by Milton William Cooper (199).</ref>{{rp|444}}
Another contributor, the appropriately named "TheCrazyAcademic", again cited ''The Sun'' article but this time associating the alleged plans with the [[George H. W. Bush]] administration.<ref>[https://archive.ph/nsQ5C In a 1989 sun article titled "Big Brother Coming" microchip plans involving the bush administration are discussed]</ref>. One r/conspiracy user says that the Pfizer CEO confirmed that he is developing 5G microchip technology to kill 5 billion people provides no citation, not even from a [[crank]] site.<ref>[https://archive.ph/2g8ki Pfizer CEO confirms existence of 5G microchips, 5 billion people could now drop dead at the push of a button] by sanem48 (22 May 2022) ''Reddit'' (archived from 29 Jan 2023 17:51:27 UTC).</ref> Another contributor believes that in 1991 a former intelligence officer revealed that the government would inject people with microchips, and the contributor believes that the man was killed,<ref>[https://archive.ph/z5O4n In 1991 a former intelligence officer revealed the government planned to use a manufactured pandemic to justify mass vaccination. He said the shots contain injectable microchips used to track personal data & keep recipients trapped in a digital prison cell. He was later killed by undercover police.] by forgottenfable (12 Jan 2023) ''Reddit'' (archived from 3 Feb 2023 13:46:12 UTC).</ref> citing the conspiracy theory site "Down the Chupacabra Hole".<ref>[https://downthechupacabrahole.com/2023/01/11/injectable-nanotech-federal-insider-warns-vaccines-will-be-used-to-create-a-digital-prison/ Injectable Nanotech: Federal Insider Warns Vaccines Will Be Used to Create a Digital Prison] (January 11, 2023) ''Down the Chupacabra Hole''.</ref> Another contributor thinks that the [[World Economic Forum]] is trying to have [[children]] injected with microchips.<ref>[https://archive.ph/TcCPO The World Economic Forum persuades to implant microchips in children] by J_Arimateia (24 Aug 2022) ''Reddit'' (archived from 3 Feb 2023 19:41:36 UTC).</ref>
===Jesuits===
{{Main|Jesuit}}
One contributor believes that the CIA and KGB are both been run by Jesuits and that the millions of deaths under communist regimes were caused by Jesuits.<ref>[https://archive.ph/P9bDF The Jesuits were controlling the CIA and the KGB simultaneously, so they are responsible for the millions of kills under communism, the dictatorships and conflicts caused by both groups, the corruption of American Intelligence and the fall of the [[Soviet Union]]. (X-post from s/Jesuits)] by HibikiSS (29 Jan 2023) ''Reddit'' (archived from 3 Feb 2023 13:56:40 UTC).</ref> citing Saidit a [[far-right]] version of Reddit, the same poster believes that 90% of [[media]] is controlled by Jesuits<ref>[https://archive.ph/zggUI Five companies control 90% of the media in the US. These and the most relevant intelligence groups are controlled by the Jesuits. (X-post from s/Jesuits)] by HibikiSS (22 Dec 2021) ''Reddit'' (archived from 3 Feb 2023 18:01:17 UTC).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20211228054927/https://saidit.net/s/Jesuits/comments/8pu0/five_companies_control_90_of_the_media_in_the_us/ Five companies control 90% of the media in the US. These and the most relevant Intelligence groups are controlled by the Jesuits.] by HibikiBlack (22 Dec 2021) ''Saidit'' (archived from December 28, 2021).</ref> Another contributor thinks that [[World War I]] was a plot by [[Zionist]]s and Jesuits to destroy [[Protestant]] [[Christianity]].<ref>[https://archive.ph/87vBt Chilling letters of Kaiser Wilhelm II, when exiled to Holland after WW1, shows him in full-blown conspiracy mode after the war. He states that the wars were started by the Vatican in Rome, the Jesuits, the Freemasons, and World Zionism with the intention of destroying Protestant Christianity.] by menorahman100 (29 Nov 2022) ''Reddit'' (archived from 3 Feb 2023 19:49:46 UTC).</ref>
===5G===
{{Main|5G}}
One contributor believes that 5G is bad for health because it causes [[oxygen]] to be more reactive, thus weakening the immune system.<ref>[https://archive.ph/icn5v Electromagnetic Radiation; health effects of the 5G communications] by putkofff (02 Jan 2023) ''Reddit'' (archived from 3 Feb 2023 20:32:19 UTC).</ref> Another contributor believes that 5G towers have killed hundreds of bees, citing a UK tabloid article.<ref>[https://archive.ph/lH23n Hundreds of Bees Drop Dead Around "5G Towers" In California] by marxism_taking_over (02 Aug 2019) ''Reddit'' (archived from 3 Feb 2023 20:47:19 UTC).</ref><ref>[https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/hundreds-bees-drop-dead-5g-18852434 Hundreds of bees drop dead around ‘5G towers’ in California] by Simon Green (2 Aug 2019) ''Daily Star''.</ref> Another contributor posted a screen shot of [[Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]] saying that 5G can cause [[cancer]] and Alzheimer's diesease.<ref>[https://archive.ph/cqOhF Robert F Kennedy Jr posted this regarding 5G and Coronavirus] by ---l__ (03 Apr 2020) ''Reddit'' (archived from 3 Feb 2023 20:55:18 UTC).</ref> Another contributor believes that [[Switzerland]] banned 5G because it was bad for the nervous system.<ref>[https://archive.ph/upH6L Switzerland Stops 5G - Medical Association Concerned About Cancer and Damage to Nervous System] by BelizeBoy99 (13 Feb 2020) ''Reddit'' (archived from 4 Feb 2023 09:12:33 UTC).</ref> Another contributor believes that some doctors and scientists are going to halt the research of 5G because increased exposure to 5G is bad for humans and the [[environment]].<ref>[https://archive.ph/g6i5U Scientists and doctors call for a moratorium on the roll-out of 5G. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields RF-EMF, that has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.] by phonetwophone (03 Apr 2020) ''Reddit'' (archived from 4 Feb 2023 09:25:26 UTC).</ref>
===QAnon===
{{Main|QAnon}}
One poster thinks that QAnon is a [[psyop]] intended to associate [[critical thinkers]] with insane conservatives.<ref>[https://archive.ph/46wG0 Everybody is now associating critical thinkers, conspiracy theorists, and people who question the status quo with “Q” followers now. The psyop has accomplished its mission: conflate truth seekers with insane conservatives.] by baop (17 Jan 2021) ''Reddit'' (archived from 4 Feb 2023 09:44:57 UTC).</ref>{{efn|This one actually seems plausible.}} Another poster complained that Twitter banned QAnon accounts but not [[BLM]] or [[Antifa]] accounts.<ref>[https://archive.ph/Sw3Cu Twitter banning QAnon accounts hits heavy on censorship. Meanwhile, BLM and Antifa are creating chaos in many U.S. cities.] by shookqueen (22 Jul 2020) ''Reddit'' (archived from 4 Feb 2023 10:00:38 UTC).</ref> Another poster thinks that it is [[terror]]ism to call conspiracy theorists like QAnon a domestic terror threat because the conspiracy theorists are exposing the truth.<ref>[https://archive.ph/cVjvh "The FBI Said Conspiracy Theories Like QAnon And Pizzagate Are Domestic Terrorism Threats" - The FBI calling "Conspiracy Theorists" as "Terrorists" is Terrorism! Being told you are possibly being targeted by the US Gov for seeing to find & expose the truth IS TERRIFYING! aka Terrorism!] by MickyMick77 (24 Oct 2019) ''Reddit'' (archived from 4 Feb 2023 10:08:22 UTC).</ref>
===2020 U.S. presidential election===
{{main|2020 U.S. presidential election}}
One contributor believes that Time magazine has admitted that 2020 U.S. presidential election was stolen by a secret cabal of the [[elite]].<ref>[https://archive.ph/nioF1 Time magazine is literally admitting that a secret cabal of powerful wealthy elite people and corporations hijacked our 2020 election by steering media coverage, influencing perceptions, and changing rules and laws.] by Normiesreeee69 (05 Feb 2021) ''Reddit'' (archived from 4 Feb 2023 10:23:52 UTC).</ref> They then link to a tweet by notorious election denier Candace Owens<ref>[https://archive.ph/gzPzm This is absolutely insane. Time magazine is literally admitting that a secret cabal of powerful wealthy elite people and corporations hijacked our 2020 election by steering media coverage, influencing perceptions, and changing rules and laws.] by Candace Owens (8:20 AM - 5 Feb 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from 5 Feb 2021 20:08:23 UTC).</ref> Another contributor believes that Mark Zuckerberg, founder of [[Facebook]], has meddled in the 2020 U.S. election.<ref>[https://archive.ph/b4jGy Mark Zuckerberg being sued for meddling in the 2020 election] by Tekxt660x (03 Oct 2020) ''Reddit'' (archived from 4 Feb 2023 10:36:29 UTC).</ref> The post links to an article in ''NewsTarget'' (which became the crank website [[NaturalNews]].<ref>[https://archive.ph/QNCnJ Mark Zuckerberg being sued for meddling in the 2020 election. "NewsTarget"] by Ethan Huff (10/02/2020) ''NewsTarget'' (archived from 18 Mar 2022 17:49:14 UTC).</ref>
Another contributor believes the ''[[Dinesh D'Souza#2000 Mules (2022)|2000 Mules]]'' film by [[Dinesh D'Souza]], which claimed that the election was stolen based on the director's fabrications.<ref>[https://archive.ph/ApBXK 2000 Mules proves the 2020 election was rigged] by applextrent (08 May 2022) ''Reddit'' (archived from 8 May 2022 16:28:52 UTC).</ref> The ''2000 Mules'' website claims that [[argumentum ad populum|77% percent of voters who watched the movie now think that the election was stolen]].<ref>[https://2000mules.com/ 2000 Mules].</ref> Another contributor believes that 300,000 Biden votes in [[Michigan]] and [[Wisconsin]] were added by outside sources.<ref>[https://archive.ph/5vg0b BREAKING: FORENSIC FIRM: 300,000 BIDEN VOTES In Michigan and Wisconsin in the 2020 ELECTION Were ADDED By OUTSIDE SOURCES] by lemonkid1234 (17 Feb 2021) ''Reddit'' (archived from 4 Feb 2023 11:18:15 UTC).</ref>
==Pissed at us==
{{main|RationalWiki:PISSED}}
A poster noticed that we had a section about them on our [[Reddit]] page.<ref>[https://archive.ph/V86k9 Rationalwiki Attack on R Conspiracy] by Smooth_Imagination (22 Jun 2019) ''Reddit'' (archived from 28 Jan 2023 19:41:05 UTC).</ref> Sooner or later, they'll realize that we have a page about them.
==See also==
*[[Above Top Secret ]] - if this subreddit had its own website
==External links==
*[https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/ r/conspiracy]
==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}
==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Conspiracy}}
[[Category:2020 election denialists]]
[[Category:9/11 truthers]]
[[Category:Alternative medicine promoters]]
[[Category:Alt-right]]
[[Category:Anti-Catholicism]]
[[Category:Antisemitism]]
[[Category:Anti-vaccination movement]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:COVID-19 denialists]]
[[Category:Crank magnetism]]
[[Category:Great Replacement conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:Internet hate sites]]
[[Category:Pissed at us]]
[[Category:Pseudohistory promoters]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience promoting organizations]]
[[Category:QAnon]]
[[Category:Radiophobia]]
[[Category:Vatniks]]
[[Category:Ufology]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki//r/Conspiracy | [
"2020 election denialists",
"9/11 truthers",
"Alternative medicine promoters",
"Alt-right",
"Anti-Catholicism",
"Antisemitism",
"Anti-vaccination movement",
"Conspiracy theorists",
"COVID-19 denialists",
"Crank magnetism",
"Great Replacement conspiracy theorists",
"Internet hate sites",
"Pis... |
0 | 173,416 | 1,494,242 | 2015-07-12T23:45:17 | Bongolian | true | Zero | #redirect [[Zero]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/0 | [] |
0.999... | 214,437 | 2,731,724 | 2025-04-14T04:49:29 | Plutocow | false | null | {{Mathematics}}{{cquote|Number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine, number|||"Revolution 9", [[The Beatles]]}}
'''0.999...''' is a number that has created a lot of confusion on the Internet due to the fact that it equals 1.<ref>[https://www.purplemath.com/modules/howcan1.htm How Can 0.999… = 1?], ''PurpleMath''.</ref> Not "very close" or "infinitely close", but equal to 1. 0.999… is a never-ending sequence of 9s after the decimal point.
[[File:999 Perspective.svg|thumb|center|Number nine… number nine… number nine… {{wpl|Revolution Nine|like that Beatles song!}}]]
==Understanding the real numbers==
A real number is any number that is not an imaginary number (so none of those square roots of negative numbers). So this includes any number you learnt in primary school.<ref>[https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/real-numbers.html Real Numbers] ''Math is Fun''.</ref>
* -1/2
* [[π]]
* Square root of 2
All real numbers can be placed on an infinite number line.
[[File:Number-line.svg|thumb|center|The number line: can you guess where the numbers above will be placed?]]
However, there are different types of real numbers. The main difference is between "rational numbers" and "irrational numbers" (For now, let's forget about the negative numbers).
* A rational number is a number that can be described by a ratio of two whole numbers. So for example, '''0.666…''' is a rational number because it can be described as a ratio of two positive whole numbers (which is 2/3).<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/science/rational-number rational number] by William L. Hosch, ''Encyclopaedia Brittanica''.</ref>
* An irrational number is a number that '''cannot''' be described by a ratio of two whole numbers. So for example, '''the square root of 2''' is irrational. There is no way you can describe this number as a ratio of two positive whole numbers. Seriously. Don't believe me? Try it yourself. Struggling? Yeah, it's impossible.<ref>[https://mathworld.wolfram.com/IrrationalNumber.html Irrational Number] ''Wolfram MathWorld''.</ref>
===Decimal notation===
This of course raises an interesting question: '''What would happen if I write those numbers above in decimal notation?'''
Three things could happen:
*The number has a string of digits and a decimal point but eventually ends.
*:1/2 in decimal notation is 0.5
*:1/25 in decimal notation is 0.04
*The number could originally start with arbitrary string of digits but eventually repeats over and over again ('''bold''' is for the repeating digit(s)).
*:2/3 in decimal notation is 0.'''6'''6666666666666…
*:1/7 in decimal notation is 0.'''142857'''142857142857…
*:7/30 in decimal notation is 0.2'''3'''3333333…
*The third way is that the number has a non-repeating string of digits that goes on forever. This is the case with irrational numbers.
*:Square root of 2 in decimal notation is 1.41421356237…
*:π in decimal notation is 3.1415926535…
==Rational numbers==
So what group is '''0.999…''' in? '''0.999…''' is an infinite string of numbers that repeats over and over again. So we can assume that '''0.999…''' is the second group above. However we haven't proven that '''0.999…''' is a rational number. So that leaves the interesting conjecture that this article is trying to prove:
'''PROVE that ''0.999…'' is a rational number, meaning that it can be represented by p/q where p and q are both integers.'''
==Proof that 0.999… is a rational number==
'''Let's define 0.999… as x.'''
x = 0.999…
'''Let's multiply both sides by 10. Note that all this does is move the decimal point one place.'''
10x = 9.999...
'''Now let's split off the right hand side to two parts.'''
10x = 9 + 0.999¬
'''Now we can substitute 0.999… for x.'''
10x = 9 + x
'''Now subtract x from both sides.'''
9x = 9
'''Now divide both sides by 9.'''
x = 1
'''Oh look! If x equals 0.999… and x equals 1, then that means…'''
1 = 0.999…
==Rigorous proof using real analysis techniques==
Recall that the value of an infinite series is determined by what the sequence of its partial sums converge to.
Now, we wish to consider the convergence of the series <math>\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^i}</math>. This is clearly a monotone
sequence, bounded above by 1 and below by 0, so it must converge by Taylor's theorem.
In particular, it converges to 1, because 1 is the supremum of the set of partial sums.
Now, notice that the nth partial sum, which we will define as <math>a_n</math> is given by <math>a_n = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{9}{10^i}</math>
To see that 1 is indeed the supremum, suppose for contradiction that <math>a < 1</math> is the supremum of <math>\{a_n : n \in \mathbb N\}</math>.
Let <math>d = 1 - a</math>. Let <math>N \in \mathbb N</math> be such that <math>\frac{1}{10^N} < d</math>. Now, notice that the term <math>a_N</math> is actually larger
than the supremum, which is a contradiction. The proof of the case that <math> a > 1</math> is immediate.
==Refusal to accept proof==
Despite being mathematically proven that 0.999… equals 1, there are still people out there who refuse to accept that 0.999… equals 1. There have been tons of other proofs on the internet that show that 0.999… equals 1.<ref>[https://math.wikia.org/wiki/Proof:The_Decimal_0.999..._is_Equivalent_to_1 Proof:The Decimal 0.999... is Equivalent to 1] (Mar 02 2021 , 5:25:57) ''Math Wiki''.</ref> However, some internet proofs claim to show that 0.999… does not equal one as well. This is due to them making the claims that 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 + … ''approaches'' 1, but never hits it. Some also claim 1/3 isn't exactly 0.333… but just above it.<ref>[https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/06/does-0-999-1-and-are-divergent-series-the-invention-of-the-devil.html Does 0.999… = 1? And Are Divergent Series the Invention of the Devil?] by Jordan Ellenberg (June 06, 201411:55 AM) ''Slate''.</ref> This is, however, due to a failure to understand the higher-math concept of limits, which for example are essential to understanding calculus.
==See also==
*[[Science and Math Defeated]] — a denialist site or [[Poe's Law]]
==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}
==External links==
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMTD1Y3LHcE Every PROOF you've seen that .999... = 1 is WRONG]
[[Category:Numbers]]
[[Category:Pseudomathematics]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/0.999... | [
"Numbers",
"Pseudomathematics"
] |
06452-017 | 221,703 | 2,652,391 | 2024-05-27T15:12:34 | Ioe bidome | true | Kent Hovind | #redirect [[Kent Hovind]]
[[Category:Numbers]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/06452-017 | [
"Numbers"
] |
0Bug!Zone | 172,602 | 1,478,653 | 2015-06-06T18:12:26 | Arp242 | true | Shoo!Tag | #REDIRECT [[Shoo!Tag]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/0Bug!Zone | [] |
1/6 | 220,046 | 2,500,975 | 2022-11-10T15:26:07 | Vee | true | 2021 U.S. coup attempt | #REDIRECT [[2021 U.S. coup attempt]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1/6 | [] |
101 Evidences | 150,807 | 1,086,872 | 2012-10-03T22:34:52 | David Gerard | true | 101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe | #REDIRECT [[101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_Evidences | [] |
101 evidences | 85,761 | 908,946 | 2011-11-11T16:17:11 | Tyrannis | true | 101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe | #redirect[[101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences | [] |
101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe | 85,719 | 2,770,466 | 2025-12-09T06:49:45 | 物灵 | false | null | {{gold}}{{title-italics}}{{crenav}}
'''''101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe''''' is an extensive list of arguments for [[young Earth creationism]] (YEC), compiled by Don Batten in June 2009 for [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI).<ref>The original article can be found <capture>[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth#20110326 here]</capture>.</ref> The text below is [[:File:Capture 15184b0a4afd463b56c921ad56bdce15959a857f.png|the version of 26th March 2012]].
Batten [[uncertainty tactic|collects a variety of supposed uncertainties]] in [[historical science|science dealing with the past]] that could allow one to simultaneously maintain belief in the validity of the [[scientific method]] and the literal interpretation of the [[Book of Genesis]] through [[confirmation bias]]. The article's apparent intent is to help other [[creationism|creationists]] struggling with [[cognitive dissonance]] and for use as a conversion tool.
In addition to numerous factual errors and failures to understand the theories it intends to criticize, the document suffers from faulty logic. A [[#Fallacies|list of arguments broken down by fallacy]] is presented at the end of this page.
Although the list claims to have 101 points, several are just reworded duplicates, and one is a copy of the preceding item. Almost every reference link in the original article goes directly to creationist sources or popular 'science' magazines that support creationism. In the few cases where reputable [[peer review|peer-reviewed]] scientific papers are cited, their content is severely misrepresented or incorrectly interpreted. Ultimately, the article seeks to persuade by [[Gish Gallop|force of numbers]] rather than force of argument.
{{101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe/TOC}}
__NOTOC__
{{sbs|title=1|Original article|Analysis}}
==Can science prove the age of the Earth?==
{{sbs
|No scientific method can ''prove'' the age of the universe or the earth, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Although age indicators are called "clocks" they aren't, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the "clock" has to be assumed and the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.
|
Creationism starts from a single assumption: that the Earth's history is accurately recorded in the [[Bible]]. It thus dismisses all scientific evidence that does not fit this philosophy.<ref><capture>[http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe What we believe]</capture> ([[Creation Ministries International]], source of the original "101 evidences" article)</ref><ref><capture>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith The AiG Statement of Faith]</capture> ([[Answers in Genesis]])</ref><ref><capture>[http://www.icr.org/tenets/ Foundational Principles]</capture> ([[Institute for Creation Research]])</ref> Science is meant to be a pursuit of following the evidence, no matter what the outcome may be. To suggest that extrapolations of observable evidence are "assumptions" is misleading. There is a good basis of evidence to suppose that the conditions of physics have not changed. You could argue that is presuppositional, yet you would then have to concede that that claim is held by most creationists purporting to do science.
The reference to the "way[s] in which the speed of the clock has varied over time" is a very thinly veiled attack on a bedrock assumption of scientific practice, [[uniformitarianism]], in (for the sake of argument) contradistinction to [[catastrophism]]. Assuming good faith <i>qua</i> ignorance, this attack is simply a misconstruction of uniformitarianism - as a scientific assumption, it does not claim that major disruptive events like ice ages, meteor impacts, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and so on have never happened (since plenty of people alive today have witnessed or been affected by one or more of them), but rather that the specific physical laws governing their causes and effects have remained constant over time. Assuming good faith <i>qua</i> scientific disagreement with uniformitarianism, none of the creationist theories predicated on alternatives to the constancy of physical laws over time can be valid without encountering big problems very quickly; cf.
* [[c-decay]], which requires changes in fundamental properties of the universe for which no evidence exists;
* creationist ideas on the constancy of the rate of [[radioactive decay]] over time, which, if valid, would mean that the entire planet had been bathed for quite a while in far more radiation than would have been required to kill off all life - problematic because life does, in fact, still exist on Earth; or
* [[white hole cosmology]], which, if correct, would mean that Earth would experience a {{wpl|blueshift|blueshift}} of all incoming light from outside the solar system so colossal in scale as to fry the planet's surface like an egg on a hot sidewalk.
If we don't assume good faith, CMI is combining a [[false dilemma]] with the [[Nirvana fallacy]] - one theory can't yet answer all possible questions, so the other should be accepted unquestioningly. This logic is both fallacious (wrong in its pattern of reasoning) and incorrect (wrong in the facts it reasons with).
}}
{{sbs|
There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old. However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now. And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all (see below).
Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today — called the principle of [[uniformitarianism]]. If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.
|
There is no need for an "independent natural clock" thanks to the principle that reality is objective: if analyses of many samples by different methods arrive at the same age, this is strong evidence that the estimate is correct, by {{wpl|consilience}}. Errors tend to be random; for the estimate to be incorrect, the errors would have to be the same for all samples and all methods, which is extremely unlikely. A single observation of a wildly discordant estimate is not enough to overturn the concordant estimates because observations are always subject to errors and outliers. A failure to understand consilience is why many creationists postulate a [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy]] amongst scientific investigators, as the author does here.
It is important to note that creationists often use the term "uniformitarianism" differently from modern science and insist that it also refers to a uniformity of geological rate with no regard for well-known prevailing conditions.
The author misunderstands crater counting. It is not used to obtain absolute dates but to compare one region's age to another, whose age is known through radiometric dating. Its only assumption is that the bombardment of the Moon was uniform over its surface (not necessarily over time).
We assume an approximately constant rate of meteor impacts on the Moon, with variations depending on the stage of development of the solar system (''e.g.'', the {{wpl|Late Heavy Bombardment}} 4 billion years ago). However, the "increased rate" that would be required to produce the observed craters is unrealistic: if the rate of impacts to the Moon was high enough to give it its characteristic surface in under 6,000 years — the standard<ref><capture>[http://creation.com/appendix-b-the-forgotten-archbishop#20120401 The Forgotten Archbishop]</capture> (Creation Ministries International)</ref><ref><capture>[http://creation.com/archbishops-achievement#20120401 Archbishop's Achievement]</capture> ([[Jonathan Sarfati]], Creation Ministries International)</ref><ref name=icr-ussher><capture>[http://www.icr.org/article/can-ussher-chronology-be-trusted/#20120401 Can the Ussher Chronology be Trusted?]</capture> (Institute for Creation Research)</ref> creationist time since Creation, according to the chronology worked out by Archbishop [[James Ussher]] in 1650 — we'd expect a lot more craters on Earth; with a presumed abundance of meteors intersecting the shared orbit of Earth and the Moon, it would stretch credulity indeed to suggest that something like 99.9% of them missed the larger target and hit the smaller one.
}}
{{sbs|
Examples of ''young'' ages listed here are also obtained by applying the same principle of uniformitarianism. Long-age proponents will dismiss this sort of evidence for a young earth by arguing that the assumptions about the past do not apply in these cases. In other words, age is not really a matter of scientific observation but an argument about our assumptions about the unobserved past.
|
This is partially true, but there is a crucial difference: science's uniformitarian assumptions have reasons behind them. The observed rate is constant for phenomena used in dating, such as the [[radioactive decay]] of potassium-40, and no known mechanisms for changing the rate exist. However, the vast majority of creationist assumptions of uniformitarianism end up absurd because they ignore important known means of rate change.
Radiometric dating gives an age for an assumed constant decay rate and relative age. Comparing, for example, a 10,000 y.o. fossil with a 50,000 y.o. one will show that the decay of carbon-14 in the latter sample is far more advanced than in the former. To believe they are about the same age requires that two different places be subject to vastly different decay rates. The problem is further exacerbated if they are found in the same place.
}}
{{sbs|
The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved, but the fact that such a wide range of different phenomena all ''suggest'' much younger ages than are currently generally accepted, provides a strong case for questioning those accepted ages (about 14 billion years for the universe and 4.5 billion years for the solar system).
|
Indeed, many creationists' assumptions of constant rates cannot be proved, but they can easily be ''disproved'' by pointing out plausible mechanisms of rate changes. No such disproof is available for the assumptions behind mainstream methods of dating.
}}
{{sbs|
Also, a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend.
|
This appears to contradict the article's support for uniformitarianism in previous paragraphs.
}}
{{sbs|
Many of these indicators for younger ages were discovered when creationist scientists started researching things that were supposed to "prove" long ages. The lesson here is clear: when the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible's timeline, don't fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a younger age of the earth. On the other hand, some of the evidences listed here might turn out to be ill-founded with further research and will need to be modified. Such is the nature of science, especially historical science, because we cannot do experiments on past events (see <capture>[http://creation.com/article/2480#20120326 "It's not science"]</capture>).
|
Young-Earth Creationism is unanimously rejected by the scientific community. [[Deep time]] and the Earth's 4.5 billion year age are not pet hypotheses of "evolutionists", a postulated faction of godless maverick scientists — they are uncontroversial and widely accepted facts, with consistent evidence from multiple disciplines. In fact, deep time and an old Earth aren't even part of evolution—they're questions in geology and cosmology, not biology.
Many scientists who discovered evidence for an Earth much older than the Biblical account were devout Christians and experienced crises of faith because the insistence that Ussher's 6,000-year timeline was inviolable strained consilience.
Many creationists make an artificial (and bogus) distinction between [[historical science]], or science that makes them uncomfortable, and [[operational science]], with which they claim not to have any problems.
}}
{{sbs|
Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events. The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: the Creator himself. As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos. See <capture>[http://creation.com/article/6286#20120326 The Universe's Birth Certificate]</capture> and <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1606/#20120326 Biblical chronogenealogies]</capture> (technical). In the end we believe that the Bible will stand vindicated and those who deny its testimony will be confounded.
|
Here, the claim is that God is a reliable witness, although He did not physically inscribe the Bible himself. This was done by the hands of many over centuries, with well-established [[Biblical scholarship]] indicating [[Documentary hypothesis|tremendous amounts of editing]] and sources in older legends.
By this line of reasoning, no one would have any justification for estimating another person's age; they might look elderly, but unless they tell you their age or you look up their birth records, they could be six days old for all you know.
}}
==Biological evidence==
===1===
{{sbs|
<capture>[http://creation.com/article/419#20120326 DNA in "ancient" fossils]</capture>. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
|
A valid point is being made here. Unfortunately, it's probably not the point they intended to make.
In the early 1990s, scientists claimed to have isolated DNA from samples dating back 250 million years.<ref name="pmid12024211">{{cite journal |author=Fish SA, Shepherd TJ, McGenity TJ, Grant WD |title=Recovery of 16S ribosomal RNA gene fragments from ancient halite |journal=Nature |volume=417 |issue=6887 |pages=432–6 |year=2002 |month=May |pmid=12024211 |url=}}</ref> Unfortunately, subsequent technological improvements combined with a greater awareness of the potential risks of laboratory contamination have raised considerable doubts about the reliability of their results.<ref name="pmid12702808">{{cite journal |author=Willerslev E |title=Diverse plant and animal genetic records from Holocene and Pleistocene sediments |journal=Science |volume=300 |issue=5620 |pages=791–5 |year=2003 |month=May |pmid=12702808 |url= |author-separator=, |author2=Hansen AJ |author3=Binladen J |display-authors=3 |last4=Brand |first4=TB |last5=Gilbert |first5=MT |last6=Shapiro |first6=B |last7=Bunce |first7=M |last8=Wiuf |first8=C |last9=Gilichinsky |first9=DA|bibcode = 2003Sci...300..791W }}</ref>
Regardless of the doubt about these studies of extremely ancient samples, DNA from humans and other species going back as far as 100,000 years has been sequenced, and there is scientific consensus that the results are reliable.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Briggs|first1=Helen|title=[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5052414.stm Tooth gives up oldest human DNA]|date=6 June 2006|agency=BBC}}</ref> Current opinion holds that the maximum age possible for DNA sequencing is probably no more than 1,000,000 years.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Pääbo|first1=Svante|last2=Poinar|first2=Hendrik|last3=Serre|first3=David|last4=Janicke-Després|first4=Vivane|last5=Hebrler|first5=Juliane|last6=Rohland|first6=Nadin|last7=Kuch|first7=Melanie|last8=Krause|first8=Linda|last9=Hofreiter|first9=Michael|title=[http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/annual-reviews/genetic-analyses-from-ancient-dna-HGVOICNxj8 Genetic Analyses from Ancient DNA]|journal=Annual Review of Genetics|volume=38|pages=645-679|date=2004}}4</ref>
So, while accepting that DNA sequencing is probably impossible for remains a million years or older, it has been established that sequencing is reliable for DNA far older than the claimed 6,000 years. Consequently, this is not evidence of young Earth creationism.}}
===2===
{{sbs|
<capture>[http://creation.com/arent-250-million-year-old-live-bacteria-a-bit-much#20120326 Lazarus bacteria]</capture> — bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also <capture>[http://creation.com/salty-saga#20120329 Salty saga]</capture>.
|
The claimed isolation of 250 million-year-old bacteria from salt deposits in the Delaware Basin is still debated; the age of the salt is accepted — contrary to the claims in the second link — but the age of the bacteria is not.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hazen|first1=Robert M.|last2=Roedder|first2=Edwin|title=[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6834/full/411155a0.html Biogeology: How old are bacteria from the Permian age?]|journal=Nature|volume=411|page=155|date=10 May 2001}}</ref>}}
===3===
{{sbs|
The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., ''Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome'', Ivan Press, 2005; see <capture>[http://creation.com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in-crisis#20120326 review of the book]</capture> and the interview with the author in <capture>[http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible#20120326 ''Creation'' 30(4)]</capture>:45–47, September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., [http://www.scpe.org/index.php/scpe/article/viewFile/407/77 Mendel's Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program,] ''SCPE'' '''8'''(2):147–165, 2007.
|
This argument relates to the claimed [[Fall of Man]], in which it is posited that humans were cut off from God's life force and their genomes thus started "decaying". This is completely factually inaccurate. Not only is there no evidence of general genetic decay, but there are known recent [[beneficial mutation]]s in humans, ''e.g.'', [[lactase persistence]], a mutation allowing humans to digest milk in adulthood that became common in Europe around 10,000 years ago<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Coelho|first1=Margarida|last2=Luiselli|first2=Donata|last3=Bertorelle|first3=Giorgio|last4=Lopes|first4=Ana Isabel|last5=Seixas|first5=Susana|last6=Destro-Bisol|first6=Giovanni|last7=Rocha|first7=Jorge||title=[https://web.archive.org/web/20140731083808/http://www.bioquest.org/scope/projectfiles/PCR_lactase.pdf Microsatellite variation and evolution of human lactase persistence]|journal=Human Genetics|volume=117|issue=4|pages=329–339|date=1 June 2005}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bersaglieri|first1=Todd|last2=Sabeti|first2=Pardis C.|last3=Patterson|first3=Nick|last4=Vanderploeg|first4=Trisha|last5=Schaffner|first5=Steve F.|last6=Drake|first6=Jared A.|lsat7=Rhodes|first7=Matthew|last8=Reich|first8=David E.|last9=Hirschhorn|first9=Joel N.|title=[https://web.archive.org/web/20110912135107/http://genepath.med.harvard.edu/~reich/Bersaglieri.2004.pdf Genetic Signatures of Strong Recent Positive Selection at the Lactase Gene]|journal=American Journal of Human Genetics|volume=74|issue=6|pages=1111-1120|date=26 April 2004}}</ref> and separately in central Africa a mere 3-6,000 years ago.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Wade|first1=Nicholas|title=[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/science/10cnd-evolve.html?_r=0 Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution]|work=The New York Times|date=10 December 2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Tishkoff|first1=Sarah A.|last2=Reed|first2=Floyd A.|last3=Ranciarol|first3=Alessia|last4=Voight|first4=Benjamin F.|last5=Babbitt|first5=Courtney C.|last6=Silverman|first6=Jesse S.|last7=Powell|first7=Kweli|last8=Mortensen|first8=Holly M.|last9=Hirbo|first9=Jibril B.|last10=Osman|first10=Maha|last11=Ibrahim|first11=Muntaser|last12=Omar|first12=Sabah A.|last13=Lema|first13=Godfrey|last14=Nyambo|first14=Thomas B.|last15=Ghori|first15=Jilur|last16=Bumpstead|first16=Suzannah|last17=Pritchard|first17=Jonathan K.|last18=Wray|first18=Gregory A.|last19=Deloukas|first19=Panos|title=[http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n1/full/ng1946.html Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe]|journal=Nature Genetics|volume=39|pages=31-40|date=10 December 2006}}</ref>
The cited book was written by John C. Sanford, who testified at the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings to support [[intelligent design]]. Neither his book nor any paper promoting his concept of "genetic entropy" has been peer-reviewed. The last linked paper is from a peer-reviewed computer science journal; however, the paper describes the computer program itself and does not claim any biological significance for its output. The present position of ICR is that post-Creation, the created kinds rapidly evolved into many species post-Flood. This totally contradicts the claim of Genetic Entropy that since Creation, species have been undergoing a mutational meltdown. For a critical review [https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/ Review of The Edge of Evolution and Genetic Entropy]
The argument is based on the assumption that only 0.0001% of non-neutral mutations are beneficial. Research has blown this assumption apart. However, a 2000 study on ''Arabidopsis thaliana'' found that as many as half of non-neutral mutations can be beneficial.<ref>[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1461073/ Spontaneous mutational effects on reproductive traits of arabidopsis thaliana] by R. G. Shaw et al. (2000) ''Genetics'' 155(1):369–378. doi:10.1093/genetics/155.1.369.</ref> A 2008 Mutation-Accumulation study on yeast found that 25% of mutations with detectable fitness effects are beneficial.<ref>[https://www.genetics.org/content/178/3/1571.full Synergistic Fitness Interactions and a High Frequency of Beneficial Changes Among Mutations Accumulated Under Relaxed Selection in ''Saccharomyces cerevisiae''] by W. Joseph Dickinson (2008) ''Genetics'' 178(3):1571–1578. doi:10.1534/genetics.107.080853.</ref>}}
===4===
{{sbs|
The data for "<capture>[http://creation.com/article/4472/#20120326 mitochondrial Eve]</capture>" are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
|
Creationists and scientists aren't talking about the same "Eve" here. Mitochondria contain [[Mitochondria#Mitochondrial_DNA|mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)]], which derives from an early point in evolutionary history when mitochondria existing symbiotically with precursors to animals' cells merged. mtDNA is passed only from the female to her offspring. In the cell, mtDNA is separate from nuclear DNA and is not recombined during cellular division. Thus, notwithstanding mutation of mtDNA in any particular individual, it is possible to track all human beings back in time through matrilineal ancestry to a single “[[Mitochondrial Eve]]”. “Mitochondrial Eve” is thought to have lived 170,000 to 200,000 years ago, which is entirely consistent with human evolutionary timescales and with an old Earth — and inconsistent with the claim of a 6,000-year-old Earth. It is also rather unusual for someone to describe 170,000 years or more as "several thousand years", almost as if there's some attempted shoehorning.
Unlike the Eve of the Bible, Mitochondrial Eve was not the first human female; she is the ''most recent matrilineal common ancestor'' of all persons living today. This does not imply that she was the only female then, just that the mitochondrial lines of all the other women alive at that time were interrupted at some point, either by having no children or having only sons. So there's nothing exceptional about her. Mitochondrial Eve had to inherit her mtDNA from her mother, which her mother inherited from her grandmother, etc., all the way back to the first mitochondrion in the first eukaryotic cell.
Finally, the geography that leads biologists to their conclusions about Mitochondrial Eve's origin (in East Africa) is a more or less conclusive disproof of the claim of the Garden of Eden as having been present in what we now call the Middle East. This isn't necessarily evidence against a young Earth ''per se'', but a [[problems with biblical inerrancy|problem for CMI's belief in Biblical inerrancy]].
}}
===5===
{{sbs|
Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1786/#20120326 Y-chromosome around the world]</capture> is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.
|
Unlike most DNA, the Y chromosome is inherited only from the father, which means all DNA on the human Y chromosome can be followed back to a single most recent common male ancestor. That male would have inherited his Y chromosome from his father, who inherited it from ''his'' father. The existence of a [[Y-chromosomal Adam]] does not mean that there was only one man alive at that time, but rather that the male-exclusive lineages of all the other men alive at that time have been broken — either by childlessness or by having only daughters. The only factor affecting the DNA on the Y chromosome is mutation, so measuring mutation rates and extrapolating them backward can provide an estimate of when this most recent common male ancestor lived: not less than 60,000 years ago<ref>Hillary Mayell (2003). "<span class="plainlinks">[https://web.archive.org/web/20021222062034/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html Documentary Redraws Humans' Family Tree.]</span>" (National Geographic News). Accessed 17 November, 2007.</ref> and possibly as long as 340,000 years ago — before ''Homo sapiens''.<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23240-the-father-of-all-men-is-340000-years-old.html The father of all men is 340,000 years old] (Colin Barras, ''New Scientist'', 13 March 2013)</ref> This is evidence ''against'' a creation within the last few thousand years.
Note that the age estimates for Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam are not close; there is no reason to suspect they would be. Even in the Flood's Biblical account, '''Noah''' would be the Y-chromosome "Adam" since no other males survived the Flood except for Noah's sons. Even in creationism, the origin of mankind and the dating of Y-chromosome Adam have nothing to do with one another.}}
===6===
{{sbs|
Many fossil bones "dated" at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. See, for example, <capture>[http://creation.com/article/219#20120326 Dinosaur bones just how old are they really?]</capture>
|
There is no requirement that fossil bones be re-mineralized — bones and teeth are naturally made from a mineral ({{wpl|apatite||,}} which is largely {{wpl|calcium phosphate}}) in the first place, so they have some chance of preservation. And this still leaves fossil bones dated many millions of years old that ''have been'' mineralized. Other hard parts, such as shells, are formed of calcium carbonate (calcite or aragonite) and can be found almost unchanged since deposition as far back as the Cambrian.
Dinosaur bones date from as far back as 235 million years ago.<ref>As stated [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1352871.stm here].</ref> There have been and will probably continue to be disputes among paleontologists about dating specific fossils. However, these disputes are of the form "150 million years vs. 200 million years" and certainly not "6000 years vs. 200 million years".}}
===7===
{{sbs|
<capture>[http://creation.com/article/606/#20120326 Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels]</capture>, <capture>[http://creation.com/article/6568#20120326 proteins]</capture> (<capture>[http://creation.com/article/606#20120326 hemoglobin]</capture>, <capture>[http://creation.com/article/4751#20120326 osteocalcin]</capture>, <capture>[http://creation.com/article/6568#20120326 collagen]</capture>) are not consistent with their supposed age, but make more sense if the remains are young.
|
Claims of protein, DNA, or any other biological material extracted from dinosaur remains are, generously speaking, highly dubious. Evidence supporting such claims includes iron-bearing substances theorized to represent heme compounds found in the bone marrow. Opponents contend that certain "dinosaur [[Soft tissue preservation|soft tissues]]" could well have been recent bacterial sediment.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2933635420080730 Scientists question dinosaur soft tissue find] (Reuters, 2008-07-29)</ref> However, sufficient material could remain to work out some protein structures.<ref>{{oa}}San Antonio ''et al.'', [https://web.archive.org/web/20110620014418/http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020381 Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival], PLoS ONE (2011)</ref> In 2018, Jakob Vinther and other paleontologists found that fossils contain larger microbial populations than their surroundings. This indicates that the soft tissue found with dinosaur fossils belongs to microbes and not to the dinosaur. They state that their chemical and structural analysis also suggests that the tissue found with dinosaur bones belongs not to the fossilized dinosaur but to microbes.<ref>[https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/197610084/eLife.46205.pdf Cretaceous dinosaur bone contains recent organic material and provides an environment conducive to microbial communities] by Evan Saitta et al. (2009) ''eLife'' 8:e46205. doi:10.7554/eLife.46205.</ref> The jury's still out on whether this is even a thing.
A reading of the papers shows that creationists often deceive their audience by exaggerating the amount of found tissue.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=190&v=fgpSrUWQplE&feature=emb_title Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked] by Potholer54debunks (May 5, 2010) ''YouTube''.</ref>}}
===8===
{{sbs|
Lack of 50:50 <capture>[http://creation.com/article/861/#20120326 racemization of amino acids in fossils]</capture> "dated" at millions of years old, whereas complete racemization would occur in thousands of years.
|
[[Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#Amino_acid_racemization|Amino acid racemization]] dating is a technique that uses the ratio of amino acid isomers to date fossilized objects up to several millions of years into the past. For example, measuring the racemization of the amino acid isoleucine can date objects as far back as the claimed-implausible several million years.<ref>Michael D. Petraglia, Ravi Korisettar (1998). "Early Human Behaviour in Global Context". Routledge Education. Page 63. ISBN 0415117631.</ref><!-- at google books: http://books.google.com/books?id=vPuer9Hnf5wC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Early+Human+Behaviour+in+Global+Context&psp=1 -->
While it is true that there can be great variability in the rate at which amino acids undergo racemization, the changes in humidity, temperature, and acidity required to make the oldest known samples conform to a young Earth (6,000 years or less) are entirely unrealistic.}}
===9===
{{sbs|
<capture>[http://creation.com/article/3001#20120326 Living fossils]</capture> — jellyfish, graptolites, [[coelacanth]], stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.
|
The jellyfish have changed, as have the coelacanths — they aren't the same species, as the author claims. They merely belong to the same {{wpl|order (biology)|order}}: think "primates", not "''Homo sapiens''", for example. Of the life forms given as examples, only the Wollemi pine is a ''species'' and not such an old one as claimed.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20050323160650/www.rbgsyd.gov.au/information_about_plants/wollemi_pine/age_and_ancestry Age & Ancestry: Just how old is a Wollemi Pine?] (Botanic Gardens Trust)</ref>
The "many hundreds of species" are out of millions of species. Only a tiny proportion of fossil species have modern counterparts.
The key point is that the "living fossils" didn't change much ''because they were well-adapted to a stable environment''. This argument also presumes that the only changes are morphological — evolution includes biochemical changes, behavioral changes, and others that are not preserved in the fossil record.
Evolution does not give creatures an expiration date. The only thing that dictates whether a species will survive is its ability to survive and reproduce in its environment better than other species, not some arbitrary number of years.}}
===10===
{{sbs|
Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g. <capture>[http://creation.com/article/5192#20120326 Coelacanth]</capture>, <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1750#20120326 Wollemi pine]</capture> and various "index" fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example? See <capture>[http://creation.com/article/5645#20120326 The "Lazarus effect": rodent "resurrection"!]</capture>
|
A fossilization is a rare event. Marine fossils are even rarer because they start out on the seafloor, where they are inaccessible. That seafloor must be uplifted and turned into dry land through geological processes before humans can find the fossils it contains.
Coelacanth fossils virtually disappeared from the fossil record around 65 million years ago because there are no locations where they could have been fossilized and uplifted. They lived at the bottom of the Tethyan Seas (Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, Black Sea). A couple of million years after the {{wpl|Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event|K-T disaster (or K-Pg extinction)|,}} the Tethys Sea was almost completely closed. The Mediterranean was now a much shallower sea, and the Indian Ocean segment had become shallow upon impaction with the Indian subcontinent. The species in this area died out, unable to adapt to the reduction in their habitat. After this, there would be no tectonic uplift in the region, meaning that the coelacanth fossils would be deep in the ocean floor. The Indonesian coelacanth has not been fossilized because of similar conditions. In their location, trenches formed, allowing for the transfer of coelacanths, which were then trapped in Indonesian waters. The trenches have consistently been getting larger, and new land is not uplifted, meaning fossils cannot reach the surface.
An {{wpl|index fossil}} is a species used as an indicator by paleontologists as a working convenience. The (incorrect) creationist claim that coelacanths were an index fossil originates with [[Kent Hovind]], who misdescribes what an index fossil is and confuses coelacanths with graptolites,<ref>[http://www.oocities.org/kenthovind/evolution/evolution.htm Dr. Hovind's Creation Seminars: Part 4a: Lies in the Textbooks] (response)</ref> a blunder similar to confusing trilobites with raccoons.
The linked articles suggest that fossils were laid down during the [[Great Flood]]. This does not explain why dinosaurs (other than {{wpl|Origin of birds|birds}}) are only found in the lower strata and ''never'' (not just rarely) found in the upper strata.
If the Flood was as suitable for the creation of fossils as is described, there should be ''more'' fossils than we actually find. The described mechanism would fossilize a large proportion of everything living at the time. We would also expect modern animals, such as cows, to be found in the fossil record. The author's interpretation of the data is inconsistent with his stated model.
}}
===11===
{{sbs|
The <capture>[http://creation.com/patriarchs-of-the-forest#20120326 ages of the world's oldest living organisms, trees]</capture>, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.
|
The oldest living ''individual'' trees are younger than 6,000 years — but [[Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#Dendrochronology|dendrochronology]], which the linked article endorses, is not limited to studying a single tree. Because the thickness of rings differs depending on weather conditions during each season, tree ring patterns can be matched between living and dead trees, extending the record beyond the lifetime of a single tree. In suitable places, the record has been extended to roughly 11,000 years before the present.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/19961029081957/http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/ajatext.html Dendrochronology] (Peter Ian Kuniholm, ''American Journal of Archaeology'') — this references B. Becker, "An 11,000-Year German Oak and Pine Dendrochronology for Radiocarbon Calibration," ''Radiocarbon'' 35:1 (1993) 201-13.</ref> Thus, even the tree trunks — which give dates exact to a single year — are at odds with a biblical timeline.
Regardless of the age of individual trees, there are {{wpl|List_of_oldest_trees#Clonal_trees|several clonal tree colonies with ages beyond biblical possibilities|.}}
Current scientific opinion is that the oldest living organisms are seagrasses, not trees, and the oldest known example has been given an age in the vicinity of 80,000 to 100,000 years.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120207152545.htm Science Daily (7 February 2012): Ancient Seagrass Holds Secrets of the Oldest Living Organism On Earth]</ref>
}}
==Geological evidence==
===12===
{{sbs|
<capture>[http://creation.com/article/3573#20120326 Lack of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils]</capture>. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. See ''Origins'' '''21'''(1):51–56, 1994. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are ''not'' ecosystems of an "era" buried ''in situ'' over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah's day. This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years.
|
Plants are almost entirely soft tissue, so most of their remains decay quickly. Animals, on the other hand, have bones (and teeth, shells, etc.) — and these are the parts that are fossilized most readily. "Trackways" are only made in moist sediments that are mostly devoid of vegetation in the first place. No modern geologist insists that they were buried over eons due to the transitory nature of tracks. They all recognize that a special event that covered the tracks took place — which does not imply a global flood, but only a small-scale local event. If tracks were buried in situ over eons, then the Earth would be covered in them.
The Coconino sandstone shows extensive evidence that it was formed from wind-blown desert sand dunes, such as clear tracks of small insects and wind ripples. Sand deserts don't have a lot of plants.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC365_1.html Index to Creationist Claims: CC365.1] (Mark Isaak, [[talk.origins]] Archive)</ref>}}
===13===
{{sbs|
Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. E.g. the <capture>[http://creation.com/article/163#20120326 Kaibab upwarp]</capture> in Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened). This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood. See <capture>[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/195#20120328 Warped earth]</capture> (written by a geophysicist).
|
This refers to the creationist idea of [[soft-sediment deformation]] (which bears no relation to {{wpl|Soft-sediment deformation structures|the term}}'s use in geology).
What is happening is ductile deformation. What seems like "solid rock" to us is actually "plastic" with geological timescales and conditions — under long-term stress or strain, these crystalline structures can deform into convoluted shapes. And, of course, many rocks are fractured due to folding.
The creationist explanation fails to account for
*fold formation on large scales and for the inability of wet sediments to form extremely tight folds. If the wet sediment mechanism was responsible for fold formation, sediment would slump to the bottom, so the fold would be thinnest at the peak (crest), with the sides (limbs) increasing in thickness down to the trough. This is contrary to observations: the hinges are thickest and the limbs thin.
*the presence of folded chemical and biochemical sedimentary rocks, which are lithified (made into rock) instantly on the ocean floor and never consisted of wet sediment.
*strata flipped by tectonic activity.
Purple slates from North Wales often contain light green discolorations from ferrous reduction spheres formed around iron nuclei; these are deformed into long thin ovals, which are evidence of folding after the rock has lithified.
It is unclear how the fact that hard quartz sand grains were not elongated is relevant in this case. We are talking about a vast, 400 km long geological structure uplifted by 1.6 km. The changes in sand grains' dimensions would be undetectable, especially since they would not have had perfectly uniform dimensions.}}
===14===
{{sbs|
Polystrate fossils — tree trunks in coal (''Auracaria'' spp. king billy pines, celery top pines, in <capture>[http://creation.com/article/328#20120326 southern hemisphere coal]</capture>). There are also polystrate tree trunks in the <capture>[http://creation.com/article/591#20120326 Yellowstone fossilized forests]</capture> and <capture>[http://www.icr.org/article/445#20120328 Joggins, Nova Scotia]</capture> and in many other places. Polystrate fossilized lycopod trunks occur in <capture>[http://creation.com/article/873#20120326 northern hemisphere coal]</capture>, again indicating rapid burial / formation of the organic material that became coal.
|
This is, in fact, well-understood. Trees in certain conditions become buried in a layer of soft sedimentary rock. As the wood decays, its cellular structure is replaced by minerals precipitated from percolating groundwater, and it becomes petrified. However, these fossilizing minerals are hard, so later, as the softer surrounding sedimentary rock wears away, it leaves a "[[petrified forest]]". Other sediments are deposited around these fossilized trees and become new rock layers over time. ''Voilà''! Fossil trees extending through layers dated tens or hundreds of thousands of years later than the dead trees.}}
===15===
{{sbs|
Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1758#20120326 coal forms quickly]</capture>; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.
|
You can dig a hole in two minutes with a shovel, but that doesn't mean that all holes were formed in such a short time—especially those formed by natural processes. Even assuming that coalification can occur rapidly under certain circumstances (volcanism mixing clays with organic matter in the correct proportion, then providing unvarying heat above the boiling point of water for many months), it cannot then be assumed that all coal is formed by this particular method, which requires specific conditions, including the coal having first been buried at considerable depth. All coal deposits would be associated with significant quantities of volcanoclastic sediments — which they are not. The dating of the coal strata usually shows that they are hundreds of millions of years old.}}
===16===
{{sbs|
Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1182#20120326 oil forms quickly]</capture>; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.
|
Again, if oil ''can'' form quickly (assuming the time for the raw materials to reach suitable conditions), [[non sequitur|it does not follow]] that all of it ''must'' form quickly, and moreover, it does not follow that there is some lower age limit for the Earth.}}
===17===
{{sbs|
Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1727#20120326 opals form quickly]</capture>, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.
|
The linked article speaks of Len Cram, an opal expert who claims he can grow opals. It claims that Cram's opals have been examined by the {{wpl|CSIRO}} and found to be indistinguishable from natural opals. But Cram denies any scientific analysis of his opals, specifically by neither the CSIRO nor the Gemological Institute of America.<ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vGewAkLkmvIC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=len+cram&source=bl&ots=Lb0rekx7qu&sig=cNAgc9CZWl_YPpXQGEWwkB_PyGE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=C5h1T_vvLuXS0QWogvXCDQ&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=len%20cram&f=false ''The world of opals'' by Allan W. Eckert (1997), p.36]</ref> Nor has he revealed his method for others to check.
The main issue, of course, is that although opals can form ''quickly'',<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110815234024/http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/398099/QN136.pdf ''Quarterly Notes, Geological Survey of New South Wales'' (June 2011, No.136) - Fossil microbes in opal from Lightning Ridge — implications for the formation of opal.]</ref> this in no way implies they formed ''recently'' — opals form at the same time as the sediments in which they are found, and the surrounding rocks are dated at 100-150 million years.}}
===18===
{{sbs
|1=<capture>[http://creation.com/coal-memorial-to-the-flood#20120326 Evidence for rapid, catastrophic formation of coal beds]</capture> speaks against the hundreds of millions of years normally claimed for this, including Z-shaped seams that point to a single depositional event producing these layers.
|2=The formation and distortion of coal seams are easily explained by accepted (slow) geological processes. See, ''e.g.'', ''Coal Geology'' by Larry Thomas,<ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4oYWx90ybY8C&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=coal+seam+folding&source=bl&ots=2pkrToJZf7&sig=k4d6SYTcXwEJhRyJcKXleo5ua2Q&hl=en&ei=3Zd0Sp7pHeHajQefwuSnBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=coal%20seam%20folding&f=false ''Coal Geology''] (Google Books image)</ref> which explains coal seam folding.
The linked article asserts that Noah's flood "would have uprooted the entire pre-Flood biosphere and buried it with huge quantities of sand and mud" and correctly states that "The coal seams occur within thick layers of clay, sand and basaltic lava, which together form a 700-meter (2,300-foot) sequence of rocks". But there are multiple seams interleaved by well-defined layers of other materials, which indicates that they have been formed by a cyclical process rather than a single event, yet "There has only ever been one global Flood".
Any catastrophic mingling of vegetation, rock, and water would — depending on the relative proportions — either have produced deposits resembling a giant "fruit cake", with ingredients more or less evenly distributed, or a single sequence of a differentiated layer with the heaviest particles at the bottom and lighter vegetation near the top covered by the finest clay. It would not have produced "three groups of major coal seams, separated and underlain by clays and sands".<ref>[http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/rgws/Unesco/PDF-Chapters/Chapter9-1.pdf Case History No. 9.1. Latrobe Valley, Victoria, Australia, by C. S. Gloe, State Electricity Commission of Victoria, Victoria, Australia]</ref>
In any case, possible fast seam formation would not preclude slow seam formation.
Also, let's consider the claim being made here in the broader context. The "entire pre-Flood biosphere" has been ripped up and buried. That means there is no food ''whatsoever'' for the herbivores from Noah's boat to eat and nothing but those herbivores for the carnivores to eat. How exactly did ''anything'' survive in such a wasteland?}}
===19===
{{sbs|
Evidence for <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1752#20120326 rapid petrifaction of wood]</capture> speaks against the need for long periods of time and is consistent with an age of thousands of years.
|
See [[#15]]. The provided evidence for rapid natural petrification consists mainly of anecdotes. The artificial "instant petrification" method<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/110-presto-instant-petrified-wood-created-lab.html Presto! Instant Petrified Wood Created in Lab] (Brandon Miller, ''Live Science'', 2005-01-27)</ref> is nothing like natural petrification. It involves soaking the wood in hydrochloric acid and {{wpl|sodium metasilicate}} (which does not occur in nature) and baking it in a furnace at 1400°C.}}
===20===
{{sbs|
Clastic dykes and pipes (intrusion of sediment through overlying sedimentary rock) show that the overlying rock strata were still soft when it happened. This drastically compresses the time scale for the deposition of the penetrated rock strata. See, Walker, T., <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1647/#20120326 Fluidisation pipes: Evidence of large-scale watery catastrophe]</capture>, ''Journal of Creation (TJ)'' '''14'''(3):8–9, 2000.
|
This is factually incorrect. A {{wpl|clastic dike||,}} an intrusion of sediment into cracks in harder rock layers, does not imply the rock was intruded when it was soft but cracked when it was hard, ''e.g.'', during an earthquake.<ref>''e.g.'', the example reported in Tsafrir Levi, Ram Weinberger, Tahar Aıfa, Yehuda Eyal, Shmuel Marco. [http://www.tau.ac.il/~shmulikm/Publications/ClasticDikes-AMS-Geology06.pdf "Earthquake-induced clastic dikes detected by anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility."] ''Geology'' February 2006; v. 34; no. 2; p. 69–72; doi: 10.1130/G22001.1.</ref> If the sediment had been soft, it would show signs of deformation in the direction of the intrusion.
}}
===21===
{{sbs|
Para(pseudo)conformities—where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a "flat gap". E.g. Coconino sandstone / Hermit shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly a 10 million year gap in time). The thick Schnebly Hill Formation (sandstone) lies ''between'' the Coconino and Hermit in central Arizona. See Austin, S.A., ''Grand Canyon, monument to catastrophe,'' ICR, Santee, CA, USA, 1994 and Snelling, A., <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1952/#20120326 The case of the "missing" geologic time]</capture>, ''Creation '''''14'''(3):31–35, 1992.
|
All of this is well understood in geology. The sandstone of the Schnebly Hill formation eroded away in the Grand Canyon region but not further south in Arizona. Both regions were subsequently covered with Hermit shale. The argument about the "flat gap" (lack of erosion on the contact surface) is based on the findings of a creationist expedition investigating Park Service signs, as well as [[quote mining]]. It has the same problems as [[#23]].
Furthermore, not all environments form new layers of sediment. In many places on Earth, one can walk on ancient rocks billions of years old. If such areas were subsequently covered by sediment, we would have a paraconformity.<ref>[http://geology.about.com/od/geoprocesses/a/unconformities.htm About.com Geology: Unconformities: Gaps in the Record]</ref>}}
===22===
{{sbs|
The presence of ephemeral markings (raindrop marks, ripple marks, animal tracks) at the boundaries of paraconformities show that the upper rock layer has been deposited immediately after the lower one, eliminating many millions of "gap" time. See references in [[#21|Para(pseudo)conformities]].
|
True — these markings are preserved only by rare events such as lava flows, which explains their great rarity. Once again, the error is the assumption that the rapidity of some depositions means the rapidity of all depositions.
Furthermore, one would expect a worldwide flood, which creationists claim was violent enough to erode almost all geological formations - including forming the Grand Canyon - to have completely erased any ephemeral markings.
Ephemeral markings are a problem for creationists because they must either be completely antediluvian or post-diluvian; they could not have been formed during the Flood. The fact that these marks occur in sediments within supposed flood deposits provides an inherent contradiction and makes it impossible for them to say what was the lowest level of rocks before the Flood. Also, raindrop marks might be considered evidence ''against'' a flood as they need to be baked hard before being covered by further sediments.}}
===23===
{{sbs|
Inter-tonguing of adjacent strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years also eliminates many millions of years of supposed geologic time. <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1952/#20120326 The case of the "missing" geologic time]</capture>; Mississippian and Cambrian strata interbedding: 200 million years hiatus in question, ''CRSQ'' '''23'''(4):160–167.
|
The basic idea behind this claim is that strata from the Mississippian and the Cambrian lie "next" to each other in the Grand Canyon, so that there is no apparent disruption. This would "prove" that there was no time gap between what geologists found to be about a 200 million-year period.
The biggest issue is that no one else has found this interbedding or lateral connection of layers. The only people reporting it are a single group of five creationist researchers who visited in 1986.<ref>Waisgerber, W., Howe, G.F. and Williams, E.L., 1987. "Mississippian and Cambrian strata interbedding: 200 million years hiatus in question." ''Creation Research Society Quarterly'', vol. 23(4), pp. 160-167. <capture>[https://web.archive.org/web/20000123015334/http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum23_4.html#20120328 Abstract,]</capture> [https://web.archive.org/web/20041205120037/http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/grand_canyon_missing_strata.pdf text.]</ref> Instead of using standard geologic procedures to identify which layers corresponded to which period, they used a Park Service sign, hand lenses, and coloration. Conventionally, scientists use an array of properties and instruments that examine the qualities of the rock, fossils in the rock, and chemical composition to assign periods to a layer. The creationist researchers did none of this. Most importantly, no one else has been able to see this effect or replicate the findings nearly 30 years since this was initially published.<ref>[http://ncse.com/rncse/19/2/trivializing-creationist-scholarship Trivializing Creationist Scholarship] ''see: "Quality of Creationist Research" section''.</ref>}}
===24===
{{sbs|
The <capture>[http://creation.com/article/4275#20120326 lack of bioturbation]</capture> (worm holes, root growth) at paraconformities (flat gaps) reinforces the lack of time involved where evolutionary geologists insert many millions of years to force the rocks to conform with the "given" timescale of billions of years.
|
The link does not mention bioturbation at paraconformities at all. Instead, it nitpicks an article in ''The Skeptic'' criticizing the creationist interpretation of an Australian landform. (Admittedly, the article does not appear to be perfect.) It mentions "vertical tree trunks" buried in sandstone, which the creationists were forced to admit are actually unusual iron concretions.<ref><capture>[http://creation.com/sandstone-iron-concretions#20120326 CMI: Vertical 'logs' in sandstone are most likely iron concretions]</capture></ref>
Even ignoring this, signs of bioturbation tend to be destroyed in the process of lithification — the transformation of buried soil and sediments into rock. Nothing is surprising about this.
Furthermore, the wormholes and root growth in different stratigraphic layers are evidence of separate depositional sequences rather than a single flood event.
The phrase "evolutionary geologist" is just silly. Evolution is a theory in biology, not geology, so this is the equivalent of calling someone a "gravityist chemist".}}
===25===
{{sbs|
The almost complete lack of clearly recognizable soil layers anywhere in the geologic column. Geologists do claim to have found lots of "fossil" soils (paleosols), but these are quite different to soils today, lacking the features that characterize soil horizons; features that are used in classifying different soils. Every one that has been investigated thoroughly proves to lack the characteristics of proper soil. If "deep time" were correct, with hundreds of millions of years of abundant life on the earth, there should have been ample opportunities many times over for soil formation. See Klevberg, P. and Bandy, R., ''CRSQ'' '''39''':252–68; ''CRSQ'' '''40''':99–116, 2003; Walker, T., <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1671#20120326 Paleosols: digging deeper buries "challenge" to Flood geology]</capture>, ''Journal of Creation'' '''17'''(3):28–34, 2003.
|
The linked article responds to an essay by Joe Meert,<ref>Joe Meert. [https://web.archive.org/web/20020808004757/http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm ''Radiometric Dating, Paleosols, and the Geologic Column: Three strikes against Young Earth Creationism'']</ref> which shows a photo of a {{wpl|paleosol}} and states that the creationist claim of a lack of true paleosols is nothing more than denial. The creationist explanation is overly contrived and based on a single low-resolution photo interpreted without further investigation.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140731082526/http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com/Palaeosols Jonathan Clarke: Paleosoils and Noah's Flood]</ref> Meert has responded to the linked article with a detailed rebuttal,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20040206134534/http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walker.htm Joe Meert: Geology at 200 d.p.i., Remote Sensing from the Antipodes]</ref> highlighting that the criticisms are mostly straw men or beside the point.}}
===26===
{{sbs|
Limited extent of unconformities (unconformity: a surface of erosion that separates younger strata from older rocks). Surfaces erode quickly (e.g. Badlands, South Dakota), but there are very limited unconformities. There is the "great unconformity" at the base of the Grand Canyon, but otherwise there are supposedly ~300 million years of strata deposited on top without any significant unconformity. This is again consistent with a much shorter time of deposition of these strata. See [[#21|Para(pseudo)conformities]].
|
{{wpl|Badlands}} are places where soft sediments devoid of vegetation receive rare but intense rain showers and have very high erosion rates. They are not a typical landscape in this respect. The point of the rest of the argument is not clear enough to respond to.
The link given in [[#21]] contradicts the claim here of only one unconformity in the Grand Canyon — it accepts there are five of them.}}
===27===
{{sbs|
The amount of salt in the <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1738#20120326 world's oldest lake contradicts its supposed age]</capture> and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah's Flood, which is consistent with a young age of the earth.
|
The article is about Lake Eyre, which is not the oldest lake on Earth. In fact, it is considered relatively recent. The oldest lake is believed to be either {{wpl|Lake Baikal}} with a widely accepted age of 25-30 million years or potentially {{wpl|Lake Zaysan}} in Kazakhstan with a disputed age of 65 million years.
The linked article contains misunderstandings of the paper<ref>RH Gunn and PM Fleming. [http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/SR9840119.htm "The estimated store of soluble salts in the Lake Eyre catchment in Queensland and their possible transport in streamflow to the lake."] ''Australian Journal of Soil Research'' 22(2) 119-134.</ref> it references — the paper estimates the content of salt in the lake's ''catchment'' (the entire land area which drains into the lake), not in the lake itself. The paper also clearly states that its figures are assumptions based on the estimation of sodium chloride in the catchment and how it is evidently responsible for the bulk of the lake's salinity. In no way is 73,000 years an official consensus of how old Lake Eyre is, nor how long it took for salt to accumulate in the lake. Determining how long it took for the overall salt content of Lake Eyre to build up can only truly be done through speculation since Lake Eyre's salinity varies as a consequence of various conditions.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20010507095830/http://www.k26.com/eyre/The_Lake/Papers/Lake_Eyre_basics/lake_eyre_basics.html Lake Eyre basics] by Vincent Kotwicki. ''Floods of Lake Eyre''.</ref>}}
===28===
{{sbs|
The discovery that underwater landslides ("turbidity currents") travelling at some 50 km/h can create huge areas of sediment in a matter of hours (Press, F., and Siever, R., ''Earth'', 4<sup>th</sup> ed., Freeman & Co., NY, USA, 1986). Sediments thought to have formed slowly over eons of time are now becoming recognized as having formed extremely rapidly. See for example, <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1556#20120326 A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow]</capture> (Technical).
|
Turbidity currents do not "create" sediment out of nothing; they just move around older unconsolidated sediments. It is very unclear how this constitutes evidence for a young Earth.
The linked article [[cherry picking|cherry-picks]] a single publication presenting evidence that one specific deposit of what was assumed to be glacial rubble could actually be sediment laid down by turbidity currents.<ref>[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231937420_Glacial_or_non-glacial_origin_for_the_Bigganjargga_tillite_Finnmark_northern_Norway Glacial or non-glacial origin for the Bigganjargga tillite, Finnmark, northern Norway]</ref> Based on this one publication, the author declares that the ice ages did not occur and all geological evidence for them is invalid. Clearly, this over-generalization is absurd and completely ignores other kinds of {{wpl|Ice age#Evidence for ice ages|evidence for ice ages|,}} such as erratic boulders, changes in the distribution of species observed in the fossil record, or the temperature record from ice cores.
}}
===29===
{{sbs|
Flume tank research with sediment of different particle sizes show that layered rock strata that were thought to have formed over huge periods of time in lake beds actually formed very quickly. Even the precise layer thicknesses of rocks were duplicated after they were ground into their sedimentary particles and run through the flume. See <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1775#20120326 Experiments in stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures]</capture>, <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1541/#20120326 Sedimentation Experiments: Nature finally catches up!]</capture> and <capture>[http://creation.com/article/681#20120326 Sandy Stripes Do many layers mean many years?]</capture>
|
These experiments show that sand composed of grains of varying sizes may produce features that ''superficially'' resemble sedimentation layers. In geology, appearance alone is not sufficient. The same kind of argument based on perceived similarity is made in [[#30]].}}
===30===
{{sbs|
Observed examples of rapid canyon formation; for example, <capture>[http://creation.com/article/237#20120326 Providence Canyon]</capture> in southwest Georgia, <capture>[http://creation.com/article/421#20120326 Burlingame Canyon]</capture> near Walla Walla, Washington, and [http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1/j18_1_45-46.pdf Lower Loowit Canyon] near Mount St Helens. The rapidity of the formation of these canyons, which look similar to other canyons that supposedly took many millions of years to form, brings into question the supposed age of the canyons that no one saw form.
|
The article mentions that canyons can form rapidly, especially in the volcanic and alluvial deposits; however, this does not mean that all canyons formed quickly or recently.
"Look similar" is insufficient in geology, where just "looking" does not give enough information to understand the formation and physical properties of the soils and rocks in question. Consider that garnet and a ruby ''look similar'', but that doesn't make them the same type of stone.
}}
===31===
{{sbs|
Observed examples of rapid island formation and maturation, such as <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1745#20120326 Surtsey]</capture>, which confound the notion that such islands take long periods of time to form. See also, <capture>[http://creation.com/article/588#20120328 Tuluman—A Test of Time]</capture>.
|
{{wpl|Surtsey}} is a volcano; not all islands are volcanoes. Britain's path to islandhood involved a massive lake bursting its banks thousands of years ago, cutting away the chalk deposits linking it to Europe. Other islands such as Sri Lanka and Cuba were formed as rising sea levels isolated them from the mainland. Still, other islands, such as New Zealand and Madagascar, were formed when the movement of tectonic plates sheared them off of previously adjoined landmasses (i.e., Australia and India, respectively).
Volcanic island chains formed by plate movement over crustal hotspots (''e.g.'', Hawaii, Galápagos) show increasing erosion from the most recent (''i.e.'', active) end of the chain to the older end. This demonstrates that the islands have existed and been weathered for significantly different lengths of time, which does not fit with the recent creation scenario that they were created around the same time with the majority of the erosion due to floodwater.}}
===32===
{{sbs|
Rate of <capture>[http://creation.com/article/5612/#20120328 erosion of coastlines]</capture>, horizontally. E.g. Beachy Head, UK, loses a metre of coast to the sea every six years.
|
Presumably, this is meant to imply that all land would have been eroded into the ocean by now if the Earth were old.
However, land lost from coastlines does not necessarily just disappear but is often deposited elsewhere. For example, {{wpl|Rye, East Sussex||,}} a town in the same county as {{wpl|Beachy Head||,}} was once an important port but is now inland. Similarly, {{wpl|Cape Cod||,}} entirely of sand and gravel (a glacial moraine), sometimes loses substantial amounts of shoreline in some places — while aggregating large amounts in others.
Likewise, land can rise above the ocean, ''e.g.,'' Surtsey (which the article lists in [[#31]]), or land raised by tectonic plates colliding.}}
===33===
{{sbs|
Rate of <capture>[http://creation.com/article/230#20120328 erosion of continents vertically]</capture>. See ''Creation'' '''22'''(2):18–21.
|
Continents are not eroding uniformly, nor is erosion the only process taking place. The continents (or lithosphere) are composed of lighter materials than the underlying crust (the asthenosphere), and the lithosphere floats on the asthenosphere as icebergs float in water. This means that high peaks are matched by compensating deep roots, verified by measuring both gravitational anomalies and seismic waves. As the surface of the lithosphere is eroded, the continents readjust their buoyancy and rise. For example, southern Sweden and the Baltic Sea area have risen since 1810.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/82801/Christian-Leopold-Freiherr-von-Buch Leopold, Baron von Buch]</ref>}}
===34===
{{sbs|
Existence of significant <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1635#20120328 flat plateaux that are "dated" at many millions of years old]</capture> ("elevated paleoplains"). An example is <capture>[http://creation.com/article/230#20120328 Kangaroo Island]</capture> (Australia). C.R. Twidale, a famous Australian physical geographer wrote: "the survival of these paleoforms is in some degree an embarrassment to all the commonly accepted models of landscape development." Twidale, C.R. On the survival of paleoforms, ''American Journal of Science'' '''5'''(276):77–95, 1976 (quote on p. 81). See Austin, S.A., <capture>[http://www.icr.org/article/211#20120328 Did landscapes evolve?]</capture> ''Impact'' '''118''', April 1983.
|
This is an example of [[quote mining]]: the author has misread the referenced paper and picked out a quote he thinks supports his position, but the source of the quote itself shows the author's claim to be incorrect. At no point does Twidale's paper suggest that dating results are in error. It recounts various landscape development theories, points out that all of them fail to explain all observed features of paleoforms, and proposes an alternative model that ''does explain them''. The author uses inadequacies in old theories mentioned by Twidale to suggest that the data itself is wrong, which is entirely backward.
The conclusion says: "Even if the conclusions reached by many workers over the years are only partly correct, it is clear that remnants of paleoforms are an integral part of the modern land surface ... The hills are not everlasting as Jacob implied (''Genesis'', 49, 26), but they persist for much longer periods than has been generally conceded."}}
===35===
{{sbs|
The recent and almost simultaneous origin of all major mountain ranges around the world: all "dated" at only 5 million years ago, whereas the continents have, it is claimed, been around for up to billions of years. See Baumgardner, J., <capture>[http://www.icr.org/article/98#20120328 Recent uplift of today's mountains]</capture>. ''Impact'' '''381''', March 2005.
|
The statement is entirely incorrect. The {{wpl|Appalachians}} go back so far — 480 million years — that they predate the Atlantic Ocean (and the dinosaurs). Rocks found in the Appalachians match those found in Scandinavia and Scotland.<ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ObdepEp9r7kC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=rocks+similar+in+appalachians+and+scotland&source=bl&ots=Pr9jixQmR2&sig=HNV6yl86MiR8kQRove9cE2aG5YU&hl=en&ei=WwosSo7RG-SOjAeInYmACw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 Trewin, N. H. ''The Geology of Scotland'']</ref> The {{wpl|Rocky Mountains}} are 55 million years old, while the {{wpl|Himalayas}} started forming 50 million years ago.
Even if the claim were correct, 5 million years is over eight hundred times longer than the standard YEC timeframe of 6,000 years.
}}
===36===
{{sbs|1=
Water gaps. These are gorges cut through mountain ranges where rivers run. They occur worldwide and are part of what evolutionary geologists call "discordant drainage systems". They are "discordant" because they don't fit the deep time belief system. The evidence fits them forming rapidly in a much younger age framework where the gorges were cut in the recessive stage / dispersive phase of the global Flood of Noah's day. See Oard, M., <capture>[http://creation.com/do-rivers-erode-through-mountains#20120328 Do rivers erode through mountains]</capture>? Water gaps are strong evidence for the Genesis Flood, ''Creation '''''29'''(3):18–23, 2007.
|2=
Again with the "evolutionary geologists". Geologists don't study evolution.
"Discordant" means that the river's course does not match the arrangement of geological layers. It does not refer to some problem with deep time.
Water gaps are well understood: the river was there first, then the area underwent uplifting. Because the uplift process was much slower than erosion, the river cut through the mountain range as it rose.
}}
===37===
{{sbs|
<capture>[http://creation.com/article/276#20120328 Erosion at Niagara Falls]</capture> and other such places is consistent with just a few thousand years since the biblical Flood. However, much of the Niagara Gorge likely formed very rapidly with the catastrophic drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz; see: <capture>[http://creation.com/climate-change-niagara-and-catastrophe#20120329 Climate change, Niagara and catastrophe]</capture>.
|
Waterfalls are sites of rapid erosion and, therefore, highly dynamic. There is no reason to suppose any waterfall is as old as the Earth.
Furthermore, we might ask that, if, under a creationist scenario, the Grand Canyon and Niagara Gorge supposedly both came into being after the global Flood, why aren't they of similar sizes? After all, they would apparently be cutting through similar soft flood sediments. Still, the more energetic Niagara River (200,000 ft<sup>3</sup>/s) has incised a much smaller canyon than the Colorado River (30,000 ft<sup>3</sup>/s) in a supposedly equal period. This highlights the absence of coherency in the flood geology paradigm. The apparent aim is only to undermine the old-Earth model rather than give a consistent alternative.
Niagara Falls first formed at the end of the last ice age, 12,500 years ago.<ref>[http://www.niagarafallslive.com/facts_about_niagara_falls.htm Facts about Niagara Falls]</ref> Fitting even this date into the young Earth timescale would require inventing flaws in radiometric dating.
No evidence suggests that the erosion rate was anything other than 3 feet per year.}}
===38===
{{sbs|
River delta growth rate is consistent with thousands of years since the biblical Flood, not vast periods of time. The argument goes back to Mark Twain. E.g. 1. Mississippi—''Creation Research Quarterly (CRSQ)'' '''9''':96–114, 1992; ''CRSQ'' '''14''':77; ''CRSQ'' '''25''':121–123. E.g. 2 Tigris–Euphrates: ''CRSQ'' '''14''':87, 1977.
|
Deltas form around sea level, and the current sea level dates only from the end of the last [[ice age]] — about eight to ten thousand years ago; before that, the sea level had been much lower.}}
===39===
{{sbs|
Underfit streams. River valleys are too large for the streams they contain. Dury speaks of the "continent-wide distribution of underfit streams". Using channel meander characteristics, Dury concluded that past streams frequently had 20–60 times their current discharge. This means that the river valleys would have been carved very quickly, not slowly over eons of time. See Austin, S.A., <capture>[http://www.icr.org/article/211#20120328 Did landscapes evolve?]</capture> ''Impact'' 118, 1983.
|
This "evidence" turns out to be another example of [[quote mining]]. In the 1950s, a {{wpl|misfit stream}} was thought to arise when the drainage area of a river was reduced. George H. Dury recognized that misfit streams are more common in some regions and, therefore, cannot arise only by this mechanism, which would have no regional variation.<ref>"The essence of Dury's contribution was his recognition that, contrary to Davis's claims, such [misfit] streams were regionally distributed, and therefore could not be due to purely localized stream capture, but must bear the imprint of some regionally operative event." R. W. Young, [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00049189708703182 George Dury 1916–96: an appreciation.] ''Australian Geographer'' 1997, 28(1), 89-96</ref> This phenomenon is thought to be caused by [[climate change]] in the past, which reduced precipitation; indeed, other research by Dury provided substantial evidence that the climate of Europe and the northern U.S. was once tropical and much more humid than today.<ref>G. H. Dury, [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1797147 Relict deep weathering and duricrusting in relation to the paleoenvironments of middle latitudes.] ''The Geographical Journal'' 1971, 137(4), 511-522</ref> None of his work provides any evidence for a young Earth.
}}
===40===
{{sbs|
Amount of <capture>[http://creation.com/article/578#20120328 salt in the sea]</capture>. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the ''maximum'' age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the earth is radically less also.
|
Again, evolution is a part of ''biology''. ''Geologists'', not biologists, established the age(s) of the oceans.
The rate of increase — and ''decrease'' — in salinity of the oceans has varied over time.<ref>McIntyre, K. and Schrag, D.P. [https://web.archive.org/web/20110719204446/http://schraglab.unix.fas.harvard.edu/publications/CV49.pdf The Salinity, Temperature, and delta 18O of the Glacial Deep Ocean]''Science'', vol. 298, no. 5599, p.1769 (2002)</ref> When seawater is separated from the ocean and evaporates, the salts ("evaporite") left behind are no longer in the ocean. The evaporated fresh water eventually returns through the rain. The author of the linked article here tries to model salt accumulation in the ocean with a simplistic linear equation, which is grossly inadequate and based on an incorrect uniformitarian assumption.
Also, 62 million years is still four orders of magnitude above 6,000.}}
===41===
{{sbs|
The <capture>[http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world#20120328 amount of sediment on the sea floors]</capture> at current rates of land erosion would accumulate in just 12 million years; a blink of the eye compared to the supposed age of much of the ocean floor of up to 3 billion years. Furthermore, long-age geologists reckon that ''higher'' erosion rates applied in the past, which shortens the time frame. From a biblical point of view, at the end of Noah's Flood lots of sediment would have been added to the sea with the water coming off the unconsolidated land, making the amount of sediment perfectly consistent with a history of thousands of years.
|
The calculation arriving at 12 million years is flawed and simplistic.<ref>Tentinger, J. [http://web.archive.org/web/20090411104034/http://www.usd.edu/esci/age/content/creationist_clocks/ocean_floor_sediment.html ''Ocean Floor Sediment as a Creationist Clock'']</ref> It takes little account of {{wpl|subduction}} of the tectonic plates and, in bringing ocean floor sediments into flood geology, exposes one of its significant flaws: deposition via a single, global flood would have mixed the sediments into a single {{wpl|mélange}} of one type of sediment, with all sorts of rock and soil types jumbled together. The truth is that sediments vary in different parts of the world, with true mélanges occurring mostly in subduction zones.
Note that the "12 million years" is substantially greater than the Ussher value of 6,000 years.}}
===42===
{{sbs|
Iron-manganese nodules (IMN) on the sea floors. The measured rates of growth of these nodules indicates an age of only thousands of years. Lalomov, A.V., 2007. [[:File:CSRQ44-1 p64-66 Lalomov Mineral Deposits as an Example of Geological Rates.pdf|Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates.]] ''CRSQ'' '''44'''(1):64–66.
|
This is almost entirely incorrect. {{wpl|Manganese nodule}} growth is so slow that it takes several million years to form one centimeter. It is one of the ''slowest'' known geological phenomena. Fast-growing nodules (at least 500 years per centimeter) exist in some locations<ref>''e.g.'', S. Hlawatsch, T. Neumann, C.M.G. van den Berg, M. Kersten, J. Harff, E. Suess. [http://www.liv.ac.uk/~sn35/Documents/Papers/Hlawatsch%20et%20al%20MARGEO%20Mn%20nodules%20in%20Baltic%202002.pdf "Fast-growing, shallow-water ferromanganese nodules from the western Baltic Sea: origin and modes of trace element incorporation."] ''Marine Geology'' 182 (2002) 373-387.</ref> but are not the usual case.
All examples of fast growth in the cited paper refer to nodules found growing on man-made steel objects. In this case, nodule growth is greatly accelerated by {{wpl|electrochemical}} processes driven by the dissolution of iron from the steel.
}}
===43===
{{sbs|
The age of placer deposits (concentrations of heavy metals such as tin in modern sediments and consolidated sedimentary rocks). The measured rates of deposition indicate an age of thousands of years, not the assumed millions. See Lalomov, A.V., and Tabolitch, S.E., 2000. [http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_3/j14_3_83-90.pdf Age determination of coastal submarine placer, Val'cumey, northern Siberia]. ''Journal of Creation (TJ)'' '''14'''(3):83–90.
|
Lalomov has been shown to have erroneously represented geological evidence in this matter, inserting names of metals into quotes from other scientists and cherry-picking only those placer deposits that fit his ideas.<ref>[http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/creation_geology_russia_review.htm A Review of a Creationist Interpretation of Placer Gold Deposits]</ref>}}
===44===
{{sbs|
Pressure in oil / gas wells indicate the recent origin of the oil and gas. If they were many millions of years old we would expect the pressures to equilibrate, even in low permeability rocks. "Experts in petroleum prospecting note the impossibility of creating an effective model given long and slow oil generation over millions of years (Petukhov, 2004). In their opinion, if models demand the standard multimillion-years geochronological scale, the best exploration strategy is to drill wells on a random grid." Lalomov, A.V., 2007. [[:File:CSRQ44-1 p64-66 Lalomov Mineral Deposits as an Example of Geological Rates.pdf|Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates.]] ''CRSQ'' '''44'''(1):64–66.
|
Many meters of solid rock can and do hold the oil and gas in place at least as well as a few millimeters of steel. The Lalomov paper's assertion otherwise is an [[argument from incredulity]].
The assertion as to the recommendations for petroleum prospecting is factually incorrect. No oil company expert recommends drilling on a random grid.
The citation from Petukhov's paper is presented as if he were a mainstream petroleum expert. However, this paper was published in a Russian creationist monograph rather than an oil-related journal, and Petukhov is a proponent of the pseudoscientific [[abiotic oil]] theory.}}
===45===
{{sbs|
Direct evidence that <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1182/#20120328 oil is forming today]</capture> in the Guaymas Basin and in <capture>[http://creation.com/article/5746#20120328 Bass Strait]</capture> is consistent with a young earth (although not ''necessary'' for a young earth).
|
The fact that oil forms today means nothing concerning the Earth's age. People are still being born today, but this does not mean there was no Earth before the oldest living human was born. This overlaps with [[#16]].}}
===46===
{{sbs|
<capture>[http://creation.com/article/1777#20120328 Rapid reversals in paleomagnetism]</capture> undermine use of paleomagnetism in long ages dating of rocks and speak of rapid processes, compressing the long-age time scale enormously.
|{{main|Geomagnetic reversal}}
The author of the cited "rapid reversal" paper has stated that his work was misused, as his estimated timescale for the "rapid" event he studied is several thousand years.<ref>Joe Meert. [http://scienceantiscience.blogspot.com/2007/02/rapid-reversals-of-magnetic-field.html "Rapid reversals of the magnetic field."] ''Science, AntiScience and Geology'' (blog), 2007-02-26.</ref>
Furthermore, the author of the linked creationist article argues that the simple explanation is that rapid reversals would be associated with the flood event — yet overlooks that the lava, which was the subject of the research, was actually extruded on dry land, not underwater.}}
===47===
{{sbs|
The pattern of magnetization in the magnetic stripes where magma is welling up at the mid-ocean trenches argues against the belief that reversals take many thousands of years and rather indicates rapid sea-floor spreading as well as rapid magnetic reversals, consistent with a young earth (Humphreys, D.R., Has the Earth's magnetic field ever flipped? ''Creation Research Quarterly'' '''25'''(3):130–137, 1988).
|{{main|Geomagnetic reversal}}
Humphreys' general theory, detailed in several papers,<ref>[http://talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field] (Tim Thompson, [[talk.origins]], 2003-06-29)</ref> is that the geological record shows many extremely fast reversals, taking ''days to weeks'', rather than the accepted minimum of many tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Later works<ref>D. Russell Humphreys, 1993. <capture>[https://web.archive.org/web/20051217164939/http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=371#20120330 "The Earth's magnetic field is young."]</capture> ''ICR Acts & Facts.'' 22 (8). Also in ''ICR Impact'' #242.</ref> show that he has misread data on fast (on the order of decades) ''fluctuations'' in the magnetic field as being fast ''reversals''.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20031222211516/http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/magfield.htm Is the Earth's magnetic field young?] (Joe Meert, 2008-08-10) This article also shows the original graph that Humphreys misread the ''average'' line of as the ''zero'' line, and then flipped horizontally.</ref> ''See also'' [[#46]], [[#49]].
The referenced paper is not readily available, though the <capture>[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum25_3.html abstract]</capture> is available. Until we obtain the full paper, we can't offer further comments.
}}
===48===
{{sbs|
<capture>[http://creation.com/article/722#20120328 Measured rates of stalactite and stalagmite growth]</capture> in limestone caves are consistent with a young age of several thousand years. See also <capture>[http://creation.com/article/3007#20120328 articles on limestone cave formation]</capture>.
|
Stalactites and stalagmites result from the deposition of calcium carbonate by groundwater. This mineral's solubility, which determines the rate at which these features can grow, depends on the water's carbon dioxide content. Since this has varied widely over geologic time and is now being altered by human activity, the rate currently observed cannot be expected to hold throughout the past.
But even if this were true, the argument says nothing: the age of the earth is in no way limited by the time it takes a stalactite to form.
It should be noted that the entire evidence for this claim is an anecdote from a travel magazine and four creationist publications.}}
===49===
{{sbs|1=The <capture>[http://creation.com/article/760#20120328 decay of the earth's magnetic field]</capture>. Exponential decay is evident from measurements and is consistent with theory of free decay since creation, suggesting an age of the earth of only thousands of years. For further evidence that it follows exponential decay with a time constant of 1611 years (±10) see: Humphreys, R., [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/47/47_3/CRSQ%20Winter%202011%20Humphreys.pdf Earth's magnetic field is decaying steadily — with a little rythm<sup><nowiki>[</nowiki>''sic''<nowiki>]</nowiki>]</sup>, ''CRSQ'' '''47'''(3):193–201; 2011.
<!-- NOTE: typo "rythm" in original "101 evidences" article, spelt correctly in Humphreys' original paper -->
|2={{main|Geomagnetic reversal}}
The Earth's magnetic field does not decay exponentially but reverses direction from time to time and decreases in strength during this time. This is pointed out by the article's author in [[#46]] and [[#47]], so the author has contradicted himself.
}}
===50===
{{sbs|
Excess heat flow from the earth is consistent with a young age rather than billions of years, even taking into account heat from radioactive decay. See Woodmorappe, J., 1999. <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1667#20120328 Lord Kelvin revisited on the young age of the earth]</capture>. ''Journal of Creation (TJ)'' '''13'''(1):14, 1999.
|
The link criticizes an inference about something which cannot be directly observed (the sources of geothermal heat) because it relies on a fact that creationists deny (an old Earth). As such, this is not an argument but a complaint that someone used the scientifically-accepted age of the Earth to learn something new.
Although Lord Kelvin himself was an anti-evolutionist, his {{wpl|William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin#Age_of_the_Earth:_Geology_and_theology|calculations}} — made before the discovery of heat generation from radioactivity — still put the Earth's age at 20 to 40 million years. This is an argument ''against'' a young Earth, not for one.}}
==Radiometric dating==
===51===
{{sbs|
Carbon-14 in [http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf coal] suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
|
See the response to [[#52]]; the mechanism of carbon-14 formation in coal deposits is the same as in oil fields.
}}
===52===
{{sbs|
Carbon-14 in <capture>[http://creation.com/article/4650/#20120328 oil]</capture> again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
|
The origin of carbon-14 in oil deposits is fairly well understood and is a consequence of several nuclear reactions involving alpha particles and neutrons. These are, in turn, generated from the decay of naturally occurring uranium and thorium.<ref>G. Bonvicini, N. Harris, V. Paolone, [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0308025 The chemical history of <sup>14</sup>C deep oilfields]</ref> The reactions include:
* <sup>17</sup>O + n → <sup>14</sup>C + α
* <sup>14</sup>N + n → <sup>14</sup>C + p
* <sup>13</sup>C + n → <sup>14</sup>C
* <sup>11</sup>B + α → <sup>14</sup>C + n
* <sup>226</sup>Ra → <sup>212</sup>Pb + <sup>14</sup>C (a rare decay mode).
In the above equations, n means neutron, p means proton, which is a hydrogen-1 nucleus, and α means alpha particle, which is a helium-4 nucleus.
There is a further problem with the creationist perspective: if the carbon-14 in oil deposits is just carbon-14 that didn't decay since [[Creation Week]], we would expect its content to be very similar across deposits, but in reality, it's highly variable and ranges from 10<sup>-16</sup> to 10<sup>-22</sup>, six orders of magnitude. The radiogenic hypothesis explains this perfectly: the variation arises from differing uranium and thorium content in the surrounding rock.}}
===53===
{{sbs|
Carbon-14 in <capture>[http://creation.com/article/731#20120328 fossil wood]</capture> also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
|
As per [[#51]] and [[#52]], the mechanism for carbon-14 in old deposits is well understood. If your sample is much older than 60,000 years, the results of carbon-14 dating are meaningless. Fossil wood usually can't be directly dated above that age, but you can date any surrounding volcanic ash with other radiometric methods and thus infer the wood's age.}}
===54===
{{sbs|
Carbon-14 in <capture>[http://creation.com/article/4650/#20120328 diamonds]</capture> suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years.
|
As per [[#51]], [[#52]], and [[#53]].
This is an excellent example of how lists of this sort can inflate their apparent size by repeating the same point in a slightly different form.
More importantly, applying {{wpl|radiocarbon dating||}} to diamonds shows a lack of understanding. Unlike living entities, diamonds are not made from atmospheric carbon but are formed deep within the Earth. They naturally contain some nitrogen that can be altered by the decay of radioactive elements in the diamond into <sup>14</sup>C. Radiocarbon dating is based on the measured ratio of unstable <sup>14</sup>C to stable <sup>12</sup>C and <sup>13</sup>C in atmospheric carbon dioxide — but the original ratio of these two isotopes in a newly-created diamond is unknown. Like trying to measure the speed of light with a stopwatch, the radiocarbon dating of diamonds uses the wrong tool for the job entirely.
Even if it were not, the ages claimed here for the diamonds (55,700 years) are not only at the upper limit of radiocarbon dating but are almost ''ten times'' [[James Ussher|Ussher's]] 6,000-year timescale.}}
===55===
{{sbs|
Incongruent radioisotope dates [http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf using the same technique] argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
|
The citation given is a chapter of a creationist book, which says carbon-14 dating is unreliable past 35-45 thousand years due to that being the upper limit of the test. Anything older will return a result of "35-45 thousand years or older".
Furthermore, the book criticizes dates obtained using {{wpl|argon–argon dating}} (where Ar-40 is compared to Ar-39). This method is sensitive to loss of argon from the rock in the distant past, such as weathering, which leads to apparent ages older than in reality, just as described in the chapter. However, this doesn't cast any doubt on dating methods in general; it's at most another argument for being careful to use the right tool for the job.}}
===56===
{{sbs|
Incongruent radioisotope dates [http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf using different techniques] argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).
|
This is a duplicate of [[#55]] and links to the same chapter of a creationist textbook.}}
===57===
{{sbs|
Demonstrably <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1806#20120328 non-radiogenic "isochrons" of radioactive]</capture> and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron "dating" that gives billions of years. <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1780#20120328 "False" isochrons]</capture> are common.
|
The referenced paper does not actually demonstrate that isochrons are not radiogenic. It merely suggests that isochrons result from mixing between isotopically-light and isotopically-heavy sources of strontium rather than from radioactive decay. The proposed source of this strontium is [[goddidit|miraculous]] isotope separation in the mantle and meteorites. No evidence of such systems is presented, nor have the postulated strontium sources been found.
The author of this conjecture is John Woodmorappe, author of ''Noah's Ark: A feasibility study''.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study] (review by Glenn Morton, [[talk.origins]])</ref>
}}
===58===
{{sbs|
Different faces of the same zircon crystal and <capture>[http://creation.com/article/811/#20120328 different zircons from the same rock]</capture> giving different "ages" undermine all "dates" obtained from zircons.
|
The link is a criticism of two papers that fails to show an understanding of the field.
The first paper criticized is about the dating of zircon grains in Australia.<ref>W. Compston, R. T. Pidgeon, [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v321/n6072/pdf/321766a0.pdf Jack Hills, evidence of more very old detrital zircons in Western Australia.] ''Nature'' 1986, 321, 766-769</ref> The author of the linked article complains that the oldest obtained age was reported instead of taking an average, completely failing to understand that the dating method gives minimum age estimates. Obviously, the oldest value is a better estimate of actual age than an average of minima. Moreover, he does not mention that the dates obtained from 17 different grains vary only slightly.
The second paper criticized describes diamonds from Zaire with abnormal argon content, resulting in a bogus K-Ar dating result of 6 billion years.<ref>F. A. Podosek, J. Pier, O. Nitoh, S. Zashu, M. Ozima, [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v334/n6183/abs/334607a0.html Normal potassium, inherited argon in Zaire cubic diamonds.] ''Nature'' 1988, 334, 607-609</ref> Here the contention is that the diamonds' age was rejected due to dogma, demonstrating a failure to comprehend the concept of outliers. It's also a mystery why the author is defending a claim that the Earth is ''older'' than commonly accepted while arguing that it's ''a million times younger'' than commonly accepted.}}
===59===
{{sbs|
Evidence of a period of <capture>[http://creation.com/article/547/#20120328 rapid radioactive decay in the recent past]</capture> (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.
|
This claim is refuted, in excruciating detail, at the [[talk.origins]] archive.<ref name=tohumphreys>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html Dr. Humphreys' Young-Earth Helium Diffusion "Dates": Numerous Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data] (Kevin R. Henke, [[talk.origins]], 2010-06-20)</ref> Humphreys gathered some shabbily acquired, incorrect data, combined this with a deeply flawed model of helium diffusion in zircons, and claimed it proved young Earth creationism. His claim was then thoroughly discredited — by Old Earth Creationist (i.e., ''not an evolutionist'') Gary H. Loechelt.}}
===60===
{{sbs|
The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, in Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), ''[[RATE|Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth]]: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, ''Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 848 pp., 2005
|
This refers to the same work as [[#59]].
The authors of these articles have failed to consider the full implications of their hypothesis that radioactive decay was much faster in the past. If all past decay happened in just 4540 years instead of 4.54 billion years, the released heat would provide 50 times more power per unit of Earth's surface than the Sun in its zenith. At the end of the accelerated decay period, the [[background radiation]] dose would have been around 2000 Sv per year, or more than one human lethal dose per day. How would anything have survived such conditions?
}}
===61===
{{sbs|
Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., ''et al''., [http://www.halos.com/reports/science-1982-lead-in-zircons.pdf Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment], ''Science '''''216'''(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296).
|
This is a blatant misrepresentation of the linked article, which is a genuine scientific publication. It describes the rate of lead diffusion in zircons determined in laboratory experiments and estimated from isotope ratios in granite cores. It concludes that it is sufficiently low to prevent the escape of nuclear waste immobilized in synthetic rock for at least as long as that waste remains radioactive. Relevant quote: "At a burial depth of 3000 m (~200°C), we calculate that it would take 5 · 10<sup>10</sup> years for 1 percent of the Pb to diffuse out of a 50 μm crystal." In other words, it would take '''fifty billion years''', almost four times the current age of the universe, for just 1% of the lead to be lost from a crystal comparable in size to a single cell of the human skin. Zircons from deep and shallow cores do not differ in their lead content because lead diffusion in zircons is ''extremely, unimaginably'' slow, even at geological time scales. No evidence is offered for the claim that lead diffusion in zircons is faster than currently accepted and significantly affected by temperature.
}}
===62===
{{sbs|
Pleochroic halos produced in granite by concentrated specks of short half-life elements such as polonium suggest a period of rapid nuclear decay of the long half-life parent isotopes during the formation of the rocks and rapid formation of the rocks, both of which speak against the usual ideas of geological deep time. See, <capture>[http://creation.com/article/5041#20120328 Radiohalos: Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes]</capture>, ''Creation'' '''28'''(2):46–50, 2006.
|
No good evidence exists that "[[polonium halos]]" are caused by polonium decay.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html TalkOrigins Archive: "Polonium Haloes" Refuted]</ref> Moreover, polonium-218 is continuously generated from the decay of radon-222, itself a decay product of uranium-238, a common component of granite. Radon-222 is a gas with a half-life of 3.8 days that can easily migrate through cracks in the rock, explaining why claimed polonium and uranium halos are close to each other. The claim that polonium must have been formed rapidly is a [[non sequitur]].}}
===63===
{{sbs|
<capture>[http://creation.com/article/369/#20120328 Squashed pleochroic halos]</capture> (radiohalos) formed from decay of polonium, a very short half-life element, in coalified wood from several geological eras suggest rapid formation of all the layers about the same time, in the same process, consistent with the biblical "young" earth model rather than the millions of years claimed for these events.
|
Duplicate of [[#62]].}}
===64===
{{sbs|
<capture>[http://creation.com/australias-burning-mountain#20120328 Australia's "Burning Mountain"]</capture> speaks against radiometric dating and the millions of years belief system (according to radiometric dating of the lava intrusion that set the coal alight, the coal in the burning mountain has been burning for ~40 million years, but clearly this is not feasible).
|
There is relatively clear evidence — presented in the linked article — that the Burning Mountain coal seam was ignited around 6,000 years ago, so it couldn't have been ignited by the 40-million-year-old lava intrusion. Moreover, a lava intrusion cannot ignite coal while it is still underground because there is no oxygen in which it could burn.
The author says he can't believe that any of the known natural origins of coal seam fires (''e.g.'', lightning, forest fire, spontaneous ignition) could have started the fire, so it must have been the lava, and therefore radiometric dating is wrong. This is a combination of an [[argument from incredulity]] and a [[straw man]].}}
==Astronomical evidence==
===65===
{{sbs|
1=Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth's moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old. See: [http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_1/j17_1_5-6.pdf Transient lunar phenomena: a permanent problem for evolutionary models of Moon formation] and Walker, T., and Catchpoole, D., <capture>[http://creation.com/lunar-volcanoes-rock-long-age-timeframe#20120328 Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe]</capture>, ''Creation '''''31'''(3):18, 2009. See further corroboration: "At Long Last, Moon's Core 'Seen'";<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/01/long-last-moons-core-seen At Long Last, Moon's Core 'Seen'] by Richard A. Kerr (Jan. 6, 2011, 4:56 PM) ''Science''.</ref>
|
2=The observations of {{wpl|transient lunar phenomena||}} discussed in the first article are irreproducible. They are all sufficiently explained by non-volcanic processes, such as meteor impacts, outgassing, electrostatic phenomena, and bad observation conditions. No volcanic gases or ash have been detected by the many orbital science missions that have sampled the Moon's atmosphere.
The "recent" activity described in the second link does not mean 6,000 years — the work, based on counting craters, says that there was localized volcanic activity on the far side of the Moon as "recently" as '''2.5 billion''' years ago,<ref>[http://www.space.com/6071-signs-late-volcanism-moon.html Space.com: Signs of Late Volcanism Seen on Moon]</ref> compared to dating based on Moon rock samples indicating that volcanism ended roughly 3 billion years ago. However, while other research brought evidence of more recent activity, such as scarps formed by the Moon during the last billion years<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100821124252/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/shrinking-moon.html "NASA's LRO Reveals 'Incredible Shrinking Moon'"]</ref> and even some very low-scale volcanism just some million years ago,<ref>[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2006/11/long-live-moon Long Live the Moon!]</ref> those times are still quite large next to the claimed young age for it.
The last link describes seismic evidence that the Moon has a slightly molten core, though the core is proportionately much smaller than those of bodies of comparable size. This is not evidence of a young universe.}}
===66===
{{sbs|
<capture>[http://creation.com/article/764#20120328 Recession of the moon from the earth]</capture>. Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age.
|
Using a linear equation to model the Moon's recession is too simplistic to give anything close to correct results.
Moving a satellite into a higher orbit or away from the primary object requires energy input. The Moon's recession is caused by tidal friction, which converts the Earth's rotational energy into heat and the Moon's potential energy,<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inES_eAexN8 Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 20)] — the clearest explanation of Moon recession on the Internet.</ref> and tidal friction, in turn, depends on the layout of the continents, which was different in the past.
Evidence from {{wpl|tidal rhythmites}} — sediment deposits that show a thinly layered structure with each layer corresponding to one Moon orbit, similar to tree rings — indicates that 2.45 billion years ago, the Moon was just 10% closer to the Earth than at present.<ref name="daylength">George E. Williams, [https://web.archive.org/web/20071217040551/http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2000/1999RG900016.shtml Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit]. ''Reviews in Geophysics'', 2000, 38(1), pp. 37-59. [http://isotope.colorado.edu/~geol5700/Williams_2000.pdf Full text PDF]</ref>
}}
===67===
{{sbs
|1=Slowing down of the earth. Tidal dissipation rate of Earth's angular momentum: increasing length of day, currently by 0.002 seconds/day every century (thus an impossibly short day billions of years ago and a very slow day shortly after accretion and before the postulated giant impact to form the Moon). See: <capture>[http://creation.com/article/764/#20120328 How long has the moon been receding?]</capture>
|2=Since the day length is connected with the Moon recession discussed in [[#66]], a linear equation is too simplistic to model this case. Note also how the author dismisses [[uniformitarianism]] for phenomena such as radioactive decay, for which no mechanisms of rate change are known, yet insists on using uniformitarian assumptions in places where they are clearly wrong and there are obvious mechanisms for rate changes.
The evidence listed in [[#66]] from tidal rhythmites suggests that 2.45 billion years ago, the day was 17.1-18.9 hours long.<ref name="daylength"/>
}}
===68===
{{sbs|
Ghost craters on the moon's ''maria'' (singular ''mare'': dark "seas" formed from massive lava flows) are a problem for long ages. Evolutionists believe that the lava flows were caused by enormous impacts, and this lava partly buried other, smaller, impact craters within the larger craters, leaving "ghosts". But this means that the smaller impacts can't have been too long after the huge ones, otherwise the lava would have hardened before the impacts. This suggests a very narrow time frame for lunar cratering, and by implication the other cratered bodies of our solar system. They suggest that the cratering occurred quite quickly. See Fryman, H., [http://creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/1999/cm0401.pdf Ghost craters in the sky], ''Creation Matters'' '''4'''(1):6, 1999; <capture>[http://creation.com/cratering#20120328 A biblically based cratering theory]</capture> (Faulkner); <capture>[http://creation.com/lunar-volcanoes-rock-long-age-timeframe#20120328 Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe]</capture>.
|
This description of ghost crater formation is a [[straw man]], oversimplified to incorrectness. The mare-forming eruptions have occurred millions of years after the impacts, based on radiogenic dating of the volcanic basalts and the pre-mare ejecta. Chemical differentiation and layering observed in Hadley Rille show that the maria were formed from episodes of volcanism extending over geologic time, not in a single event.
"Evolutionists" (i.e., biologists) do not study lava flows; that's what geologists and selenologists do. Evolution by natural selection has nothing to say about geology.
The last link about supposed lunar volcanoes is a duplicate of the second link discussed in [[#65]].}}
===69===
{{sbs|
The presence of a significant <capture>[http://creation.com/article/531#20120328 magnetic field around Mercury]</capture> is not consistent with its supposed age of billions of years. A planet so small should have cooled down enough so any liquid core would solidify, preventing the evolutionists' "dynamo" mechanism. See also, Humphreys, D.R., <capture>[http://creation.com/mercurys-magnetic-field-is-young#20120328 Mercury's magnetic field is young!]</capture> ''Journal of Creation'' 22(3):8–9, 2008.
|{{main|Geomagnetic reversal}}
Space probes sent to Mercury have observed tiny changes in its rotation rate and proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it has a molten core.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20071212184947/http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/29905 Molten core solves mystery of Mercury's magnetic field] by Jon Cartwright (May 4, 2007) ''Physics World''.</ref> The postulated explanations are a high sulfur content in the core, which would lower its melting point, and the high eccentricity of the planet's orbit plus its close distance to the Sun, causing {{wpl|tidal heating}}—the same reason Io is volcanically active today. Mercury's core is 42% of its volume, compared to 17% for Earth; even this generates a magnetic field of only 1% of Earth's.<ref>Russell, C. T.; Luhmann, J. G. (1997). [https://web.archive.org/web/20061213060902/http://www-spc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/merc_mag/ "Mercury: Magnetic Field and Magnetosphere."] Space Physics Center, UCLA Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics.</ref>
Humphreys' own model postulates that the field arises due to a decaying electrical current running through Mercury's core, said current having been [[Goddidit|started by God as a miracle]]. However, such a current would dissipate in minutes, not the postulated 6,000 years, unless the core was superconducting — an absurdity given the temperatures on and inside Mercury.
It is also unclear what place a claim of miraculous intervention, which would invalidate physics, has in a list of arguments that claim to be consistent with science.}}
===70===
{{sbs|
The outer planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields, but they should be long "dead" if they are as old as claimed according to evolutionary long-age beliefs. Assuming a solar system age of thousands of years, physicist Russell Humphreys successfully predicted the strengths of <capture>[http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young#20120328 the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune]</capture>.
|2={{main|Geomagnetic reversal}}
The link given is a duplicate of point [[#49]]. Again, the article posits an incorrect uniformitarian assumption of an exponentially decaying magnetic field that contradicts the author's argument in [[#46]].
The magnetic field generation mechanism on Neptune and Uranus is considered to be substantially different from that of Earth. Simulations support the notion that the field is generated by a thin convecting layer of fluid surrounding a stable, stratified interior.<ref name="un-magnetic">S. Stanley, J. Bloxham, [http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature02376 Convective-region geometry as the cause of Uranus' and Neptune's unusual magnetic fields.] ''Nature'' 2004, 428(6979), pp. 151-153. [http://people.ucsc.edu/~igarrick/EART290/stanley_2004.pdf Full text PDF]</ref>
Also, the claim that Humphreys predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune is false. Data was already available at the time of Humphreys' "predictions" that placed strict limits on the magnetic fields' strengths. Considering these limits, Humphreys was about as far off as he could have been.
The scientific reasoning for long ages for the planets is not "evolutionary". This conflates two unlinked fields.}}
===71===
{{sbs|
Jupiter's larger moons, <capture>[http://creation.com/focus-194#20120328 Ganymede, Io, and Europa, have magnetic fields]</capture>, which they should not have if they were billions of years old, because they have solid cores and so no dynamo could generate the magnetic fields. This is consistent with creationist Humphreys' predictions. See also, Spencer, W., <capture>[http://creation.com/article/6389/#20120328 Ganymede: the surprisingly magnetic moon]</capture>, ''Journal of Creation'' 23(1):8–9, 2009.
|{{main|Geomagnetic reversal}}
This is factually incorrect. Only {{wpl|Ganymede (moon)|Ganymede|,}} Jupiter's largest moon, has its own magnetic field. {{wpl|Io (moon)|Io}} has no field at all, while {{wpl|Europa (moon)|Europa's}} field is induced by Jupiter's own. Ganymede is thought to have a molten core and thus generates its own field through the standard dynamo effect model.
This section is duplicated by [[#81]].}}
===72===
{{sbs|
Volcanically active moons of Jupiter (<capture>[http://creation.com/revelations-in-the-solar-system#20120328 Io]</capture>) are consistent with youthfulness (Galileo mission recorded 80 active volcanoes). If Io had been erupting over 4.5 billion years at even 10% of its current rate, it would have erupted its entire mass 40 times. Io looks like a young moon and does not fit with the supposed billions of year's age for the solar system. Gravitational tugging from Jupiter and other moons accounts for only some of the excess heat produced.
|
It is widely accepted that the volcanism on Io arises through {{wpl|tidal heating||.}} Because Io is subjected to gravitational forces from Jupiter and three of its large moons, Europa, {{wpl|Callisto (moon)|Callisto|,}} and Ganymede, its crust is flexed in an irregular pattern, with the tidal bulges being up to 100 meters high. This generates tremendous amounts of heat — around 2.5 W/m<sup>2</sup>, or 50 times Earth's geothermal heat flux of 0.05 W/m<sup>2</sup> — to power its volcanoes.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20010430083944/http://www.planetaryexploration.net/jupiter/io/tidal_heating.html Io: Jupiter's Volcanic Moon — Tidal heating]</ref><ref>[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/iovolcano.htm Views of the Solar System: Io's Volcanic Features]</ref>
Note also that the age of Io is unknown, so there is little basis for using a date of 4.5 billion years. It could well have been captured later.
The comment about Io erupting its entire mass 40 times over 4.5 billion years is a red herring (and potential [[Reductio ad absurdum|appeal to absurdity]]). The largest plumes of volcanic material are ejected below Io's escape velocity<ref name="McEwan Io volcanic plumes">[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103583900751 McEwen, Alfred S., and Laurence A. Soderblom. "Two classes of volcanic plumes on Io." ''Icarus'' 55.2 (1983): 191-217. Web. 4 Apr. 2017.] "[T]hree very large plume eruptions suggest a class of eruption distinct from that of six smaller plumes observed to be continuously active by both Voyagers 1 and 2. The smaller plumes ... are longer-lived ... [and] erupt at velocities of ~0.5 km sec<sup>-1</sup>.... The very large Pele-type plumes, on the other hand, are relatively short-lived ... [and] erupt at ~1.0 km sec<sup>-1</sup>"</ref> (1 km/s vs. 2.5 km/s). Thus Io's volcanoes are fountains, and there's nothing preventing mass from being erupted more than once. The claim would be like saying the {{wpl|Trevi Fountain}} in Rome can't have been built over 200 years ago because it would've run out of water by now or that a treadmill can't run for more than a few meters because its belt would've run out. The fact that it recycles material is ''why'' Io's surface looks so young.
Even still, Io ''is'' losing mass due to interactions with Jupiter's magnetic field, though at a rate of only 1,000 kg/s,<ref>[http://www.astro.if.ufrgs.br/solar/io.htm Io facts] "As the magnetosphere rotates with Jupiter, it sweeps past Io and strips away about 1,000 kilograms (1 ton) of material per second"</ref> which — even over 4.5 billion years — amounts to a tiny fraction of Io's total mass.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120905091823/http://www.astro.umd.edu/%7Essm/100f08/HW3Solutions.pdf Ch.7, #41 a)] Roughly 0.159% of its current mass</ref>}}
===73===
{{sbs|
The surface of Jupiter's moon Europa. Studies of the few craters indicated that up to 95% of small craters, and many medium-sized ones, are formed from debris thrown up by larger impacts. This means that there have been far fewer impacts than had been thought in the solar system and the age of other objects in the solar system, derived from cratering levels, have to be reduced drastically (see Psarris, Spike, ''What you aren't being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system'' DVD, available from [http://creation.com/store CMI]).
|
Europa's outer crust is ice and very active, as shown by the large fractures on its surface.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20021126215236/http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Jup_Europa Ice on Europa] (NASA, 2005-01-06)</ref> Only large, recent craters and their effects would have a chance of remaining visible for a considerable time.
Moreover, this argument contradicts the article's basic thesis: If there have been fewer impacts (the cratering rate was lower), the ages of heavily cratered bodies such as Mercury and the Moon have to be ''increased''. The author claims that the cratering rate was much higher (point [[#68]]) and much lower (this one) simultaneously.}}
===74===
{{sbs|
<capture>[http://creation.com/focus-273-creation-magazine#20120328 Methane on Titan]</capture> (Saturn's largest moon)—the methane should all be gone because of UV-induced breakdown. The products of photolysis should also have produced a huge sea of ethane. As the [http://web.archive.org/web/20050404093335/http://astrobio.net/news/article1478.html original Astrobiology paper] said, "If the chemistry on Titan has gone on in steady-state over the age of the solar system, then we would predict that a layer of ethane 300 to 600 meters thick should be deposited on the surface." No such sea is seen, which is consistent with Titan being a tiny fraction of the claimed age of the solar system.
|
While interesting, this is reasoning ahead of the evidence. The most likely explanation is that Titan's atmospheric methane is replenished from underground repositories. This explanation is supported by Cassini's observations that detected surface carbon dioxide, which indicates outgassing from the core. As for ethane, the Cassini probe has, in fact, found considerable ethane forming vast liquid ethane seas and lakes, while vastly more forms an ethane "mist." And if there is life on Titan, it could metabolize ethane into methane.
Through simple arithmetic, we can show that the 6,000-year time scale is far short of that required to produce all the observed ethane on Titan. Given the current best estimates of the rate of photodissociation of methane on Titan 4×10<sup>−12</sup> kg per m<sup>2</sup> per second, and given the generous (and obviously wrong) assumption that the entire surface area of Titan is insolated year-round, we can come up with a ceiling of 6.28×10<sup>13</sup> kg of methane disassociated in the history of Titan, of which ~12.5% would have been lost as hydrogen gas. This gives us, at very most, 5.52×10<sup>13</sup> kg of ethane. Assuming a liquid density in the region of 520 kg per m<sup>3</sup>, we would expect no more than 1.06×10<sup>11</sup> m<sup>3</sup> of ethane on Titan. This means that the so far observed seas and lakes on Titan (with only 30% of the surface surveyed) could only be, on average, 0.2 cm in depth at best, which we know is wrong since most of them don't return a radar signature, indicating they are more than 10 meters deep.
This also excludes the vast reservoir of gaseous ethane in the atmosphere, which is, in fact, observed.}}
===75===
{{sbs|
The rate of change / disappearance of Saturn's rings is <capture>[http://creation.com/article/5008#20120328 inconsistent with their supposed vast age]</capture>; they speak of youthfulness.
|
This links to another extensive list [[Gish Gallop|similar to this one]], which uses considerable misunderstood [[quote mining]]. Instead of refuting each point individually, here is a short explanation. The age of a gas giant is not necessarily related to the ages of its rings. A {{wpl|planetary ring}} can originate in one of two ways:
* The protoplanetary dust left over after a planet's formation is within the {{wpl|Roche limit||:}} the minimum distance below which an object held together only by its gravity will disintegrate due to tidal forces. This will stop it from consolidating into a moon.
* A previously captured rubble-pile asteroid orbit decays within the Roche limit. If the asteroid is below the synchronous orbit radius, ''e.g.'', orbiting faster than the planet's rotation, tidal friction will cause it to slow down further and pass through the Roche Limit. This is also the case for retrograde orbits (opposite to the planet's rotation). This way, an old planet can have young rings.
Small moons can survive within the Roche Limit if they are held together by tensile strength and not just their gravity. Orbital resonances and collisions with those moons, known as shepherd moons, cause the rings to maintain sharp edges and gaps.
The actual age of the rings is unclear: observations from the Cassini probe made in 2007 suggested that while Saturn's rings are a dynamic structure, they are likely as old as the Solar System — 4.5 billion years — and so were formed with Saturn itself.<ref>[https://science.nasa.gov/missions/cassini/saturns-rings-may-be-old-timers/ Saturn's Rings May be Old Timers]</ref> However, more recent and much better measurements taken during the final part of its mission considered the rings are likely much younger (10 to 100 million years),<ref>[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2019/01/16/science.aat2965 Measurement and implications of Saturn's gravity field and ring mass]</ref> (and further research suggests they would disappear within some hundreds of millions of years at best, which means they're just a temporary feature of that planet<ref>[https://www.space.com/saturns-rings-disappearing-james-webb-space-telescope Saturn's rings are disappearing. The James Webb Space Telescope may reveal how much time they have left.]</ref>), which is still quite a far cry from 6,000 to 10,000 years, to go back to them being much older, maybe as old as the Solar System<ref>[https://www.space.com/the-universe/saturn/saturns-rings-could-be-much-older-than-scientists-first-thought Saturn's rings could be much older than scientists first thought]</ref>}}
===76===
{{sbs|
Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, looks young. Astronomers working in the "billions of years" mindset thought that this moon would be cold and dead, but it is a very active moon, spewing massive jets of water vapour and icy particles into space at supersonic speeds, consistent with a much younger age. Calculations show that the interior would have frozen solid after 30 million years (less than 1% of its supposed age); tidal friction from Saturn does not explain its youthful activity (Psarris, Spike, ''What you aren't being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system'' DVD; Walker, T., 2009. Enceladus: Saturn's sprightly moon looks young, ''Creation'' '''31'''(3):54–55).
|
The origin of extra heat emanating from Enceladus is a subject of current research in planetary science. This is not surprising because the Cassini probe approached it only in 2005. The conventional tidal heating mechanism, known from Io (per [[#72]]), explains only a small part of the heat. Various other mechanisms were proposed, including enhanced heating through orbital resonances in the past, but most were found to be inadequate.<ref>[http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/wisdom/ MIT homepage of Prof. Jack Wisdom] (includes several papers about Enceladus)</ref><ref>L. Czechowski, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117705014341 Parameterized model of convection driven by tidal and radiogenic heating.] ''Advances in Space Research'' 2006, 38(4), pp. 788-793</ref> The missing heat is relatively small on planetary scales (6 gigawatts) and equivalent to a large coal power plant's thermal output.
The author's proposed age of 30 million years is an argument ''against'' a 6,000-year timescale.
The difference in behavior between the sides of the debate is illustrative. The scientists are actively working to arrive at an explanation and critically evaluate each other's hypotheses. Meanwhile, the creationist authors here make no attempt to explain anything and only go back to the answer they were looking for in the first place. In this case, their only argument rests on a [[false dichotomy]] between the current state of science and [[biblical literalism]]. ''See also'' [[God of the gaps]].}}
===77===
{{sbs|
Miranda, a small moon of Uranus, should have been long since dead, if billions of years old, but its extreme surface features suggest otherwise. See <capture>[http://creation.com/article/685/#20120328 Revelations in the solar system]</capture>.
|
The genesis of the surface features of Miranda is not fully understood. Proposed explanations involve tidal heating and repeated shattering by large impacts. Notably, the surface is a mix of apparently ancient and young regions.<ref>[http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/outerp/usat.html Miranda & Ariel], Lunar and Planetary Institute, 1997</ref><ref>[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/miranda.htm Views of the Solar System: Miranda]</ref>
Just as with Enceladus in [[#76]], the existence of open questions in science does not prove that Christian young Earth creationism must be correct. In particular, the unstated assumption that "scientific explanations disagree on some figures, so our specific interpretation of our holy book's creation story is correct by default" just doesn't hold up.}}
===78===
{{sbs|
Neptune should be long since "cold", lacking strong wind movement if it were billions of years old, yet Voyager II in 1989 found it to be otherwise — it has the fastest winds in the entire solar system. This observation is consistent with a young age, not billions of years. See <capture>[http://creation.com/article/176#20120328 Neptune: monument to creation]</capture>.
|
Contrary to the author's assertion, large quantities of latent geothermal heat would not explain the strong winds. The current scientific hypothesis, based on simulations, is that the winds are caused by a combination of deep convection and conservation of angular momentum.<ref>V. E. Suomi, S. S. Limaye, D. R. Johnson, [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/251/4996/929.abstract High Winds of Neptune: A Possible Mechanism.] ''Science'' 1991, 251, 929-932</ref> However, the matter is not settled, notably because the model might not agree with the one proposed to explain the magnetic field in [[#70]].
The linked article also makes a claim similar to [[#91]] for Neptune.}}
===79===
{{sbs|
Neptune's rings have thick regions and thin regions. This unevenness means they cannot be billions of years old, since collisions of the ring objects would eventually make the ring very uniform. <capture>[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/685#20120328 Revelations in the solar system]</capture>.
|
This appears to refer to the {{wpl|Adams ring||'s}} arcs which under normal circumstances should dissipate, and the ring should become uniform. It is thought that the arcs arise due to interactions of the dust particles with the moon Galatea.<ref>F. Namouni, C. Porco, [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6884/full/417045a.html The confinement of Neptune's ring arcs by the moon Galatea.] ''Nature'' 2002, 417(6884), 45-47</ref> ''See also'' [[#75]].
}}
===80===
{{sbs|
Young surface age of Neptune's moon, Triton — less than 10 million years, even with evolutionary assumptions on rates of impacts (see Schenk, P.M., and Zahnle, K. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103507003004 On the Negligible Surface Age of Triton], ''Icarus'' '''192'''(1):135–149, 2007. <doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.004>.
|
{{wpl|Triton (moon)|Triton}} is geologically active, and its surface is continually changing. There is no reason to expect that the analysis of craters will give a reasonable estimate of the object's age, for craters can only give the age of last resurfacing.
There are no "evolutionary assumptions on rates of impact". Astrogeology and biological evolution have nothing to do with each other.
And once again, 10 million years is an argument '''against''' a young universe.}}
===81===
{{sbs|1=
Uranus and Neptune both have magnetic fields significantly off-axis, which is an unstable situation. When this was discovered with Uranus, it was assumed by evolutionary astronomers that Uranus must have just happened to be going through a magnetic field reversal. However, when a similar thing was found with Neptune, this ''<small>AD</small> hoc'' explanation was upset. <capture>[http://creation.com/article/176#20120328 These observations are consistent with ages of thousands of years]</capture> rather than billions.
|2={{main|Geomagnetic reversal}}
It is not stated how the fields would be consistent with a young universe, nor is an alternative proposed mechanism of magnetic field generation given. Remember, to unseat a scientific explanation, it's not enough to just show anomalies in the current explanation; you have to propose something that explains everything the current one does even better, and be ''at least'' as consistent as the current one.
Astronomers don't study evolution any more than geologists do.
The argument about Uranus and Neptune's magnetic fields is a duplicate of point [[#70]] and is discussed there. The link itself is duplicated from [[#78]].
}}
===82===
{{sbs|
The orbit of Pluto is chaotic on a 20 million year time scale and affects the rest of the solar system, which would also become unstable on that time scale, suggesting that it must be much younger. (See: Rothman, T., God takes a nap, ''Scientific American'' '''259'''(4):20, 1988).
|
Pluto's orbit is chaotic in the long term, but this argument, which appears to quote-mine a popular science magazine, has two fundamental errors.
Firstly, it conflates the mathematical meaning of the term "chaotic" with its everyday meaning. The weather is {{wpl|Chaos theory|chaotic}} in the mathematical sense, but this doesn't mean that a tornado can suddenly form randomly on a windless day. Pluto's precise position cannot be accurately predicted on timescales longer than its {{wpl|Lyapunov time}} of 10-20 million years, but this absolutely does not mean that after this time, it will be destroyed or ejected from the Solar System. The 3:2 orbital resonance of Pluto with Neptune means it is nearly certain that it will remain in the Kuiper belt for billions of years.
Secondly, the assertion that Pluto's chaotic behavior induces or even implies a chaotic behavior for the rest of the Solar System is entirely incorrect.}}
===83===
{{sbs|1=
The <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1528#20120328 existence of short-period comets]</capture> (orbital period less than 200 years), e.g. Halley, which have a life of less than 20,000 years, is consistent with an age of the solar system of less than 10,000 years. ''ad hoc'' hypotheses have to be invented to circumvent this evidence (see <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1558#20120328 Kuiper Belt]). See [http://creation.com/article/1528#20120328 Comets and the age of the solar system]</capture>.
|2=
The {{wpl|Kuiper belt}} is not an "ad hoc hypothesis": it really exists. ([[commons:File:Outersolarsystem objectpositions labels comp.png|Look, here's a plotting of objects we've found in it!]]) The author of the linked article claims that comets cannot come from the Kuiper belt because the objects discovered so far are too large, ignoring that large objects are the easiest to detect, an effect known in astronomy as {{wpl|Malmquist bias||.}} We also have another case of [[affirming the consequent]]: the author thinks that young comets mean a young Solar System.
The link is from 2002, and many new discoveries related to Kuiper Belt objects have been made since then. Most notably, the dwarf planet Eris was discovered and found to be of a size similar to Pluto. As an indirect result of this discovery, the category {{wpl|dwarf planet|"dwarf planet"}} was created, including objects such as Eris, Pluto, Ceres, Haumea, and Makemake.}}
===84===
{{sbs|
"Near-infrared spectra of the Kuiper Belt Object, Quaoar and the suspected Kuiper Belt Object, Charon, indicate both contain crystalline water ice and ammonia hydrate. This watery material cannot be much older than 10 million years, which is consistent with a young solar system, not one that is 5 billion years old." See: <capture>[http://creation.com/article/5481#20120328 The "waters above"]</capture>.
|
Crystalline water and ammonia ice on Kuiper Belt objects, such as [[Quaoar]], is a recent discovery. The proposed explanations are an impact event, cryovolcanism driven by the heat of radioactive decay, or a combination of both. Still, there is not enough data to answer this question definitely.<ref>D. Jewitt, J. Luu, [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7018/full/nature03111.html Crystalline Ice on Kuiper Belt Object (50000) Quaoar.] ''Nature'' 2004, 432, p. 731-733. [http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~jewitt/papers/2004/JL2004.pdf Full text PDF]</ref><ref>[http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~jewitt/quaoar.html Dave Jewitt: Kuiper Belt: Latest Research]</ref>
In the linked article, the creationist hypothesis is that these objects are made of remnants of a "watery halo" that God created on Day 2 as "waters above" and caused the [[global flood]]: a postulate of miraculous actions which would invalidate [[physics]].
It is also based on accepting the Kuiper Belt's existence, even though [[#83]] dismisses the Kuiper Belt as an "''ad hoc'' hypothesis".
10 million-year timescales do not support a 6,000-year-old earth.}}
===85===
{{sbs|1=
Lifetime of long-period comets (orbital period greater than 200 years) that are sun-grazing comets or others like Hyakutake or Hale–Bopp means they could not have originated with the solar system 4.5 billion years ago. However, their existence is consistent with a young age for the solar system. Again an ''ad hoc'' <capture>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1830#20120328 Oort Cloud]</capture> was invented to try to account for these comets still being present after billions of years. See, <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1528#20120328 Comets and the age of the solar system]</capture>.
|2=
An argument that shares many problems with [[#83]]. The author is basing his claim of no evidence for the Oort on [[special pleading]] by excluding the evidence from long-period comets.
The cited article from ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' says that simulations of the formation of the Oort cloud indicate that it may contain less material than previously thought, which is a far cry from saying that the Oort cloud doesn't exist.<ref>S. A. Stern, P. R. Weissman, [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6820/full/409589a0.html Rapid collisional evolution of comets during the formation of the Oort cloud.] ''Nature'' 2001, 409(6820), pp. 589-591</ref> However, later work suggests that over 90% of the cloud's material might have been captured from other stars.<ref>H. F. Levison, M. J. Duncan, R. M. Brasser, D. E. Kaufmann, [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5988/187.short Capture of the Sun's Oort Cloud from Stars in Its Birth Cluster.] ''Science'' 2010, 329(5988), pp. 187-190</ref>}}
===86===
{{sbs|
The maximum expected lifetime of near-earth asteroids is of the order of one million years, after which they collide with the sun. And the Yarkovsky effect moves main belt asteroids into near-earth orbits faster than had been thought. This brings into question the origin of asteroids with the formation of the solar system (the usual scenario), or the solar system is much younger than the 4.5 billion years claimed. Henry, J., [http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2006/CM11%2002c%20low%20res.PDF The asteroid belt: indications of its youth], ''Creation Matters'' '''11'''(2):2, 2006.
|
This refers to the {{wpl|Yarkovsky effect||:}} a difference in the emitted thermal radiation between the "dusk" and "dawn" sides of a rotating asteroid that causes changes to its orbit over the long term.
The problem with this claim is that the force arising from the Yarkovsky effect depends on the direction in which the asteroid is rotating. For prograde satellites (rotating in the same direction as their orbit), the effect will cause the asteroids to move ''away'' from the Sun. Almost all asteroids in the main belt are prograde. Among over 500,000 identified objects in the Solar system, only 36 retrograde asteroids have been identified, and none of them are confined to the main belt.<ref>{{wpa|List of notable asteroids#Retrograde and highly inclined}}</ref> Moreover, this effect depends on the size and shape of the asteroid and is negligible for large asteroids.
Since calculations involving the Yarkovsky effect are highly complex, the claimed 1 million-year age limit appears completely arbitrary.
Even accepting the age of one million years rather than the standard 4.5 billion still provides no support for young Earth creationism.}}
===87===
{{sbs|
The lifetime of binary asteroids—where a tiny asteroid "moon" orbits a larger asteroid— in the main belt (they represent about 15–17% of the total): tidal effects limit the life of such binary systems to about 100,000 years. The difficulties in conceiving of any scenario for getting binaries to form in such numbers to keep up the population, led some astronomers to doubt their existence, but space probes confirmed it (Henry, J., [http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2006/CM11%2002c%20low%20res.PDF The asteroid belt: indications of its youth], ''Creation Matters'' '''11'''(2):2, 2006).
|
The current hypothesis is that binary asteroids are formed when an asteroid's fast rotation tears it apart into two new bodies — a process called rotational fission.<ref>[http://www.universetoday.com/72058/asteroids-can-create-their-own-mini-planetary-systems/ Universe Today: Asteroids Can Create Their Own Mini Planetary Systems]</ref> The rotation rate can increase through the {{wpl|YORP effect||,}} an effect related to the Yarkovsky effect discussed in the previous point but acting on irregular surfaces and inhomogeneities in albedo.}}
===88===
{{sbs|
The observed <capture>[http://creation.com/article/640#20120328 rapid rate of change in stars]</capture> contradicts the vast ages assigned to stellar evolution. For example, Sakurai's Object in Sagittarius: in 1994, this star was most likely a white dwarf in the centre of a planetary [[nebula]]; by 1997 it had grown to a bright yellow giant, about 80 times wider than the sun (''Astronomy & Astrophysics'' '''321''':L17, 1997). In 1998, it had expanded even further, to a red supergiant 150 times wider than the sun. But then it shrank just as quickly; by 2002 the star itself was invisible even to the most powerful optical telescopes, although it is detectable in the infrared, which shines through the dust (Muir, H., 2003, Back from the dead, ''New Scientist'' '''177'''(2384):28–31).
|
{{wpl|Sakurai's Object}} is one of several observed "born again" objects that are believed to be white dwarfs which undergo a second phase of swelling to become red giants. Its transient nature indicates its origins as a star, which first became a white dwarf before its swan song. This is not a good argument for a young universe.
In addition, the final stages of a star's life are ''extremely'' short in astronomical terms and can be measured in years or even days (and the more massive the star, the shorter they are).<ref>See {{wpl|Type II supernova#Formation|here}} how quickly a massive star will explode after it starts fusing elements heavier than helium.</ref>}}
===89===
{{sbs|
The faint young sun paradox. According to stellar evolution theory, as the sun's core transforms from hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, the mean molecular weight increases, which would compress the sun's core increasing fusion rate. The upshot is that over several billion years, the sun ought to have brightened 40% since its formation and 25% since the appearance of life on earth. For the latter, this translates into a 16–18 °C temperature increase on the earth. The current average temperature is 15 °C, so the earth ought to have had a -2 °C or so temperature when life appeared. See: Faulkner, D., <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1794#20120328 The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system]</capture>, ''Journal of Creation (TJ)'' '''15'''(2):3–4, 2001.
|
{{main|Faint young Sun paradox}}
Insolation is not the only factor determining the surface temperature of a planet, [[climate change|as we are discovering]] here on Earth. It is simply not possible to perform this sort of simplified extrapolation.
Even if it were true that there was no solution, this claim still says nothing useful. One of the seriously considered hypotheses for the origin of life says that it formed around undersea geothermal vents, in which case insolation is simply irrelevant.
It's also of note that ''real'' studies of the Sun's evolution show it has augmented its luminosity by [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...418..457S 30%], not 40%. While it does not seem to be much, it impacts climate simulations.
Finally, {{wpl|stellar evolution}} has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution. Using the word "evolution" as in other examples above and below only means "change with time."}}
===90===
{{sbs|
Evidence of (very) recent geological activity (tectonic movements) on the moon is inconsistent with its supposed age of billions of years and its hot origin. Watters, T.R., ''et al.,'' Evidence of Recent Thrust Faulting on the Moon Revealed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, ''Science'' '''329'''(5994):936–940, 20 August 2010; DOI: 10.1126/science.1189590 ("This detection, coupled with the very young apparent age of the faults, suggests global late-stage contraction of the Moon.") <capture>[http://creation.com/nasa-shrinking-moon#20120329 NASA pictures support biblical origin for Moon]</capture>.
|
The recent (meaning less than a billion years ago) thrust faulting on the Moon actually confirms long-held theories about the Moon's initial conditions, as is explained in the referenced paper. The creationists' misunderstanding is that they claim that the Moon would be cold and dead 2 billion years after its formation. Not only does this claim lack scientific merit and common sense, but again, the author's own claim is firmly ''against'' a young Earth. See also [[#65]].
Once again, to refute a scientific claim, it's not enough to poke holes in it—you have to present solid evidence for ''your'' explanation that fits better than the current scientific explanation. Einstein didn't supplant Newton by saying, "Aha, gravity doesn't work right under these particular conditions!" and leave it at that. He had to set up a whole explanatory framework that had to withstand testing and scrutiny by the scientific establishment.}}
===91===
{{sbs|
The giant gas planets Jupiter and Saturn radiate more energy than they receive from the sun, suggesting a recent origin. Jupiter radiates almost twice as much energy as it receives from the sun, indicating that it may be less than 1 % of the presumed 4.5 billion years old solar system. Saturn radiates nearly twice as much energy per unit mass as Jupiter. See <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1630/#20120328 The age of the Jovian planets]</capture>.
|
Jupiter generates significant internal heat through the well-understood {{wpl|Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism||.}} As a result of this heat radiation, Jupiter shrinks by 2 cm per year. Given that it is 2.5 times more massive than all the other planets combined, one can assume that it has been radiating more heat than it gets from the Sun for quite a long time. On the other hand, Saturn radiates so much energy thanks to the same mechanism as Jupiter, plus the heat released {{wpl|Saturn#Internal_structure|by the fall of helium droplets into its core}}.
The author's claim would put Jupiter's age at a sprightly 45 million years, which does not support the position that it is 6,000 years old.}}
===92===
{{sbs|
Speedy stars are consistent with a young age for the universe. For example, many stars in the dwarf galaxies in the Local Group are moving away from each other at speeds estimated at 10–12 km/s. At these speeds, the stars should have dispersed in 100 Ma, which, compared with the supposed 14,000 Ma age of the universe, is a short time. See [http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_3/j14_3_05-07.pdf Fast stars challenge big bang origin for dwarf galaxies].
|
These dwarf galaxies are several million light-years away, meaning it would take several million years for the light to get here, which contradicts a 6,000-year-old universe (the [[starlight problem]]). The 100 million year figure also fails to support a 6,000-year timescale. In fact, the conventional explanation for the non-dispersal of these galaxies is that they contain significant amounts of [[dark matter]], whose gravitational attraction keeps the stars bound. While dark matter remains to be confirmed, there is considerable indirect evidence of its gravitational effect, and many experiments are underway aimed at direct detection. Furthermore, there is no reason some stars could not have formed recently; star formation is still happening in {{wpl|IC 10|some}} {{wpl|NGC 6822|of}} {{wpl|Leo A|them}}.}}
===93===
{{sbs|
The ageing of spiral galaxies (much less than 200 million years) is not consistent with their supposed age of many billions of years. The <capture>[http://creation.com/article/160#20120328 discovery of extremely "young" spiral galaxies]</capture> highlights the problem of this evidence for the evolutionary ages assumed.
|
This point refers to the {{wpl|Spiral galaxy#Origin of the spiral structure|winding problem|.}} If we assume that the stars orbit the galactic core in orbits that match the shape of the galactic disk, then according to Kepler's laws of orbital motion, the outer stars orbit the core slower than the inner stars. This would lead to the arms being coiled tighter and tighter around the core until they disappeared.
Two hypotheses explain the long-term stability of spiral galaxies. The first possibility is that stars do not orbit the core in circular orbits but rather in elliptical orbits, which are partially aligned. This naturally leads to regions of greater star density, which would be visible as arms (see picture).
[[File:Spiral galaxy arms diagram.svg|200px]]
The second possibility is that the arms are not regions of substantially higher matter density but regions of increased luminance. As a spiral density wave propagates through the galaxy, it causes the ignition of bright, short-lived stars in its wake. In other words, the spiral arms are not like ribbons on a stick but like a grass fire.<ref>C. C. Lin, F. H. Shu, [https://web.archive.org/web/20140514072503/http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1086/147955 On the Spiral Structure of Disk Galaxies] ''Astrophysical Journal'' 1964, 140, p. 646</ref>}}
===94===
{{sbs|
The number of type I <capture>[http://creation.com/article/693/#20120328 supernova remnants]</capture> (SNRs) observable in our galaxy is consistent with an age of thousands of years, not millions or billions. See Davies, K., ''Proc. 3<sup>rd</sup>'' ''ICC'', pp. 175–184, 1994.
|
We have found many third-stage remnants, so this claim is factually incorrect. See, for example, [https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0276 the North Polar Spur].
For even the most massive stars to reach the supernova stage, millions of years would have to have passed. Less massive ones leave behind the white dwarfs that produce the type I''a'' supernovae—assuming the author thinks of them when mentioning "Type I supernova", which is inexact—last even longer. So again, even his argument, taken at face value, contradicts a young Earth.}}
===95===
{{sbs|
The rate of expansion and size of supernovas indicates that all studied are young (less than 10,000 years). See <capture>[http://creation.com/article/693/#20120328 supernova remnants]</capture>.
|
This claim is factually incorrect. [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/double_supernova.html This supernova] is found in a distant galaxy some 380 million light-years away; hence it must have occurred 380 million years ago. Where the figure "less than 10,000 years" comes from is unknown. Light from the remnants takes several million years to reach us. If we were very close to the supernova, we would be incinerated. Something of this nature may have caused the [[wikipedia:Ordovician-Silurian_extinction_events#Gamma_ray_burst_hypothesis|Ordovician-Silurian event]]. The gamma-ray burst in question came from about six thousand light-years away. Aside from supernovae, deep space [[quasar]]s have redshifts indicating they are as far away as 2.44 billion light-years.
Supernova remnants also expand with time becoming undetectable as they mix with the interstellar medium.}}
==Human history==
===96===
{{sbs|
Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce today's population. <capture>[http://creation.com/article/393#20120328 Where are all the people?]</capture> if we have been here much longer?
|
We can be ''certain'' that there were far more than six people 4500 years ago, before or after the [[global flood|putative flood]]. 2500 BC corresponds to the {{wpl|Fourth Dynasty of Egypt|Fourth Dynasty of Egypt,}} which saw the construction of the {{wpl|Great Pyramid of Giza||,}}{{efn|In fact, the Great Pyramid of Giza was finished in 2560 BCE, which according to the standard Ussher timeline means it must have survived the flood that carved out the ''Grand Canyon''.}} and the Mature Harappan period of the {{wpl|Indus Valley Civilization||,}} during which it was most prosperous. Note that these are before the standard Great Flood date of 2348 BC.<ref name=icr-ussher />
In fact, a Jesuit missionary, {{wpl|Martino Martini||,}} sent to China in the 1650s, was shocked to find that Chinese records chronicled the Imperial dynasty from the first emperor in 2952 BC. An emperor, of course, requires a large population to rule over, not a single individual. Even to a strict Jesuit, the Chinese records appeared more reliable and detailed than those of the Jews: {{efn|Yes, they ''appeared''. The appearance might have impressed Martini as such, however Chinese records written by contemporaries were not much earlier than the 12th century BC, though indeed document- rather than legend-sounding, and have been very scarce since then. Dated astronomical records were much later. 2952 BC is a [[PIDOOMA]] by {{w|Liu Xin (scholar)|Liu Xin}} (c. 46 BC – 23 AD).|name=2952bc}}
* They contained no gaps.
* Even the earliest entries were written by contemporary authors.
* They were strictly factual without any reference to myths or legends.
* They could be cross-referenced to the dates of solar eclipses calculated by European astronomers.<ref>The story of Martini's shock at the Chinese records is told in ''Measuring Eternity: The search for the beginning of time'' by Martin Gorst (2001). Gorst references: ''Historians of China and Japan'' ed. W.G.Beasley and E.G.Pulleyblank, London, 1961; ''[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D8KV-ia0RpYC The Forgotten Christians of Hanzhou]'' by David E. Mungello, Honolulu, 1994; ''[http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Curious_land.html?id=wb4yPw4ZgZQC Curious Land: Jesuit Accommodation and the Origins of Sinology]'' by David E. Mungello, Honolulu, 1989; and ''[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ji9WAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Observations+math%C3%A9matiques,+astronomiques,+geographiques,+chronologiques,+et+physiques,+tir%C3%A9es+des+anciens+livres+chinois;+ou+faites+nouvellement+aux+Indes+et+a+la+Chine&source=bl&ots=pS8aVs8pkq&sig=HzjMv41ypaaLiDfTwABEowU2ZnA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=acZ6T7zBL4-T8gPWk_2iCA&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false Observations mathématiques, astronomiques, geographiques, chronologiques, et physiques, tirées des anciens livres chinois; ou faites nouvellement aux Indes et a la Chine]'' par les pères de la Compagnie de Jesus, Paris, 1729, for how the Jesuits cross-referenced eclipses with Chinese history.</ref>
The linked article says that the growth rate has changed but still fails to consider that in some periods, more people died than were born, which meant the population growth was ''negative''. The {{wpl|Black Death}} epidemic in 14th century Europe and Asia exterminated approximately a fifth of all humanity.<ref>From the population statistics given here: [https://web.archive.org/web/20120709092946/http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/worldpop/table_history.php US Census Bureau - Historical Estimates of World Population]</ref>
The reality is that, as we see in animals today, the human population was relatively static for much of our history and determined by the {{wpl|carrying capacity}} of the environment — the quality of soil, freshwater, diseases, weather, and so on. Only our technical advances in agriculture and medicine have allowed us to dramatically expand the Earth's carrying capacity and thus increase our population.
}}
===97===
{{sbs|
"Stone age" human skeletons and artefacts. There are not enough for 100,000 years of a human population of just one million, let alone more people (10 million?). See <capture>[http://creation.com/article/393#20120328 Where are all the people?]</capture>
|
This item contains three oversights. Firstly, fossilization is a rare event, and most bones — including human bones — simply degrade over time until nothing remains. Secondly, not everyone was buried in the past — many people died during hunting and wars, and cremation was common. Thirdly, because burying someone with useful possessions is wasteful, burial with artifacts was an honor bestowed only upon society's highest-ranking members as a sign of respect. That's why discoveries of such tombs are rare.
The idea that there should be physical remains of everyone who has ever lived, even over the past 1000 years (let alone the last 100,000 years), is preposterous and ignores the even greater number of massive beasts around the world which have also lived during this time but remain unrepresented in the archaeological record.
The link also contends that bones should be preserved over 100,000 years because some paleobiologists have claimed to find a dinosaur bone with traces of soft tissue. This claim is discussed in point [[#7]].}}
===98===
{{sbs|
Length of recorded history. Origin of various civilizations, writing, etc., all about the same time several thousand years ago. See <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1221#20120328 Evidence for a young world]</capture>.
|
The linked article states the following [[argument from incredulity]]: "Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history?"
Civilizations independently {{wpl|history of writing|invented writing}} as and when they had a use for it: first as symbols, then as {{wpl|History of writing ancient numbers|numbers}} for trade, codified law, property records, and priestly hierarchies. People started writing when it became useful to do so.
In fact, all of history, up to the present day, is ripe with cases of multiple discoveries.<ref>{{wpa|List of multiple discoveries}}</ref> As members of the same brand of great ape — and as clearly evidenced by the entire list to your left — it is safe to conclude that, as a species, we're just not ''that'' original in our thought.
There's a further problem: as noted in [[#96]], the Chinese had been chronicling their Imperial dynasty for several centuries before the claimed date of the Flood; and yet the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, are generally agreed by even those [[Biblical criticism|Biblical scholars]] believing in their literal truth to have been written down by Moses only sometime after 1491BC (per the Ussher timeline). Surely a physical copy of such an important work would have been committed to parchment much sooner.}}
===99===
{{sbs|
Languages. Similarities in languages claimed to be separated by many tens of thousands of years speaks against the supposed ages (e.g. compare some aboriginal languages in Australia with languages in south-eastern India and Sri Lanka). See <capture>[http://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel-account-affirmed-by-linguistics#20120328 The Tower of Babel account affirmed by linguistics]</capture>.
|
{{main|Pseudolinguistics}}
The author seems to be in serious error about what evidence would be consistent with a literal biblical reading and a supposed Tower of Babel. If God did mix up the languages at Babel to prevent people from cooperating, we would expect a very diverse set of languages to appear immediately, "out of nowhere" a few thousand years ago. The Tower of Babel story also claims that the lack of common language motivated people's migration across Earth. So we would expect geographically distant languages to have no common ancestor. However, modern linguistics has established that several European and Indic languages that appear very distinct, such as Sanskrit and German, share a common ancestor: Proto-Indo-European. Many words in these two languages systematically correspond to each other. Even though Proto-Indo-European is unattested, many of its words can be reconstructed by investigating modern and historical languages. Similar protolanguages have been identified in many other cases, e.g., Proto-Balto-Slavic, Proto-Afroasiatic, Proto-Algic, Proto-Bantu, etc.
Furthermore, the author erroneously presumes that an evolutionary origin of speech implies a single common ancestor for all extant languages. This is false. Language is propagated horizontally, not vertically; a child does not inherit its biological parents' language but instead learns the language of whoever raises it. Therefore, a common ancestor of all languages is not required in the evolutionary view and is, in fact, unlikely. Given that human linguistic behavior depends on several cognitive and physical underpinnings, many of which are also present in other species, there seems likely to be a gradual change from language-like behavior to linguistic behavior. This could easily have involved the emergence of new languages in different places. Indeed, we're familiar with new sign languages emerging in recent history.
The author may conflate evolution (biological and linguistic) with the idea of common descent from a single ancestor. We know universal common descent is false in language history, though it didn't necessarily have to be that way. Similarly, our biological evolution doesn't require that we have a universal common ancestor, but it seems we do. It is entirely possible that other forms of life arose on Earth long ago, but they seem to have all been outcompeted by our distant ancestors (yay us!). Some of it may survive in some remote corner of the Earth, but so far we haven't found it.}}
===100===
{{sbs|
Common cultural "myths" speak of recent separation of peoples around the world. An example of this is the frequency of <capture>[http://creation.com/article/3000/#20120328 stories of an earth-destroying flood]</capture>.
|
{{main|Global flood#Real and unreal great floods}}
These myths also speak of many gods, yet the argument here is not for polytheism. Many important details are also different: some stories have two or more global floods, and some have only local floods. How some humans survive also differs significantly.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html TalkOrigins Archive: Flood Stories from Around the World]</ref> Taken together, this makes them more likely to be myths or stories held in common rather than reliable historical evidence that one particular variant is correct.
It is important to note that frequent floods in river valleys create very fertile soil, which is why many ancient civilizations (e.g., Egypt, Mesopotamia, China) began in environments prone to flooding. In this context, the prevalence of flood myths is not surprising.}}
===101===
{{sbs|
Origin of agriculture. Secular dating puts it at about 10,000 years and yet that same chronology says that modern man has supposedly been around for at least 200,000 years. Surely someone would have worked out much sooner how to sow seeds of plants to produce food. See: <capture>[http://creation.com/article/1221#20120328 Evidence for a young world]</capture>.
|
{{main|Argument from incredulity}}
This solipsistic argument — the classic [[Pseudohistory|pseudohistorical]] trope<ref>One of the first lessons of modern historiography being to avoid precisely the type of anachronisms that the Creationists here endorse.</ref> of what {{wpl|E. P. Thompson}} called "the enormous condescension of posterity"<ref>''[[God Is Not Great|God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything]]'', [[Christopher Hitchens]], page 68.</ref> — implores us to question how it could "take people so long" to invent ''everything'' — not just agriculture — but things like the airplane, space flight, or television as well.
Thankfully, this mode of reasoning collapses in on itself by the simple fact that it may be applied equally well to ''the past'' and ''the future'' (which, in due time, will become the ''future past''). From this follows that ''the very notion'' of a (let's imagine, ''genuinely'' brand new) invention just being announced today suddenly counts as a reason to doubt that it was not invented much earlier.
In other words, by this argument (counting from today's date), things that are ''yet to be invented'' for another hundred years could, in ''another millennium still'', thus be argued to likely have been invented several hundred years ''before the present date''.
Besides the utter incredulity required to seriously maintain the above fallacy, the fact remains that farming requires adopting a lifestyle in which the farmer must learn to produce or trade for all the things he requires, build and maintain irrigation systems, and defend a permanent settlement. These innovations and the social structures needed to support them only seem obvious in hindsight (which, as the saying goes, is "20/20").<ref>"Hindsight is 20/20"; as in the optician's rating for "perfect vision".</ref>
More importantly, almost all of the plants and animals humans depend on today ''did not exist in nature''. It was only by generations of [[artificial selection|selective breeding]], practiced for literally thousands of years,<ref>{{wpa|Selective breeding#History|Selective breeding (history)}}</ref> that certain animals were made docile and certain plants edible and nutritious (''e.g.'', the [[banana fallacy|banana]]).
Aside from that, the divergence between wolves and wolves accompanying humans can be traced as far back as 36,000 years from now,<ref>{{wpa|Origin of the domestic dog}}</ref> with adaptions (as a direct consequence of the domestication process) having occurred ''at least'' 13,000 years ago in the case of our oldest companion, the dog.<ref>List_of_domesticated_animals#Domestic_animals</ref>
Even cultural advances that may seem obvious today often have relatively late origins. For example, coinage replacing barter did not happen until 900 BCE at the earliest, and the otherwise sophisticated Inca <strike>knew nothing of the wheel</strike> didn't implement the wheel for travel due to having so many stairs.<ref>[http://www.aracari.com/inca-wheel/ The Inca Wheel and Inca Road Network] Seriously, their empire reached from the shore to the peaks of mountains; wheels are a hindrance in that environment. All their roads were built for foot traffic, namely for humans and llamas (though the latter probably have as much use for stairs as [[Goat|goats]])</ref>
Indeed, as "obvious" a convenience as common ''toilet paper'' wasn't invented until the 6<sup>th</sup> century BCE!<ref>{{wpl|Toilet paper#History|Toilet paper (history)}}</ref> And this, in a time when — presumably — everyone had to go now and then just like today, and further when access to running water (never mind ''pressurized'', like in a bidet) was no guarantee.<ref>A topic frequently reasoned about by one [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2ZID9M5_dU George Costanza].</ref>
In contrast, a literal reading of the Bible allows 30 years at most for the development of agriculture. Not even the cutting edge of modern-day [[GMO]] technology could get [[Banana#Criticism|''that'' bright-green, seed-packed bludgeoning device]] to transform into a supple, yellow edible in just 30 years.}}
==Removed arguments==
Some points have been changed since the article first appeared.<ref>[http://wayback.archive.org/web/20090715000000*/http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Internet Archive]</ref> For completeness, this section collects analyses of arguments that are no longer present on the list.
===Introduction===
{{sbs|
In the end the Bible will stand vindicated and those who deny its testimony will be confounded. That same Bible also tells us of God's judgment on those who reject his right to rule over them. But it also tells us of his willingness to forgive us for our rebellious behaviour. The coming of Jesus Christ, who was intimately involved in the creation process at the beginning, into the world, has made this possible (see <capture>[http://creation.com/article/68#20120326 Good news]</capture>).<ref name=wayback2010>Present up to at least [http://web.archive.org/web/20101122104824/http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth November 2010].</ref>
|
Apart from having no relevance to questions of the science (likely the reason for this point's removal), this religious declaration is dubious in terms of Biblical scholarship. The explanation that follows is an extremely condensed attempt to describe a complex philosophical subject, so be sure to read the linked articles.
The term used in [[RationalWiki:Annotated_Bible/John#John_1:1|John 1:1-3]] is the ancient Greek philosophical term ''{{wpl|logos||.}}'' Initially, it was used in rhetoric to denote persuasion through reason and logical appeal. The other two modes were ''ethos'', persuasion by authority and charisma, and ''pathos'', persuasion through emotions. {{wpl|Stoic physics|Stoic philosophers|}} used this term to describe their concept of a [[pantheism|pantheistic]] god, which consisted of the passive principle (''ousia''), identified with matter, and the active principle (''logos''), identified with universal reason and Fate. This concept was drawn upon by {{wpl|Philo of Alexandria||,}} who sought to harmonize stoic philosophy with Judaism. He identified ''logos'' with creative thought in the mind of God that brings the universe into being and sustains its existence. He allegorically described it as the firstborn son and image of God. The Gospel of John is commonly accepted to have been written in the early 2nd century. Given this context, we can see that the first chapter is clearly influenced by Philo, and the author does not mean that ''logos'' is literally a different name for Jesus and that he was God's personal intermediary during the [[Creation Week]], but instead that Jesus is an incarnation of God's creative essence.
}}
===Former point 90===
{{sbs|
Cometesimals. From his studies, astronomer Louis Frank says that 100 million tonnes of water is being added to Earth every year in cometesimals (small comet remnants). This has strong implications for the supposed age of the oceans, if confirmed. See: Bergman, J., Advances in integrating cosmology: [http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_2/j10_2_202-210.pdf The case of cometesimals], ''Journal of Creation'' (''CENTJ)'' '''10'''(2):202–210, 1996.<ref name=wayback2010/>
|
The small comet hypothesis proposed by Louis A. Frank has been largely rejected as [[pseudoscience]]. The tenuous evidence for it consists of dark pixels interpreted as "atmospheric holes" in images taken by satellites observing the Earth from space. Their size does not depend on observation altitude, which would be expected of clouds of vapor from disintegrating comets. They are adequately explained as a combination of instrument noise and artifacts of the algorithm Frank and coworkers used to clean the images from bright spots caused by energetic particles.<ref>F. S. Mozer, J. P. McFadden, I. Sircar, J. Vernetti, [https://web.archive.org/web/20140731083940/http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/98GL02572.shtml Small‐comet "atmospheric holes" are instrument noise.]</ref> Furthermore, 30,000 small comets disintegrating in the Earth's atmosphere every day would leave all sorts of other evidence, such as quite a light show every night, which is simply not there.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20111026231420/http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/ast09dec97_2/ NASA: Other views of small comets debate] — see the "Arizona scientists highly skeptical of small comet theory" section.</ref>}}
==Analysis==
Many arguments on the list suffer from a specific combination of [[affirming the consequent]] with the [[spotlight fallacy]]:
* If the Earth is 6,000 years old, we expect X to be less than 6,000 years old.
* Under some circumstances, X can form in less than 6,000 years.
* Therefore, the Earth ''could'' be 6,000 years old.
This is wrong on two levels. Firstly, an Earth that is billions of years old can be expected to have things younger than 6,000 years on it — such as you. Secondly, even if one example of X really is "young", it doesn't mean all X are — the vast majority of X mentioned in the arguments can be shown to be far older than the entire young-Earth timescale.
Logically, we can also note that any evidence proffered by creationists that shows the Earth to be significantly older than 6,000 years — however lower than the conventionally accepted age — is an "own goal" which, far from undermining the scientific case, is actually an argument ''against'' a young age of the Earth. (In general: if '''A''' is evidence ''for'' '''X''', then not-'''A''' is evidence ''against'' '''X'''.)
Another common error is assuming a [[false dilemma]] between current scientific knowledge about the age of the Earth and the universe and the young Earth creationism perspective: either science can explain everything, or YEC is true. In reality, it is infinitely more likely that further investigation will result in evidence supporting explanations consistent with deep time and will further discredit the YEC view.
Below is a breakdown of the problems in the author's arguments. It does not exhaustively list all errors, merely the common ones.
===Fallacies===
* [[Not even wrong#Strict definition|Absurd uniformitarian assumption]]: [[#32]], [[#33]], [[#40]], [[#41]], [[#48]], [[#49]], [[#66]], [[#67]], [[#69]], [[#70]], [[#74]], [[#89]], [[#96]]
* [[Affirming the consequent]]:{{efn|For example, claiming that a recent origin of humans implies a recent origin of Earth.}} [[#3]], [[#4]], [[#5]], [[#6]], [[#11]], [[#15]], [[#16]], [[#29]], [[#30]], [[#31]], [[#37]], [[#38]], [[#45]], [[#88]], [[#89]], [[#99]]
* [[Argument from incredulity]]: [[#64]], [[#72]], [[#87]], [[#93]], [[#98]], [[#101]]
* [[Denialism|Denial]]: [[#3]], [[#25]], [[#35]], [[#50]], [[#96]]
* [[False dilemma]]:{{efn|For example, claiming that the only possible explanation is that ages are wrong or confusing an argument against a specific age estimate with an argument for creationism.}} [[#1]], [[#2]], [[#65]], [[#70]], [[#76]], [[#77]], [[#78]]
* [[Goddidit|Invoking miraculous violation of physics]]: [[#58]], [[#69]], [[#84]]
* [[Negative proof]]: [[#15]], [[#16]], [[#17]], [[#51]], [[#52]], [[#53]], [[#54]]
* [[Non sequitur]]: [[#62]], [[#73]], [[#82]]
* [[Pseudoscience]] and dubious science: [[#2]], [[#7]], [[#17]], [[#19]], [[#21]], [[#23]], [[#29]], [[#44]], [[#48]], [[#57]], [[#59]], [[#60]], [[#61]], [[#62]]
* [[Quote mining]]: [[#21]], [[#27]], [[#34]], [[#39]], [[#43]], [[#46]], [[#65]], [[#82]]
* [[Special pleading]]: [[#85]], [[#100]]
* [[Straw man]] or misunderstanding of science: [[#4]], [[#5]], [[#9]], [[#10]], [[#20]], [[#21]], [[#36]], [[#46]], [[#51]], [[#55]], [[#58]], [[#64]], [[#65]], [[#68]], [[#71]], [[#72]], [[#80]], [[#82]], [[#90]], [[#91]], [[#99]]
===Technical problems===
* Contradictions: [[#21]] and [[#26]], [[#31]] and [[#32]], ([[#46]], [[#47]]) and ([[#49]], [[#69]], [[#70]]), [[#68]] and [[#73]], [[#83]] and [[#84]]
* Duplication of previous arguments: [[#52]], [[#53]], [[#54]], [[#56]], [[#60]], [[#63]], [[#81]]
* Arguments ''against'' a young Earth: [[#1]], [[#5]], [[#35]], [[#40]], [[#41]], [[#50]], [[#54]], [[#73]], [[#76]], [[#80]], [[#92]], [[#93]], [[#94]], [[#95]]
From this, we see that there are not 101 "evidences", only 93, several of which contradict each other, with the rest containing logical and rhetorical errors that seriously undermine the list's intellectual rigor.
==See also==
{{fun}}
*[[Evidence against a recent creation]]
{{clear}}
==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}
==References==
{{reflist|2|90%}}
{{crebox}}
[[Category:Creationist claims]]
[[Category:Gish Gallops]]
[[Category:Refutations]]
[[Category:Side-by-side articles]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe | [
"Creationist claims",
"Gish Gallops",
"Refutations",
"Side-by-side articles"
] |
101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe (rebuttal) | 142,394 | 995,559 | 2012-03-29T18:23:02 | David Gerard | true | 101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe | #REDIRECT [[101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe_(rebuttal) | [] |
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe | 130,409 | 898,144 | 2011-10-24T02:53:41 | B♭maj7 | true | 101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe | #REDIRECT [[101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_earth_and_the_universe | [] |
10 Commandments | 182,214 | 1,671,435 | 2016-05-18T08:10:59 | Proxima Centauri | true | Ten Commandments | #redirect[[Ten Commandments]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/10_Commandments | [] |
110 People Who Are Screwing Up America | 96,086 | 2,597,466 | 2023-11-08T00:54:54 | false | null | [[File:110 People Who Are Screwing Up America.jpg|thumb|right|165px|The book cover]]
{{Books}}
{{title-italics}}
'''''110 People Who Are Screwing Up America (and Al Franken is #37)''''' is a 2006 book by former CBS newsperson-turned-[[Fox News]] toady [[Bernard Goldberg]].<ref>''110 People Who Are Screwing Up America (and Al Franken is #37)'' by Bernard Goldberg (2006) HarperCollins. ISBN 0060761296.</ref> The book is a revision of his 2005 book when Goldberg only hated 100 people.<ref>''100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (and Al Franken is #37)'' by Bernard Goldberg (2005) HarperCollins. ISBN 0060761288.</ref> While Goldberg does bash some [[conservative]]s and [[racist]]s, in the introduction of the book he admits that the list mostly contains "[[liberals]]". The introduction also gives a screed against [[blasphemy|profanity]], [[rap]] music, the [[liberal media]] (odd, given he worked for CBS, which conservatives view as liberal), television, [[Ameriphobia|anti-Americanism]], trial [[lawyer]]s, [[affirmative action]], [[Enron]], [[feminism]], [[professor values]], and "[[Hollywood values]]".{{cn}}
==Who?==
Here are some of the most notable on his list, in order of evilness. Some were obscure even when the book was written. Here are the top 12, as well as some other notable ones.
===Top 12===
1. [[Michael Moore]]: Moore is ''clearly'' the greatest threat to America. Goldberg doesn't even say why, just a photo and a quote.<br />
2. {{wpl|Arthur Ochs Sulzberger||:}} Publisher of the ''[[New York Times]]''.<br />
3. [[Ted Kennedy]]: Oops he's dead now, isn't he?<br />
4. [[Jesse Jackson]]<br />
5. {{wpl|Anthony Romero||:}} Head of the [[ACLU]]. Because [[civil rights]] or something.<br />
6. {{wpl|Ramsey Clark||:}} [[Saddam]]'s lawyer. The [[rule of law]] shouldn't extend to evil people.<br />
7. [[Jimmy Carter]]: who does he think he is, helping poor people?<br />
8. {{wpl|Margaret H. Marshall|Margaret Marshall||:}} [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Court justice who legalized [[gay marriage]].<br />
9. [[Paul Krugman]]<br />
10. {{wpl|Jonathan Kozol||:}} Left-wing [[education]] advocate.<br />
11. {{wpl|Ralph Neas||:}} Head of People for the American Way, a liberal lobbyist group.<br />
12. [[Noam Chomsky]]<br />
===Notable entries===
15. [[Ted Rall]], though in fairness, Ted Rall blamed [[9/11]] widows for putting on airs.<br />
18. {{wpl|John Edwards}}<br />
20. [[Al Gore]]<br />
21. [[George Soros]]: Did he ruin the wrong economy?<br />
22. [[Howard Dean]]<br />
23. [[Roy Moore]]: 1st [[conservative]] on the list! (Look! [[Balance fallacy|Equal opportunity]]!)<br />
37. [[Al Franken]]<br />
51. [[Robert Byrd]]<br />
65. [[Michael Savage]]: <s>2nd Conservative! We are on a roll!</s> Too obvious, as are the next three. Yawn.<br />
70. [[David Duke]]<br />
74. [[Fred Phelps]]<br />
75. [[Jimmy Swaggart]]<br />
78. [[Ward Churchill]]<br />
109. [[Matthew Lesko]]<br />
==Hypocrisy==
{{main|Hypocrisy}}
Cathy Young, in a review of the book, noted that Goldberg was constantly criticizing those on the left who he deemed "uncivil," despite allowing people like [[Ann Coulter]] to get a pass for her harsh behavior. Furthermore, she notes that Goldberg goes hard on those on the left who "side with [[terrorists]]", despite not mentioning those on his side who blamed the 9/11 attacks on the ACLU and People For the American Way.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20060115120539/http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/15/the_book_on_one_sidedness/</ref>
==Response book==
Jack Huberman, a liberal author, wrote a response book titled ''101 People Who Are Really Screwing America (and Bernard Goldberg is only #73)'' in 2006.<ref>''101 People Who Are Really Screwing America'' by Jack Huberman (2006) Nation Books. ISBN 1560258756.</ref>
==Inspiration for a mass shooter==
Jim David Adkisson, a far-right [[Mass shooting|mass shooter]] who shot up the Tennessee Valley [[Unitarian Universalist Church]] in 2008 and killed two people in the process,<ref>https://religiondispatches.org/hate-crimes-update-killing-liberal-vermin-in-tennessee/</ref> noted that he wanted to target the 100 people listed in the first edition of the book.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20090327130401/http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/021009church-manifesto.pdf</ref>
==External reviews==
* Philip Dingra, [http://www.philosophistry.com/specials/100-people.html Who is in Bernard Goldberg's 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America? And Why?]
* New York Times, [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/books/review/100-people-who-are-screwing-up-america-whos-no-1.html 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America': Who's No. 1?]
* Yin Review Blog, [http://yin.typepad.com/the_yin_blog/2006/06/110_people_who_.html 110 People Who Are Screwing Up America]
==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Conservative deceit]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/110_People_Who_Are_Screwing_Up_America | [
"Books",
"Conservative deceit"
] | |
11 September 2001 | 148,100 | 1,887,050 | 2017-10-24T20:45:11 | Bigs | true | 9/11 | #REDIRECT [[9/11]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/11_September_2001 | [] |
126–F | 147,918 | 1,051,558 | 2012-07-13T01:10:02 | Winter Whisper | true | Cantron | #REDIRECT [[Cantron]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/126%E2%80%93F | [] |
12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid | 105,140 | 2,777,971 | 2026-01-28T21:18:50 | ResurrectingDeadLinks | false | null | {{crenav}}
'''12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid''' is a follow-up to [[Answers in Genesis]]' list of [[Conservapedia:Arguments creationists shouldn't use|arguments creationists shouldn't use]].<ref>"[http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/arguments-evolutionists Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid]." Answers in Genesis. accessed 2010 September 28.</ref>
While it is true that many of these arguments are perhaps best avoided, "[[evolutionist]]s" don't really use all of them. (At least scientists well versed in the biology of the theory generally don't use the more dubious ones, although they turn up frequently on [[YouTube]].) Unsurprisingly, AiG's refutations of these arguments and reasons why they should be avoided are lacking in substance and smell quite badly of [[straw man]] fallacies.
In fact, the list might be better titled a list of arguments that AiG would rather not hear.
__TOC__
{{sbs|title=1|Answers in Genesis|RationalWiki}}
{{sbs
|1=For years, we’ve maintained a list of arguments creationists should avoid. There are enough good arguments for biblical accuracy and a young earth that dubious claims can safely be discarded.
|2=Translation: "For years, we've maintained a list of really embarrassing arguments whose only value is ''comedic''; now that we've learned how to use [[bullshit]] we can avoid such outright lies."}}
{{sbs
|1=Now we want to address a similar topic: arguments evolutionists should avoid. These worn-out tropes have not only passed their expiration date, but they never should have been made to begin with.
|2=Replace "evolutionists" with "creationists" and the statement is true.}}
==Argument 1: Evolution is a fact==
{{sbs
|1=When our core beliefs are attacked, it’s often easy for humans to retreat to statements such as this: “[[Argument by assertion|My belief is a fact, and yours is wrong]].”
|2=It is true that creationists, evolution supporters, and really almost everyone on the planet are all guilty of this. Declaring something to be a [[fact]] can be fallacious, as it's technically impossible to provide the complete and total certainty that it requires, but it can be a useful rhetorical flourish. The difference is ''[[evidence]]''; evolution has plenty, enough to say with an almost-certain level of confidence that the basic idea proposed by evolution is correct, while creationists [[Argument by assertion|stop at the claim itself]] and rely on making [[PRATT|easily refuted]] attacks on evolution. Stating "evolution is a fact" is actually justifiable, because it meets the scientific usage of the word "fact" — that is, of something observed.}}
{{sbs
|1=That’s exactly why we cannot trust mere human understanding to explain the unobservable past—emotion and pride get in the way.
|2=The only "emotion" and "pride" involved in this question are the emotions felt by creationists<ref group=note>[[Cognitive dissonance|Fear of the realization that they're wrong and have been living a lie]], mainly…</ref> as they desperately clutch at straws to uphold their fallacious [[theology]], and the pride creationists take in deluding themselves (based on this theology) that they will spend [[Heaven|an eternity strumming harps]] and everyone who disagrees with them will spend [[Hell|an eternity being barbecued and eaten by worms]]. This sounds harsh, but it's pretty true. Science demands that individuals get over their personal pride or emotional attachment to ideas should they be proved wrong, religion and creationism less so. This is precisely because most scientists ''don't'' accept things as "facts" (at most, a theory can be considered "tentatively proven" due to being the best available explanation for current empirical observations) while creationists ''do''.}}
{{sbs
|1=Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many times evolutionists say it is. It’s a framework built on assumptions about the past—assumptions that will never have direct, first-hand, observational proof.
|2=It's usually very difficult for creationists to define what they mean by "direct, first-hand, observational proof" of evolution that doesn't ''also'' completely sink young Earth creationism as not having "direct, first-hand, observational proof" either. They will ignore [[Richard Lenski#Lenski's long-term E. Coli evolution experiment and intelligent design|Richard Lenski's results]], for example, when they are observational evidence for evolution. For instance, they may ask "[[were you there?]]" about events millions of years ago, but neglect the same question for the supposed 6000-year age of the young Earth (or give an answer that boils down to "The Bible says so"). All evidence is, to a degree, indirect and not "first-hand", and science always takes this into account.
While it's difficult to say that an idea ''is'' a "fact", we can far more easily say when it ''isn't'' a "fact" because we can spot when a proposed theory predicts evidence that doesn't match up with the evidence observed. There is very strong [[evidence against a recent creation]] available to say that creationism, as proposed, is not a fact and nor does it have any basis in fact. Similarly, [[flood geology]], which is one of their proposed replacements for modern [[uniformitarianism]], is also patently false and demonstrably ''not'' a fact. The same is true for their claims that natural selection and mutation have some [[The Edge of Evolution|hazily defined "limits"]]. Meanwhile, evidence continues to mount in favour of evolution — it may never be the hard 100% fact that people demand of it, but it hasn't yet been proved wrong as creationism certainly has been.}}
{{sbs
|1=What is evolution, anyway?
|2=Strictly speaking, evolution is a '''process''', something that happens in the word of life as we know it. An informal description is ''descent with modification''. A formal definition is: ''a change in the frequency of inheritable traits in a population with change of generations''. So evolution is a process we can see, without doubt, happening, and have every reason to accept that happens always and everywhere there is life as we know it. It can be compared with other things that happen in the natural world, such as radioactivity or orbiting or flight. It is a '''fact''' that evolution happens. (Or, by a simple metaphor, "Evolution is a fact.") No, we don't see ''all'' of the times that evolution happens, just as we don't see all of the orbits of all the asteroids or comets, but we can reasonably infer that and observe its effects.
}}
==Argument 2: Only the uneducated reject evolution==
{{sbs
|1=Besides the arrogance of such a statement, this argument has no footing and should be cast off. Those who make this claim usually define “educated people” as those who accept evolution.
|2=It would be fallacious to ''define'' educated people as those who accept evolution — as anyone can [[argumentum ad dictionarium|argue by definition]] and get away with it. However, acceptance in evolution ''does'' tend to correlate with a scientific education, and this is simply an observed statistical trend. Not all people with a high degree of education accept evolution (it's only a ''statistical'' trend, after all), but those who have studied both the theory and evidence properly don't tend to doubt it at all — though they will maintain varied religious beliefs, underscoring the point that evolution is not a religion and doesn't refute Christianity. While creationist organisations have a list of a few pro-creation scientists they use to back up their "arguments", these so-called "scientists" are rarely qualified professionals with an expertise in relevant fields respective to the subject they're speaking on (see "[[engineers and woo]]") and are heavily outnumbered by lists of scientists like [[Project Steve]].<ref group=note>It is important to note that Project Steve ''intentionally hamstrings itself'' by only accepting signatories with an arbitrarily specific name in order to prove its point about pro-creationism scientists being a '''very tiny''' minority who are challenging the [[scientific consensus]] largely out of ([[Willful ignorance|willful]]-to-some-possibly-lower-than-100%-but-higher-than-0%-degree) [[ignorance]] (see the note in our [[PRATT]] article about some creationists regurgitating bad arguments because ''they legitimately haven't heard the refutations''), arrogance, and [[Cognitive dissonance|unwillingness to make even the smallest adjustments to their worldview even in the face of evidence that refutes it]], ''not'' because they have any decent reasons for holding their alternative viewpoint (if "I don't want to disrespect what I learned from my parents and pastor" isn't accepted as a decent reason, which [[The God Delusion#Religion as a By-Product of Something Else|some would argue it shouldn't be]]) or legitimate evidence to back up said alternative viewpoint.</ref> Given the extremely high prevalence of creationist arguments that are flat-out false, it is completely legitimate to conclude that they have not been presented with the information that shows that their claims are false (and are therefore uneducated), have been presented with the information but did not understand it (and are therefore lacking in intelligence), or have been presented with the information and understand it, but choose to make false claims anyway (and are therefore being dishonest). Thus, evolutionists are being charitable in assuming that anyone who claims to not believe in evolution is uneducated, rather than stupid or a liar.}}
{{sbs
|1=Anyone who disagrees fails the test, no matter what their background (e.g., if we follow this ideology, Isaac Newton must have been uneducated).
|2=This is [[moving the goalposts]], obviously; for the theory of evolution to be rejected, it must first exist, which it did not in Newton's time. In fact, this is one of the most common misrepresentations of evolution. While creationists love to cite Darwin repeatedly (as if evolutionary theory hasn't changed thanks to things like [[genetics]], [[radiometric dating]], and a plethora of other scientific advancements), they forget that natural selection was quite revolutionary in its time. Brilliant scientists of the 17th and 18th centuries were as unaware of evolution by natural selection as the brilliant scientists of the 20th and 21st centuries will be unaware of what will be known in hundreds of years' time. Ironically, the example with Newton actually supports the proponents of evolution: as far as the theory of evolution is concerned, Newton was in fact uneducated.}}
{{sbs
|1=There are many lists of well-educated scholars who look to the Bible for answers
|2=We would hazard a guess that these lists mostly contain Christian theologians with a deeply rooted religious agenda. Even in the days when the Bible went completely unchallenged, scientists did not "look to the Bible for answers" in the course of their scientific work. In fact, no one has ever made a successful scientific prediction from a holy book — they simply [[shoehorn]] Bible verses into [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge|already known phenomena]].
Not to mention that the AiG approach is ''very'' different from a scientist who is also a believer, but [[Non-overlapping magisteria|who wouldn't be caught dead mixing the Bible and science]]. "[[Creation science|Creation scientists]]" like AiG have a rigidly-defined conclusion (a [[dogma]] or a [[sacred]] narrative that they take as an axiom) that they have already decided '''''must be true'' and ''must'' be supported ''at all costs''''' and try to force real-world observations to support that conclusion, with little to no regard to how ridiculous their fabricated narrative may (or ''will'') sound to those who don't [[Preaching to the choir|already share their beliefs]]. ''Actual'' scientists start with, at ''most'', a loosely-constructed conclusion (a [[hypothesis]]) that they then revise, update, or even throw out entirely if warranted in accordance with what they observe in the real world, using controlled [[experiment]]ation where possible to refine those observations and rule out [[List of cognitive biases|bias]] and [[confounding factor]]s.}}
{{sbs
|1=([http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/ here’s one])—
|2=That is Answers in Genesis's little laundry list of creation scientists. This list cannot be trusted, as it includes "scientists" such as {{wpl|Steve Austin}} who are [[Expert for hire|working for pressure groups]] such as the [[Institute for Creation Research]], and people who either [[Professor of nothing|have little to no involvement with hard science]] (''e.g.'' [[Jerry Bergman]] or Jack W. Cuozzo, D.D.S.), or who are not trained in the relevant scientific disciplines (''e.g.'', Angela Meyer).}}
{{sbs
|1=and we could point out Darwin’s own deficit of formal education (he earned a bachelor’s in theology).
|2=As noted above, science in the past was an entirely different animal — we had a different level of knowledge and a different ability to understand the world. Darwin was a naturalist by trade, and at the time such activity was carried out by clergy in their spare time. These days, aspiring scientists who jump in without education in the relevant field usually get things wrong, because without that education, they are entirely unaware of the mounds of data collected over the last century and a half that falsifies most "alternative" theories. It's quite mind-boggling to think that cutting-edge research was being done by people in their 20s a century ago, and now it takes people long into their 20s just to learn what they all did!
Still, Darwin's clerical aspirations, as well as his documented antipathy toward the idea that the world came about "by chance", work against some creationist claims about him. It isn't compatible with the often cited claim that he was deliberately pushing an agenda of [[atheism]] with his work, and attempting to "destroy God" by coming up with a naturalistic theory. He simply saw the evidence, and built his theory with meticulous supporting detail.}}
{{sbs
|1=But the bigger issue is that education—or lack—does not guarantee the validity of a person’s position.
|2=True; however, burying one's head in the sand and ignoring contradictory evidence, as creationists do, does not guarantee it either, and it is fairly difficult (though [[Michael Behe|not impossible]]) to get an education in science if one has a blinkered outlook. If people who learn about evolution accept it, while the vast majority of people who say they disagree with evolution don't actually understand what the theory consists of, that's a very big clue that disbelief in evolution does not have a valid basis.}}
==Argument 3: Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution==
{{sbs
|1=The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true: the "evidence" supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed (i.e., moving from the Bible, God’s Word, to humanism, man’s word). Creationists continue to see everything in light of God’s Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account.
|2=What this argument fails to take into account is the technological limitations of the time periods in question. For example: without particle accelerators, most of today's experiments in the field of physics would simply be impossible to perform; without [[MRI]] machines, the inner workings of the brain would still be a mystery. Back in Elizabethan England, no one would have had the faintest clue about quantum mechanics or [[special relativity]] — yet this doesn't mean that the world didn't obey the Schrodinger equation at the time.<br/>
So this line from AiG seems to be using "evidence" in two different ways; firstly, it tries to imply that "evidence" ''is'' what we can see, and then it switches to implying the "evidence" is the world around us and so must be unchanging (this is a rhetorical trick of language that's common to most fallacious arguments in general). The world didn't change, but what we were able to observe and how our ability to look at it and piece it together inside a more consistent framework ''did'' change. Darwin made detailed observations of animals, their appearances, their interactions, and their environments. And he took these observations and put them into a new theoretical framework that explained them, and so was effectively "new" even though the world didn't really change.}}
{{sbs
|1=In reality, there is no “neutral” starting point; everyone—whether they acknowledge it or not—interprets the “facts” according to a particular way of thinking (i.e., worldview).
|2=AiG is big on the "worldview" thing: the idea that one's starting point determines their worldview. In some respects, this is correct, as [[Bayesian|prior]] knowledge and opinion is often a big deciding factor in how people think. However, the worldview of many scientists is that actual [[evidence]] should be given a vast amount of weight when forming ideas and opinions. This argument of theirs is particularly ironic because by dismissing evolution as merely a "worldview", it must also dismiss creationism as a mere "worldview". Also, the idea that there is no "neutral" choice between creationism and evolution is absurd; AiG ''admits'' that they start with the assumption that the Bible is literally true. Clearly, not starting with locked-in beliefs about the world is the neutral starting point.}}
==Argument 4: Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity==
{{sbs
|1=Why does this argument fail? We’ll show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. That’s gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—turn into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.
|2=In terms of observations and evidence, dropping a pencil shows that ''falling'' — some kind of force in the direction of the Earth's center — exists, not gravity as a theory. Newton proposed the major theories of gravity, which were later subsumed by [[general relativity]] — with newer formulations attempting to marry up relativistic physics with quantum theory. These theories will propose what evidence (observations) needs to be found for them, and then they will be tested. Although these are clearly a naturalistic conspiracy to take [[Intelligent falling|God out of the picture by claiming that some "random force" causes it to fall]]. This interplay between observation, prediction, and theory is essential to science — but is almost universally misused by creationists, and this accusation here is no exception. There is a difference between doubting the theory and doubting the evidence that we observe to back it up.
Historical science can be, and has been, ''falsified'' through repeatable experimentation, and so theories change based on these observations. Really, this distinction between "historical" and "operational" science is not at all scientifically recognized, but instead something that creationists invented and have used for many years to disregard the insurmountable evidence falsifying their young-earth theories — not to mention [[Lenski affair|evidence in favor of evolutionary theories]].
We ''know'' Newtonian mechanics didn't fully explain the workings of the world because of things like time dilation and the orbit of Mercury, and we know relativity doesn't fully explain it because it doesn't marry up with quantum theory. In much the same way that we spotted evidence that could show the limits of gravitational theories, there are a number of ways in which one could attempt to [[Disproving evolution|falsify evolution]] — though none have yet shown the overall theory to be false. Perhaps ironically, an amoeba turning into a [[goat]] would be something that would very quickly falsify the gradual changes proposed by evolution by natural selection. The analogy itself also seems to prove the previous "Argument 2", and demonstrates that creationists often have a very poor understanding of how evolution actually works.}}
==Argument 5: Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat==
{{sbs
|1=Ironically, the Bible describes the earth as round and hanging in space—long before this could have been directly observed (Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22).
|2=This is far from true. One can tell that the Earth is spherical (as opposed to "round") by many observations; how a ship drops off the horizon as it sails away, or how the sun's position changes very specifically depending on your location. These facts among many others are not consistent with a [[flat Earth]]. One also needs to cherry-pick biblical verses with exquisite care to find those suggesting that the earth is "round" — it's just as easy to find verses implying a flat earth or one [[Fixedearth.com|fixed in place]], and indeed people have done this! The fact that you can use the Bible like this to apparently prove ''either'' is very strong evidence that you can't really use it at all, scientifically. Again, like most [[Bible science]], such claims are made entirely after the facts have been established separately by science.}}
{{sbs
|1=The appeal of this claim is that it stereotypes creationists as stuck in the past, since the common assumption is that people once universally believed the earth was flat before science “proved” otherwise (which wasn't the case—only a few bought into the idea that the earth was flat).
|2=This is, at least, mostly true. It is a popular myth that educated people believed in a flat Earth in Christopher Columbus's time ({{wpl|Myth of the flat Earth|thanks Walt!}}). Despite the popularity of it, it is entirely a modern legend, and most of the motive behind it is indeed about making people in the religion-dominated past look silly. However, there were times in the past long before this where people believed that the Earth was flat. Many ancient cultures recorded beliefs in a flat Earth. In the West, it wasn't until the [[Classical antiquity|classical period]] in ancient Greece where it was determined that the Earth was spherical, with [[Aristotle]] providing some of the first observational evidence on the subject.<br/><br/>
But some creationists will believe in just about anything, and the creationist and Flat Earther [[Charles K. Johnson]] believed that spherical-Earth theories were an anti-Biblical conspiracy. With a bit of ingenuity, one could potentially use the Bible to "prove" whatever they like.}}
{{sbs
|1=But even if this were true (it’s not), direct, repeatable observation shows us the earth is round and orbiting the sun. Evolutionary stories about fossils are not direct observations; they’re assumption-based beliefs.
|2=A more appropriate comparison is that "doubting evolution is like believing ''[[Geocentrism|the sun revolves around the Earth]]''", since the most notable proponent of this now falsified idea was the magisterium of the Church. But Answers in Genesis is loath to bring ''this'' one up, since they have seen fit to publish geocentrist ravings in their so-called "scientific" journals on occasion.<ref>M. Bowden. "[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_2/j16_2_79-82.pdf A geocentrist replies to 'Geocentrism and Creation']." ''Journal of Creation'', Volume 16:2. August 2002.</ref>
Anyway, if the point is that comparing creationists to flat Earthers is because both beliefs fly in the face of actual evidence, this is one piece of rhetoric "[[evolutionist]]s" can get away with.}}
==Argument 6: It’s here, so it must have evolved==
{{sbs
|1=A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is “four,” we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless. The Bible offers another (and more sound) framework for how those traits and species came to be.
|2=We take this to be a misinterpretation of an argument used to answer the creationist's question, "What are the chances that we could have evolved?" The assumption that any given organism must have evolved is based on the fact that '''all''' organic life has evolved from a common ancestor. But that isn't ''quite'' what this is trying to address. Does evolution work using [[circular logic]]? If it evolved it exists, so if it exists it evolved? In simple terms, if evolution does this, then creationism works using practically ''spherical'' logic. Using the Bible as a basis for proving how the world works despite any evidence against it is not a good starting point for any kind of respectable science.
In slightly more technical terms and using conditional [[probability]] we can explain the two situations of "evolved therefore exists" and "exists therefore evolved":
Let the random variable X represent the event of some species coming to be (either it does, or it does not), and the random variable E represents the event of their evolving into existence by natural selection and mutation (again, either it does, or does not). X and E are not statistically independent, since P, the probability that the species exists given that it evolved, is 100%.
The original creationist argument is that P is very low, but this is pretty much just an assertion at this stage. The authentic counterargument is that we are not talking about P, but about P(\text{evolved}|\text{exists}), the probability that the species evolved given that it exists, which is significantly higher because of the evidence for evolution.
In the straw-man version ''Answers in Genesis'' is talking about here, the counterargument is instead that P=P — indeed a fallacy, known as [[confusion of the inverse]]. This exact same argument (which would still be fallacious, though) could be very easily adapted to refute [[Argument from design]].
How carefully should we read "framework for how those traits and species came to be"? The Bible does '''not''' suggest how any trait in the world of life came to be, except for a few instances relating the consequences of the Fall of Adam — why childbirth is difficult, why the serpent lacks legs. As far as the origins of ''species'', those creationists who believe [[Baraminology]] tell us that modern species appeared only after the Flood, and neither the Bible nor the elaboration of Baraminology supply a "framework for how those ... species came to be". (Unless one makes "framework" so simplistic as to make it pointless.) If one confines oneself to what we read in the Bible, what framework do we have for how kangaroos came to be only in Australia and nearby? Or how animals that have the bony skeleton of vertebrates share other traits, like eye structure and blood circulation, while others do not? And the Bible makes ''no mention'' of the ''majority'' of the variety of life: the microbes, let alone anything about how they came to be. Mostly, what the Bible has to supply for the framework for the origins of living things is that animals and plants came from the land and the water (if one is going to ignore the suggestions for spontaneous generation, but let's not get into arguments about that). Not that it is any fault of the Bible not to teach biology, no more than it teaches chemistry or mathematics.}}
==Argument 7: Natural selection is evolution==
{{sbs
|1=This is likely the most abused argument on the list—and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules-to-man evolution.
|2=[[Natural selection]] and [[evolution]] are, in principle, separate entities. The distinction is that evolution is a grand scale theory combining mutability of species, genetics, selection, and change over time, while natural selection is a method by which evolution can be driven naturally. But neither are the two concepts completely inseparable. Descent with modification ''implies'' evolution that is driven by a selection process. The only leap with "natural selection", which was made by Darwin, is that there is a selection process inherent in nature whereby more suitable organisms for a given environment are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce, passing on the traits that made them survive. The fact is that we've known about [[artificial selection]] for centuries before Darwin and the process is identical, except that in ''artificial'' selection, a person controls which organisms breed and which don't, not nature — humans and the environment apply different standards of fitness.
<br/><br/>
There is a slight undertone of [[microevolution and macroevolution]] in AiG's argument here; many creationists do accept certain aspects of natural selection and evolution but deny others. However, there has [[equivocation|never been any concrete distinction]] between them in the creationist definition. In reality, they're the same process on two different scales, like walking down to the corner versus walking to the next town.}}
{{sbs
|1=However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything "new".
|2=This is mostly false. Only in the [[straw man]] version of evolution, as put forward by creationists, is the power of natural selection artificially limited. This is where the "micro" and "macro" evolution concepts come in handy for creationists, but their lack of firm definition causes a problem. What does AiG mean by "new" here? New traits, new abilities, or simply existing abilities done in more efficient ways or being transferred to become useful at other tasks? It's very easy to fall for this sort of handwaving, but the lack of rigor is damaging. Evolution ''has'' been shown to develop new information in the lab, perhaps most recently in the case of [[Richard Lenski#Lenski's long-term E. Coli evolution experiment and intelligent design|Lenski's bacteria]], which began to consume citrate — a process certainly not observed in the original strain — after being grown in such a medium for thousands of generations.
Every time an experiment is carried out in the lab, new evidence comes to light about what evolution can do. Creationists seek to say "evolution can't do this"... but would they change their beliefs if evolution ''did'' do that? Evidence suggests that instead, they'd simply [[moving the goalposts|move the goalposts]] again.}}
{{sbs
|1=The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive. In fact, it's an important component of the biblical worldview.
|2=Survival of the fittest, an "important component of the biblical worldview"? What happened to [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v27/n2/darwin all] [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/morality.asp the] [[:File:Hitwin.jpg|squawking]] about how this satanic concept led in a direct line to Hitler and the Holocaust?}}
==Argument 8: Common design means common ancestry==
{{sbs
|1=Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans ([[homology]]), for example, do not prove common descent—that’s an assumption.
|2=Those so-called "assumptions" are called '''scientific theories'''. Competing ones are always differentiated by what observations and evidence they do propose. The best ones are those having the most supporting evidence and no falsifying evidence — no "assumptions", as AiG implies it to mean — involved.}}
{{sbs
|1=A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better.
|2=This is a bold statement. Any explanation can fit the evidence "just as well". We can say anything from atomic theory to analytical chemistry is explained by [[magic]] goblins — the question is "what evidence differentiates this theory from more established theory?" In other words, ''what evidence is exclusive to that new theory'' and so what do we expect from a common designer that we don't expect to see from common descent? Where such differences can't be spotted either because the hypothesis is not sufficiently powerful, or those proposing it are [[wishful thinking|deliberately not providing]] these details, then we can refer to [[Occam's razor]], which lets us discount a designer as an unnecessary complication for which the [[burden of proof]] has not been satisfied.
Common descent would predict a mix of creatures with DNA similarities between organisms that matched both their fossil records and their physical appearance. It would predict vestigial organs and certain conditions for [[speciation]], too, as it forms a core part of [[taxonomy]]. If we believe in an intelligent designer, we expect to see intelligent design and a ''lack'' of the appearance of common ancestry and naturalistic refinement. We also wouldn't expect to find examples of [[Suboptimal design|''unintelligent'' design]], such as weak knees and colorblindness. A simple "it looks designed" as creationists tend to use doesn't cut it — such a proposition needs tightly defined specifics, not "first impression" type observations. Something like "it looks designed" — that is, an organism appears suited to its environment — is also what natural selection would predict. In short, we don't see sufficient evidence of ''intelligent'' design. Why is every single cephalopod eye wired differently than every single vertebrate eye despite the fact that they serve the same function? Common descent explains this neatly through all cephalopod eyes being closely related, and all vertebrate eyes being closely related, but them not being closely related to each other. That's just one basic example; there are many others.
A common designer explanation can only posit a whimsical designer who "just felt" like handing out different designs for different creatures. This makes for a nice story, but doesn't amount to sufficient evidence to differentiate a designer from common descent.}}
==Argument 9: Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity==
{{sbs
|1=Sedimentary layers show one thing: sedimentary layers.
|2=To suggest that "evolutionists should avoid" saying "Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity" is the height of absurdity. In other words, scientists should avoid mentioning facts which contradict ''Answers in Genesis'''s interpretation of the Bible. It's fully understandable that they don't want to hear about these facts — but suggesting that others therefore shouldn't say them is specious. Remember, it's '''geologists''', not biologists, who figured out what sedimentary layers represent.}}
{{sbs
|1=In other words, we can—and should—study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point: such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions. When we start from the Bible and examine the rocks within the framework of a global Flood, the need for long ages vanishes.
|2=The overriding assumption of geology is that [[Uniformitarianism|the laws of physics and chemistry have been uniform over time for the same conditions]]. The Law of Superposition states that newer rocks are laid on top of older rocks — hardly a major leap of faith.<br>If you accept a Biblical framework for global geology, then you ''can'' eliminate the need for long ages, but you also need to eliminate any coherent explanation of how all the world's rocks and their strata came to be in the configuration that we now observe.}}
==Argument 10: Mutations drive evolution==
{{sbs
|1=Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth—and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. Some may benefit an organism (e.g., beetles on a windy island losing wings), but virtually every time mutations come with a cost.
|2=This argument isn't right either — not even close. See our articles on [[mutation]] and [[microevolution and macroevolution]].}}
==Argument 11: The Scopes trial==
{{sbs
|1=Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this: Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common—though completely flawed—perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different account.
|2=''Inherit the Wind'' was, like so many dramatic works of its time, an allegory against [[McCarthyism]].<ref group=note>Another example of a work using a case of religion running amok as a parallel for McCarthyism is {{wpl|The Cruicible|''The Crucible''}} by {{wpl|Arthur Miller||,}} which focused on the [[Salem witch trials]].</ref> Unfortunately, it has often been assumed to be accurate history. However, let us not forget one crucial detail: the law that was being challenged at that trial, the [[Scopes trial#Background|Butler Act]], [[War on Science|did prohibit the teachers of the state from teaching what was then the established science curriculum]].}}
==Argument 12: Science vs. religion==
{{sbs
|1=News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common meme presents science and religion as opposing forces—reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but it’s bunk. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not.
|2=This is true (if one ignores the fallaciously placed "biblical" qualifier), and it is unfortunate that some atheists, such as [[Richard Dawkins]], have seized upon evolution as confirming their views about religion as a whole, instead of merely falsifying a very narrow range of Christian theological positions.
However, the modern-day conception of this dispute is mostly due to creationists framing it as a question of evolution versus Christianity, which is a [[false dilemma]]. As a result, it's often overlooked that this is not a question of science versus religion, but science versus '''young-earth creationism''': most mainstream Christian denominations accept evolution, and have actively supported science against the attacks of creationists, as evidenced by the [[Clergy Letter Project]].}}
{{sbs
|1=After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within (and, in fact, requires) a God-created universe. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to do science in the first place.
|2=This is one of the AiG/[[CMI]] group's [[PRATT|endless repetitions]] of the old [[presuppositionalist]] line that "the only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything." We have replied to one of their longer attempts to argue this point, "[[Not Circular Reasoning]]" by [[Jonathan Sarfati]].}}
==Why address these arguments?==
{{sbs
|1=Answers in Genesis wants to show the world that the creation-gospel message and the book that contains it are trustworthy from the first word to the last. We don’t try to hide that. Most of the attacks against the Bible and those who trust in it are based on flawed premises and faulty logic, which is why we point out the arguments above as just a sampling.
|2=It is hard to see the Bible as being wholly trustworthy when one considers the [[Bible#Problems_with_using_the_Bible_as_a_literal_guide_to_truth|contradictions, flawed science, and other imperfections in it]]. And if one is approaching the subject from the point of view that anything the Bible says is factually true when taken at face value (even ignoring the possibility of things like figurative speech or hyperbole), then any argument against it will necessarily appear flawed and faulty, regardless of merit. You don't get to ''declare'' that something is 100% trustworthy and then dismiss out of hand the flaws found in it.}}
{{sbs
|1=Beliefs about the past—and arguments against what God says—have real consequences. If we do demolish such strongholds, it’s because we want as many as possible to experience the fullness of God in Christ.
|2=Such beliefs certainly do have real-world consequences. People have hurt, even killed, others over matters of faith. And while it's also true that religion has inspired good deeds, such a mixed track record suggests that faith in the Abrahamic God is hardly of unambiguous benefit to society. AIG's argument would hold more water if Christianity had an unblemished record.}}
==See also==
*[[Arguments evolution supporters shouldn't use]]
==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{crebox}}
[[Category:Answers in Genesis]]
[[Category:Intelligent design creationism]]
[[Category:Side-by-side articles]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/12_Arguments_Evolutionists_Should_Avoid | [
"Answers in Genesis",
"Intelligent design creationism",
"Side-by-side articles"
] |
12 Universal Laws | 204,734 | 2,741,230 | 2025-06-03T23:41:15 | ResurrectingDeadLinks | false | null | {{newage}}
'''12 Universal Laws''' is a [[New Age]] collection of concepts that, depending on the interpretation, can work as guidelines toward absolute spiritual [[enlightenment]] or base [[Consumerism|consumerist]] material acquisition. They are [[Fallacy of ambiguity|general enough]] that they can be applied to anyone's experiences given enough time and internalized enough that any apparent failure in their action could be attributed to not believing enough or failing to wait long enough for them to kick into effect.
==The Laws==
Unlike the [[10 Commandments]] the 12 Universal Laws are typically descriptive instead of proscriptive, but with the strong implication that you need to attune yourself and gain awareness of these laws to have a more successful life. Various authors have different arrangements of the twelve laws and some have shortened<ref>https://www.mind-your-reality.com/seven_universal_laws.html</ref> or expanded lists but 12 seems to be the typical number.
===Law of Universal/Divine Oneness===
''The idea that everything is connected, not just actions but feelings, ideas and beliefs. Every little thing affects every little thing''<ref>http://www.thelawofattraction.com/12-spiritual-laws-universe/</ref> A handy catch-all [[philosophy]] which [[falsifiability|can't really be proven or disproven]]. It emphasizes the reader's importance and covers the way that any of the following laws can be functional or applicable in one's life. The mysterious nature of The Law of Divine Oneness is frequently emphasized. Even though your every word, thought and action affect everything, maybe someone else's word, thought or action rendered the visible effects of your influence null and void.
===Law of Vibration===
''All things in the universe are vibrating, so you want to vibrate at a higher frequency''. This law is usually stated with the fact that everything is vibrating. Vibration on the molecular level is simply heat and nothing can exist at zero Kelvin in this New Age universe. It quickly diverges into definitions of vibration which are inaccurate, [[vague]] and unquantifiable. This is, of course, [[Vibration#Woo|new age vibrations]]. These sort of "vibes" are something you can cultivate through a positive attitude and the very belief that you are vibrating at a higher frequency. Vibrations, you see, attract similar vibrations.<ref>https://daviddanielbooks.com/the-12-universal-laws/</ref> If you're vibrating at a high frequency you attract other high frequency people. Pleasant emotions are apparently high vibration and bitter emotions are low vibration.<ref>https://www.mind-your-reality.com/seven_universal_laws.html</ref> Since none of this can be measured, if you were a [[Blaming the victim|pleasant, emotionally-positive person in a dysfunctional family you're probably just not ''really'' putting out the right vibrations]]. The vibrations know when you're pretending.
===Law of Action/Inspired Action===
''All of these laws are totally real, but you still won't have an effect on anything until you start physically doing stuff in a logically consequential manner.'' The law that's most likely to be true, while providing an [[escape hatch]] when any of the other laws is in question. Your [[dream]]s and vibes and emotions are all very important and can affect things, but the universe will not pay attention until you actually take visible steps to affect things.
===Law of Correspondence===
''Open to interpretation?'' Some interpretations of the Law of Correspondence hint at a fractal nature of the universe where patterns are repeated on different scales and noticing them grants you access to [[sympathetic magic]] where changes in the smaller pattern can cause change in the larger ones.<ref>http://www.thelawofattraction.com/12-spiritual-laws-universe/</ref> Other interpretations espouse a [[dualism|dualistic philosophy]] where real world actions have an effect on the "[[Luminiferous aether|etheric]]".<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20090904145733/http://www.one-mind-one-energy.com/12-universal-laws.html</ref> Other interpretations are reflexively emotional (if you think about bad stuff you will be in a bad mood).<ref>https://www.fearlessmotivation.com/2016/05/31/universal-laws-will-change-life/</ref>
===Law of Cause and Effect===
''Instant karma's gonna get you, gonna knock you right in the head…'' This is typically described as non-reincarnational [[karma]] with all of the pleasant and unpleasant implications that the concept of karma carries. As it lacks a carry-over into future [[reincarnation]]s it acts as a justification for unethical deeds: you are a good person as long as you have not received any consequences for your actions. Likewise it implies that a string of ill happenstance is deserved by anyone who receives it, even if the reason is not apparent. The universe is supposed to be smart enough to make these judgements.
===Law of Compensation===
''Karma, but more so!'' The Law of Compensation is also subject to multiple interpretations. In some cases it's an escape hatch for the Law of Cause and Effect, stating that if bad things happen to you even after you've done good things it's because you had the wrong ''attitude''.<ref>https://daviddanielbooks.com/the-12-universal-laws/</ref> The 12 Universal Laws aren't sketchy, it's your viiiiibes that failed. Vibe harder next time. Some authors will be forward enough to say that the Law of Compensation is exactly what it sounds like: big money! big prizes!<ref> https://thesoulfrequency.com/are-you-living-according-to-the-12-universal-laws/</ref> The universe will send you stuff in the form of donations, gifts and inheritances for your good vibes. Sometimes it's just the Law of Cause and Effect, but slightly reworded.
===Law of Attraction===
{{main|Law of attraction}}
''It's the secret behind The Secret''. Between the Law of Cause and Effect, the Law of Compensation and the Law of Attraction all possible bases are covered regarding why things happen to the people to whom things happen. Unlike the Law of Cause and Effect, which addresses actual actions the Law of Attraction exists as a purely mental process and things happen because people believed or did not believe hard enough.
===Law of Transmutation of Energy===
''Change is the only constant.'' Possibly the most reasonable and grounded of the 12 Laws, despite its odd sounding name. Things change, you must learn to accept change, you can change yourself for the better. Some versions go into the more obscure concept of changing your vibrations, which typically boils down to maintaining a positive attitude.
===Law of Relativity===
''No, not [[Relativity|that one]]. More like the broad philosophical concept of relativism.'' Another mostly sensible idea, the Law of Relativity states that the "universe" will give you challenges, but you have to keep a sense of perspective because there are plenty of people who have had harder times than you have. The "universe" does this to toughen you up. This is all fine and good as long as you're not one of the people who are having harder times. Somewhere there has to be a lower tier to this.
===Law of Polarity===
''For every thingy, there is an anti-thingy.'' Everything has an opposite: night has day, heat has cold, sadness has happiness.<ref>https://daviddanielbooks.com/the-12-universal-laws/</ref> Just tilt toward the good one of these two things, but this is highly simplified. In space, up and down, night and day are meaningless. Human emotions can be complicated, multilayered affairs where pleasure and pain commingle. Can [[water]] be the opposite of fire when fires produces water vapor as a side effect of [[hydrogen]] [[Oxygen|oxidation]]? What is the opposite of a complex, concrete object like a forklift?
===Law of Rhythm===
{{main|Cyclical theory}}
''You ever notice how some stuff happens multiple times?'' Many things happen in cycles. How this applies to a follower of the 12 Universal Laws is open to interpretation. Sometimes it's stated as a continuation on the Law of Transmutation of Energy because everything is changing, but it can change back too. Sometimes it's presented as an assurance for the goal oriented: you're in a bad/unsuccessful/unproductive spot, which means you'll come into a good/successful/productive spot. Sometimes it's presented as advice: one has to align their habits with the seasons and cycles of the day to improve their vibrations.
===Law of Gender===
''For every thingy, there is an anti-thingy but have you tried both of them together?'' Using popular derivatives of the concept of [[yin and yang]], the Law of Gender claims that the Law of Polarity is only a partial explanation of balance. The correct balance of "masculine" and "feminine" principles are more effective at goal achievement and spiritual health. It's sound enough in practice as excess and overspecialization are not really useful or healthy. The Law of Gender can even apply to a person's literal [[gender]] affiliation, where the advice seems to be "If you feel like you're the acting as the wrong gender, try a more suitable one".<ref>https://thesoulfrequency.com/are-you-living-according-to-the-12-universal-laws/</ref> Again, sound enough advice.
==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}
[[Category:New Age]]
[[Category:Numbers]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/12_Universal_Laws | [
"New Age",
"Numbers"
] |
13 | 156,191 | 2,717,438 | 2025-02-15T13:19:01 | Spud | false | null | [[File:13 white, red rounded rectangle.svg|right|thumb|165px|Nothing to be scared of.]]
{{Folklore}}
'''13''' is, depending on your culture, either a terribly "[[luck|unlucky]]" and ominous number or a happily lucky good-tidings number. As a result, there are many [[superstition]]s about it. There's even a word for the fear of 13: ''Triskaidekaphobia''. Try saying that thirteen times in a row (or, well, even once).
==Origin==
The origin of the superstition is unknown. Thirteen is an unlucky number in some but not all systems of [[numerology]] and number woo.<ref>[http://urbanlegends.about.com/cs/historical/a/friday_the_13th_2.htm Why Friday the 13th Is Unlucky]</ref>
[[Tradition]] holds that [[Judas Iscariot]] was the thirteenth person to sit down at the [[Last Supper]] ([[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] and his twelve disciples), after which Jesus would be betrayed. [[Norse mythology#Loki|Loki]] was the thirteenth Norse god at the feast where he killed Baldr. The reasons why these (un)worthies were symbolically placed thirteenth, though, is lost in the mists of time.
==Impacts of triskaidekaphobia==
*<s>The unpopularity of 13 goes back a long way: the {{wpl|Code of Hammurabi||,}} the earliest known code of laws, has no thirteenth law but goes up to 65.<ref>[http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/ham/ham05.htm Laws 1-65 of the Code].</ref></s> Hammurabi's triskaidekaphobia is a myth! The laws were not numerated, and you can easily verify that the versions perpetuating the myth have a law missing; e.g. Compare the scared-texts.com text with that at [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Code_of_Hammurabi_(Harper_translation) Wikisource]).
*In nineteenth-century Europe, it was commonly believed to be very bad luck to have a dinner party or other occasion with exactly thirteen people.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=MXc0AQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA185&ots=rN4Ce6WLpr&dq=dinner%20party%20for%2013%20unlucky%20europe&pg=PA185#v=onepage&q=dinner%20party%20for%2013%20unlucky%20europe&f=false Scared Stiff: Everything You Need to Know About 50 Famous Phobias]</ref> Even FDR was afraid to have such a party.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-franklin-ruehl-phd/friday-the-13th-facts_b_1198259.html 13 Intriguing Friday the 13th Factoids!]</ref>
*[[#Friday the 13th|Friday the 13th]]
*There are buildings that don't have a designated thirteenth floor (floor numbers jump from 12 to 14).
*In [[Ireland]], the Government felt obliged to alter car registration numbers in anticipation of faltering sales in 2013.<ref>[http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/unlucky-for-some-217929.html Unlucky for some?]</ref>
==Friday the 13<sup>th</sup>==
'''Friday the 13<sup>th</sup>''' is considered an unlucky day (but as is common with [[superstition]]s, there are also some who consider the day [[luck]]y).<ref>http://gypsymagicspells.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/lucky-friday-13th.html#Label1</ref> Furthermore, it is commonly held to be <s>a lucrative series of increasingly shite films</s> ''the'' most unlucky date. The particular badness of Friday the 13<sup>th</sup> is attributed to 13 people believed to be present at the [[Last Supper]] and the day of Jesus' [[crucifixion]] (a Friday, according to the [[gospels]]).
While there is no evidence that bad things happen more often on the date, people who buy into the superstition may [[Nocebo effect|experience "bad luck" due to their fears affecting them]],<ref group=note>See also our article on [[self-fulfilling prophecy]].</ref> or they may feel they've experienced more bad luck on that day due to [[confirmation bias]].
A person who is afraid of the date suffers from "friggatriskaidekaphobia" (from the Greek word for "thirteen" and "Frigga's Day", Frigga being a Scandanavian goddess worshipped on the sixth day of the week).<ref>[http://www.skepdic.com/friggatriskaidekaphobia.html friggatriskaidekaphobia], [[The Skeptic's Dictionary]]</ref> Another term, "paraskavedekatriaphobia", was coined by Dr. Donald Dossey, who claimed that if you could pronounce the word, you would be cured of the irrational fear.<ref>[http://www.skepdic.com/paraskevidekatriaphobia.html paraskevidekatriaphobia], [[The Skeptic's Dictionary]]</ref> And possibly have a sprained tongue. Yes, it's a fear so nice, they named it twice.
It is also the title of a horror movie franchise, starring a whacked-out guy in a 70s goalie mask running around killing everyone.
===Origins===
There is no written evidence for a Friday the 13<sup>th</sup> superstition before the 18<sup>th</sup> century, so the origins are disputable. [[Woo]]meisters, believing that [[Appeal to tradition|age equates to validity]], have traced the superstition's origins via [[Oral sex|oral]] {{wpl|Oral tradition|tradition}} to, amongst other things, [[Norse mythology]].
A modern reinforcement of the superstition is from three fiction writers that trumpeted the fact that the [[Knights Templar]] were rounded up, prior to persecution, [[torture]], and execution, on Friday, October 13, 1307. This, of course, was jumped upon by [[Dan Brown]] in his "arse gravy"<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A15891122 description by Steven Fry on QI]</ref> novel, ''The Da Vinci Code''. The other two works of fiction were ''Born in Blood: The Lost Secrets of [[Freemasonry]]'' by John J. Robinson and ''The Accursed Kings'' (''Les Rois Maudits'') series by Maurice Druon.
Whichever, it's still [[bullshit|bollocks]].
==See also==
*[[Leap year#Superstition|Superstitions around February 29th]]
===People who hate 13===
*Triskaidekaphobics
===People who like 13===
*Superstitious [[Italy|Italians]]
*[[2012 apocalypse#The Mayan calendars|Mayans]]
*[[Wicca]]ns
*The Skaven
*People born on the 13<sup>th</sup>
*{{wpl|The 13th Floor Elevators}}
==External links==
*[http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/feb/13/friday-13th-unlucky-why-science-psychology Friday the 13th: why is it ‘unlucky’?]
==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Numbers]]
[[Category:Woo]]
[[Category:Folklore]]
[[Category:Superstition]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/13 | [
"Numbers",
"Woo",
"Folklore",
"Superstition"
] |
13/50 | 218,232 | 2,455,182 | 2022-05-24T21:07:25 | DietMondrian | true | Alt-right glossary | #Redirect [[Alt-right glossary#13%]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/13/50 | [] |
1320 Club | 195,355 | 1,955,877 | 2018-05-15T13:51:14 | Gospatric | true | Siol nan Gaidheal | #REDIRECT [[Siol nan Gaidheal]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1320_Club | [] |
1350 | 226,561 | 2,661,980 | 2024-07-16T17:09:38 | Plutocow | true | Alt-right glossary | #REDIRECT[[Alt-right glossary#13%]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1350 | [] |
14/88 | 134,624 | 2,259,023 | 2020-12-13T06:05:35 | Magic Master | true | Fourteen Words | #redirect [[Fourteen Words]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/14/88 | [] |
1421 Theory | 183,723 | 1,718,998 | 2016-08-18T03:39:47 | Krej | true | 1421 theory | #REDIRECT [[1421 theory]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1421_Theory | [] |
1421 theory | 181,606 | 2,780,392 | 2026-02-14T22:45:16 | ResurrectingDeadLinks | false | null | {{pseudohistorynav}}
The '''1421 theory''' is a [[crackpot]] claim that the [[China|Chinese]] (specifically, the fleet of the admiral Zheng He) reached the Americas in 1421 — decades before [[Christopher Columbus]], discovered Australia, Antarctica, Greenland, circumnavigated the globe one century before Ferdinand Magellan's 1519 voyage, and that various [[Native American]] peoples descend from the Chinese and speak Chinese, [[Crank magnetism|amongst even more bizarre claims]]. Historians generally regard the 1421 theory as [[pseudohistory]] based on nothing more than speculations, assertions, and sloppy research.<ref>Fitzpatrick-Matthews, Keith. "[http://www.badarchaeology.com/lost-civilisations/chinese-circumnavigation-in-1421/ Chinese circumnavigation in 1421?]". ''Bad Archaeology.'' Retrieved 22 January 2022.</ref><ref>Newbrook, M (2004), "[https://skepticalinquirer.org/newsletter/zheng-he-in-the-americas-and-other-unlikely-tales-of-exploration-and-discov/ Zheng He in the Americas and Other Unlikely Tales of Exploration and Discovery]", Skeptical Briefs, 14 (3), retrieved 22 Jan 2022.</ref><ref>Fritze, Ronald H. (2009). [https://books.google.com/books?id=l2BrqdFg5AkC&q=Pseudohistorylocation%3D#v=snippet&q=Pseudohistorylocation%3D&f=false Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-Religions]. London, England: Reaktion Books. pp. 96–103. ISBN 978-1-86189-430-4.</ref> This theory was advanced in the best selling but heavily criticized book ''1421: The Year China Discovered the World'' by Gavin Menzies.<ref>[http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/147149 What is the Least Credible History Book in Print?]</ref><ref>Gordon, P (30 January 2003). "[https://web.archive.org/web/20030705160338/http://www.asianreviewofbooks.com/arb/article.php?article=201 1421: The Year China Discovered the World]". The Asian Review of Books. Retrieved 22 Jan 2022</ref><ref>Kahn, Joseph (17 January 2006). "[https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/world/who-discovered-america-zheng-who.html Who Discovered America? Zheng Who?]". ''The New York Times''. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 22 January 2022.</ref><ref>"[https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/junk-history/8953466 Junk History]", ''Australian Broadcasting Corporation'', 2006-07-31, retrieved 2022-01-22</ref><ref>Jenkins, Simon. "[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/20/china.usa Of course the Chinese didn't discover America. But then nor did Columbus]". ''The Guardian.'' 2006-01-20. Retrieved 2022-01-22.</ref>
==Linguistic claims==
===The Apache speak Chinese===
One claim by supporters of the 1421 theory is that the Apache speak Chinese.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20160412160633/http://www.gavinmenzies.net/Evidence/5-linguistics-and-languages-common-to-the-new-world-and-china/ 5 Linguistics and Languages common to the New World and China]</ref> The "evidence" for this claim is the following bit of [[hearsay]] from the 1918 book ''History of Arizona'' by Thomas Edwin Farish:<ref name=arizona>''History of Arizona'' by Thomas Edwin Farish, 1918, Volume VII, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160111063621/http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/swetc/hav7/body.1_div.1.html Chapter I. Indians of Arizona.]</ref>
{{cquote|The Tartar Chinese speak the dialect of the Apaches. The Apaches bear a striking resemblance to the Tartar. About the year 1885, W. [William] B. Horton,<ref>[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B._Horton William B. Horton], de.wikipedia.org.</ref> who had served as County Superintendent of Schools, at Tucson, was appointed Post Trader at Camp Apache, and went to San Francisco to purchase his stock, where he hired a Chinese cook. His kitchen adjoined his sleeping apartment, and one evening while in his room he heard in the kitchen some Indians talking. Wondering what they were doing there at that hour of the night, he opened the door and found his cook conversing with an Apache. He asked his cook where he had acquired the Indian language. The cook said: 'He speak all same me. I Tartar Chinese; he speak same me, little different, not much.' At Williams, in Navajo County, is another Tartar Chinaman, Gee Jim, who converses freely with the Apaches in his native language. From these facts it would seem that the Apache is of Tartar origin.<br/>
From the fact that the Apache language was practically the same as that of the Tartar Chinese, color is given to the theory advanced by Bancroft in his “Native Races,” Volume 5, p. 33, et seq., that Western America was “originally peopled by the Chinese, or, at least, that the greater part of the new world civilization may be attributed to these people.”|||}}
Apache is, in fact, completely unrelated to Chinese. It belongs to the Athabaskan language family, which also includes Navajo, and has no connection to the Sino-Tibetan languages.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20160306160848/http://www.ethnologue.com/subgroups/apache-1 Apache], Ethnologue.</ref> Consider the following translations of the Lord's Prayer in Mandarin Chinese and Coyotero Apache:<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20040517194111/http://www.christusrex.com/www1/pater/JPN-apache.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
!Chinese
!Chinese (Pinyin)
!Coyotero Apache
|-
| style="vertical-align: top;" |我們的天父，<br/>願祢的名受顯揚，<br/>願祢的國來臨，<br/>願祢的旨意奉行在人間，<br/>如同在天上。<br/>求祢今天賞給我們日用的食糧，<br/>求祢寬恕我們的罪過，<br/>如同我們寬恕別人一樣。<br/>不要讓我們陷於誘惑，<br/>但救我們免於凶惡。<br/>亞孟
| style="vertical-align: top;" |wǒmen de tiānfù, yuàn mí de míng shòu xiǎnyáng, yuàn mí de guó láilín, <br/>
yuàn mí de zhǐyì fèngxíng zài rénjiān, rútóng zài tiānshàng. <br/>
qiú mí jīntiān shǎng gěi wǒmen rìyòng de shíliáng, qiú mí kuānshù wǒmen de zuìguò, <br/>
rútóng wǒmen kuānshù biérén yīyàng. bùyào ràng wǒmen xiànyú yòuhuò, <br/>
dàn jiù wǒmen miǎnyú xiōng'è. <br/> yà mèng.
| style="vertical-align: top;" |NohwiTaa yaaká'yú dahsíndaahíí Nizhi'íí dilzîhgo bígózîh le'.<br/>
Nant'án nlîîhíí begodowáh.<br/>
Hagot'éégo ánniiyú yaaká'yú benagowaahíí k'ehgo ni'gosdzán biká'yú alhdó' begodolníílh.<br/>
Díí jîî daahiidââ doleelhíí nohwá ágonlhsî.<br/>
Hadíí nchô'go nohwich'î' ádaaszaahíí bighâ baa nágodent'ââhíí k'ehgo néé alhdó' nchô'go ádaasiidzaahíí bighâ nohwaa nádaagodin'áah.<br/>
Nanohwída'dintaah yune' onohwoníílh hela',<br/>
áídá nchô'go at'ééhíí bits'â'zhî' hanánohwihi'níílh.<br/>
Dahazhî' dawa bá nant'áá,<br/>
lha'íí ninawodíí itisyú át'éhi,<br/>
lha'íí ízisgo ánt'éhi dahazhî' bee sínzîî doleelh.<br/>
Doleelhgo at'éé.
|}
The two languages are obviously completely unalike. While old stories like the above might be useful as an illustration of mutual intelligibility of two languages already known to be closely related, or as evidence pointing to a particular genetic affiliation of a long since dead language about which little or nothing is known, it is hardly possible to cite such anecdotes as "proof" that speakers of two languages that are ''still very much alive'' and that are ''known to be totally unrelated and mutually unintelligible'' can communicate with each other. Indeed, there is a significant {{wpl|Bible translations (Apache)|body of texts in Apache}}<ref> Goddard, Pliny Earle. [https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_die0AAAAIAAJ Jicarilla Apache texts], 1911.</ref> which clearly shows a language totally dissimilar to Chinese. A time span of slightly over a century is insufficient to obliterate all traces of genetic relationship between what were initially mutually intelligible dialects. There are multiple possible explanations for the discrepancy between Farish's anecdotes and the attested history of Apache.
First, Farish might have simply misremembered the stories. He does not clarify the sources of the anecdotes; he may have witnessed them personally, read them in books or articles, or heard them from someone else. It is entirely possible that the original accounts did not involve Chinese-speaking Apaches, but merely acquired this form in Farish's mind over time. This seems possible, given that Farish apparently does not have first-hand knowledge of the languages in question. Alternatively, the so-called "Tartar Chinamen" may in fact have been Navajo and/or Apache pretending to be Chinese, for whatever reason. Perhaps they were playing pranks on unsuspecting outsiders, in which case they probably laughed heartily at the men's gullibility.
[[File:Apachean present.png|thumb|right|250px|Map 1: Treaty-imposed territories. Navajo (orange), and Apachean languages (other colors).]]
[[File:Apachean ca.18-century.png|thumb|right|250px|Map 2: Historic territories, c. 18<sup>th</sup> century]]
The ability of "Gee Jim" to communicate with the Apache may also be explainable by the fact that Navajo is quite close to Apache. Consider the maps on the right, which show the current and historic territories of Navajo and various Apachean languages. As can be seen, Navajo is geographically quite close to Apache; in addition, {{wpl|Navajo County}} and {{wpl|Apache County}} are adjacent to each other. One site dealing with Native American languages states: "Actually, there are at least two distinct Apache languages: Western Apache and Eastern Apache. The two are closely related, like French and Spanish, but speakers of one language cannot understand the other well–in fact, Western Apache is closer to Navajo than to Eastern Apache."<ref>[http://www.native-languages.org/apache.htm Apache], Native-Languages.org.</ref> In other words, Apache is fairly similar to Navajo. The ability of Gee Jim (a Navajo County resident) to communicate with the Apache may be because of his actually being a Navajo; communication may have been possible due to the similarity of Navajo and Apache and/or his being able to speak both languages.
In any case, it's not as if linguists were closed-minded dogmatists who categorically refused to consider any evidence that might significantly change their picture of Amerindian linguistics. For instance, the linguist {{wpl|Edward Vajda}} has proposed, on the basis of comparative evidence, that the Na-Dene languages (which include Apache) are related to the Yeniseian languages of Siberia, a proposal which has met with not insignificant approval within the linguistics community. If linguists are capable of coming up with and seriously considering the idea of Apache being distantly related to obscure Siberian languages with very few speakers, it is not likely that they would completely gloss over something as obvious and in-your-face as Apache being identical to Chinese.
Likewise the Tartars are actually native speakers of a Turkic language rather than a Chinese dialect.
If the Chinese discovered the Americas by 1421, the racial slur ''huan-a'' (Hokkien; Hakka: fan-ngin or fan-kui; Teochew: huang-kia; all meaning "foreigner")<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hai |first=Hai |date=2017-01-17 |title=Kenapa Pribumi Disebut Huana Artinya Orang Asing Oleh Orang Tionghoa? |url=https://bengcumenggugat.com/2017/01/17/kenapa-pribumi-disebut-huana-artinya-orang-asing-oleh-orang-tionghoa/ |access-date=2023-12-12 |website=Bengcu Menggugat |language=en}}</ref> would have applied to Native Americans as is the case with native Southeast Asians; in reality, it doesn't.
==Consequences==
[[Donald Trump|Trump]] cited Menzies' ''1421'' book as one of the books he had "read" that indicated that he "understood" the Chinese.<ref>[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/05/donald-trump-i-understand-the-chinese-mind.html Donald Trump has read a lot of books on China: 'I understand the Chinese mind'] by Tony Pierce (May 3, 2011 | 4:05 pm) ''The Los Angeles Times''.</ref> It was a New York Times best seller in 2003.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/books/best-sellers-january-26-2003.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm BEST SELLERS: January 26, 2003.</ref>
==See also==
*[[Pre-Columbian contact hypotheses]]
*[[Juan Moricz]]
*''[[The Viking and the Red Man]]''
*[[Welsh Indians]]
==External links==
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20060425134217/http://www.1421exposed.com/ 1421 Exposed] (Archived link)
*[http://maritimeasia.ws/topic/1421bunkum.html The book '1421, The Year China Discovered America' is a fairytale & a fiction]
*[http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/15.2/finlay.html How Not to (Re)Write World History: Gavin Menzies and the Chinese Discovery of America]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20050109234348/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whc/2.1/br_wills.html Book review]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20070211163132/http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/1421.HTM 1421], a rebuttal
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20090403192225/http://www.kenspy.com/Menzies/ 1421: The Year the Chinese DID NOT Discover America]
*[http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000409.html 1421], Language Log
*[http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003169.html 1421 Update], Language Log
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20131008175304/http://hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=91 Gavin’s Fantasy Land, 1421: The Year China ...]
*[http://columbuslandfall.com/ccnav/discover.shtml Who Really Discovered America?], Keith A. Pickering
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20190716001603/http://www.revistalatinacs.org/074paper/1366/49en.html J A Muñiz-Velázquez and J Lozano Delmar (2019): “The fake first round about the Earth. The case of the supposed Chinese circumnavigation of 1421 from the post-truth paradigm”.]
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2104/ha080077?journalCode=raha20 Better Than 'the' Da Vinci Code: The Theological Edifice that is Gavin Menzies’ 1421], JuddStallard, Avan.
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:China]]
[[Category:Pseudolinguistics]]
[[Category:Native American woo]]
[[Category:Woo]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1421_theory | [
"China",
"Pseudolinguistics",
"Native American woo",
"Woo"
] |
1488 | 184,290 | 2,254,688 | 2020-12-03T03:36:14 | Revolverman | true | Fourteen Words | #REDIRECT [[Fourteen Words]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1488 | [] |
14 Words | 192,124 | 1,894,437 | 2017-11-16T19:01:33 | David Gerard | true | Fourteen Words | #REDIRECT [[Fourteen Words]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/14_Words | [] |
14th Dalai Lama | 157,912 | 1,197,287 | 2013-05-25T20:28:54 | Sesel | true | Dalai Lama | #REDIRECT [[Dalai Lama]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama | [] |
14th amendment | 11,386 | 170,686 | 2008-06-06T05:41:33 | Tmtoulouse | true | Fourteenth Amendment | #REDIRECT [[Fourteenth_Amendment]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/14th_amendment | [] |
15-minute city | 225,562 | 2,632,031 | 2024-03-05T20:13:26 | Chillpilled | true | World Economic Forum | #REDIRECT [[World Economic Forum#15-minute cities]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/15-minute_city | [] |
15 Questions | 122,305 | 819,446 | 2011-06-25T16:41:56 | WaitingforGodot | true | Question Evolution | #REDIRECT [[Question Evolution]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/15_Questions | [] |
15 Questions Evolution can't answer | 122,307 | 819,448 | 2011-06-25T16:45:16 | WaitingforGodot | true | Question Evolution | #REDIRECT [[Question Evolution]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/15_Questions_Evolution_can't_answer | [] |
15 Questions for Evolutionists | 122,306 | 1,295,985 | 2014-03-02T09:26:00 | Proxima Centauri | true | Question Evolution | #REDIRECT [[Question Evolution#15 Questions for Evolutionists]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/15_Questions_for_Evolutionists | [] |
1619 Project | 217,307 | 2,423,966 | 2022-03-13T23:03:40 | AmericanUnreason | true | The 1619 Project | #REDIRECT [[The 1619 Project]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1619_Project | [] |
1776 Commission | 218,019 | 2,445,979 | 2022-05-07T23:02:55 | DietMondrian | true | The 1776 Report | #Redirect [[The 1776 Report]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1776_Commission | [] |
1776 Project | 217,836 | 2,445,897 | 2022-05-07T19:05:40 | Plutocow | true | The 1776 Report | #REDIRECT[[The 1776 Report]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1776_Project | [] |
1776 Report | 218,014 | 2,445,853 | 2022-05-07T18:16:21 | Bongolian | true | The 1776 Report | #REDIRECT [[The 1776 Report]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1776_Report | [] |
180 | 130,876 | 1,602,187 | 2016-01-07T00:13:24 | FuzzyCatPotato | true | 180: Changing the Heart of a Nation | #REDIRECT [[180: Changing the Heart of a Nation]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/180 | [] |
180, the Movie | 130,086 | 1,602,188 | 2016-01-07T00:13:27 | FuzzyCatPotato | true | 180: Changing the Heart of a Nation | #REDIRECT [[180: Changing the Heart of a Nation]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/180,_the_Movie | [] |
180: Changing the Heart of a Nation | 144,821 | 2,519,964 | 2023-01-14T04:19:59 | WarioBarker | false | null | {{abortion}}{{DISPLAYTITLE:''180: Changing the Heart of a Nation''}}
'''''180: Changing the Heart of a Nation''''' is a 33-minute anti-[[abortion]] [[schlockumentary]] by [[Ray Comfort]]. The title represents the aim to "reverse" people who hold a [[pro-choice]] stance to become staunch anti-abortionists. Comfort originally intended to call it ''[[Godwin's Law|Hitler, Religion and the Holocaust]]''.
The film was released on September 26, 2011 and received more than 1 million views on [[YouTube]] within a month. Comfort employs the typical fundamentalist canard of [[Godwin's Law|attempting to manipulate views by suggesting a historical connection between Hitler, the Holocaust, and whatever the ''bête noir du jour'' is]] - in this case, abortion. The film's web page says nothing about abortion, just that the film is "<nowiki>[a]</nowiki> shocking award winning documentary" which will "Rock Your World."
In the trailers, Comfort argues that the title of the movie describes the "reverse" of views on abortion he achieves in arguments lasting 33 seconds on average.
The video case and disc give no hint that the video is about the [[Holocaust]] or abortion, only the warning "Public advisory: Graphic content" and vague praise that the film is very moving and inspiring.
The primary argument of the film is direct comparison between the Holocaust and abortion in the [[United States|US]], presented in a series of man-on-the-street interviews in which Comfort first questions people over how far they would go if ordered to participate in the genocide, then accuses them of holding contradictory views for their support of abortion rights. As this argument is shown to have a near-100% success rate at getting those questioned to renounce their pro-choice views, it is apparent the program is constructed using the "interview mining" technique of talking to thousands of subjects and showing only those which cast Comfort's argument in a good light. A similar opening segment montages American youth claiming no knowledge of the Holocaust or even the name [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]], a lack of knowledge Comfort claims is a sign of the moral decline of the country.
Interestingly, Ray Comfort is [[Jew|Jewish]] himself on his mother's side (which makes him a Jew under the traditional Jewish law). He uses that in the documentary to guilt the viewers into accepting his stand.
Ray planned to release this video online for all to view for free, as well as distributing 200,000 DVD copies freely on 100 university campuses across the United States (so far, their website says just over 5,000 have been given out). However, as [[PZ Myers]] noted, this is more than just another [[Origin of Species (2009)|Creation Intro to Origin of Species]] stunt, but this video is a "begging video."<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/29/ray-comfort-is-a-fraud/ Ray Comfort is a fraud], PZ Myers, 29 August 2011, ''Pharyngula''</ref> It appears that Ray Comfort is asking for mass donations to help spread this video first before trying to save the babies.<ref group=note>When inviting financial backing for the film, Comfort promised this film would change American opinion 180° and put Americans against abortion. Presumably, a great many donors are deeply disappointed because this is not happening or will become deeply disappointed when they realize it is not happening.[http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111125152537AAei42x]</ref>
==The Movie==
<div style="text-align: center;">
{{#ev:youtube|7y2KsU_dhwI}}
</div>
==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}
==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Abortion]]
[[Category:Films]]
[[Category:Propaganda]]
[[Category:Ray Comfort]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/180:_Changing_the_Heart_of_a_Nation | [
"Abortion",
"Films",
"Propaganda",
"Ray Comfort"
] |
180 (film) | 133,495 | 1,602,186 | 2016-01-07T00:13:23 | FuzzyCatPotato | true | 180: Changing the Heart of a Nation | #REDIRECT [[180: Changing the Heart of a Nation]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/180_(film) | [] |
180 (movie) | 179,357 | 1,602,182 | 2016-01-07T00:12:50 | FuzzyCatPotato | true | 180: Changing the Heart of a Nation | #REDIRECT [[180: Changing the Heart of a Nation]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/180_(movie) | [] |
187 Fake Cancer "Cures" Consumers Should Avoid | 137,186 | 2,744,442 | 2025-06-21T20:41:08 | ResurrectingDeadLinks | false | null | {{Altmed}}
{{title-italics}}
'''''187 Fake Cancer "Cures" Consumers Should Avoid''''' is a 2009 document from the [[FDA]] listing a number of products which are sold as [[cancer]] "cures" despite strong evidence that they are entirely useless and in many cases dangerous and illegal.
The list includes manufacturers and product names. The majority of the ingredients fall into the "Some study somewhere has suggested some possible health benefit of X, so we are using that study as proof it's a cure for cancer" category.
These are ingredients used for various treatments on the list:
* [[Activase]] — A prescription drug to treat stroke victims, marketed by [[Precision Herbs]] as a cancer cure<ref name=precision>https://web.archive.org/web/20090710042350/http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2008/ucm1048286.htm</ref>
* [[Agaricus]] — a mushroom (''Agaricus bisporus'' is the common white mushroom found in most supermarkets)
* Amorph — marketed by Precision Herbs<ref name=precision/>
* Apritum — marketed by Precision Herbs<ref name=precision/>
* Bital — marketed by Fem Health "super herbs"
* [[Black salve]] — An escharotic that kills skin cells, marketed as a way to cure skin cancer
* Bloodroot (''Sanguinaria canadensis'') extract
* Buffered [[Vitamin C]] crystals
* Cesium and Potassium
* [[Calcium]] colostrum
* CanAlk — marketed by Precision Herbs<ref name=precision/>
* CancerGene — marketed by Precision Herbs<ref name=precision/>
* [[Cantron]] — An electrolyte formula <!-- http://www.cantron.com/html/whatis.html -->
* Carcinogex — marketed by Precision Herbs<ref name=precision/>
* [[Cat's claw]] (''Uncaria'' spp.) — an herb popular as an anti-inflammatory
* C-Cell 4 Destroyer — marketed by Plant Cures Incorporated
* Chloro plasma — [[Chlorophyll]] (from spirulina) as a cure-all
* Citrus pectin
* Coral calcium
* Curcumin — an herbal supplement using [[turmeric]] (''Curcuma longa'')
* [[Ellagic acid]] — antioxident extracted from berries
* [[Essiac]]
* Flax seed oil (''Linum usitatissimum'')
* Fungustum — marketed by Precision Herbs<ref name=precision/>
* Grape seed extract
* [[Green tea]] (''Camellia sinensis'')
* IP-6 Inositol Hexaphosphate
* {{wpl|Lycopene}} — Herbal supplement made from the tomato's red pigment.
* Lycozyme — Natural enzymes that break down cell walls <!-- To be honest, i'm not sure i understand what they are-->
* Medicardium — EDTA [[chelation]] suppositories. Marketed by Richard McPhail as a cure for cancer.
* [[Melatonin]] — hormone that regulates sleep patterns; though not a cure, there are studies suggesting a link between lack of natural melatonin and cancer.
* Molex — marketed by Precision Herbs<ref name=precision/>
* Mushroom blends
* Neoplasmex — marketed by Precision Herbs<ref name=precision/>
* New Sun LIV — "detox" product with Milk Thistle and Tumeric. Marketed by Fem Health and can no longer be formally marketed as a cancer cure.
* [[Omega-3]]
* P.D.Q.! Herbal Skin Cream — Marketed by Richard McPhail as a cure for skin cancer.
* Pau d'arco bark (''Tabebuia'' spp.) — bark of the Trumpet Tree and a rich source of flavonoids; marketed by Precision Herbs<ref name=precision/> among others
* [[Protocel]]
* [[Red clover]] (''Trifolium pratense'')
* Salmon oil
* Saw palmetto (''Serenoa repens'')
* [[Shark cartilage]]
* Shark liver oil
* Squalmine
* SunRecome
* ThermaPop — marketed by Precision Herbs<ref name=precision/>
* TNF-Max — marketed by Precision Herbs<ref name=precision/>
* Tum-go — marketed by Precision Herbs<ref name=precision/>
* Tumorex — marketed by Precision Herbs<ref name=precision/>
* VX-O — marketed by Precision Herbs<ref name=precision/>
* Wild yam (''Dioscorea'' spp.)
* Yew/Olive combination
==FDA notices==
* In 2008, the FDA sent a warning to Precision Herbs,<ref name=precision/> who were marketing Activase, Amorph, Apritum, CanAlk, CancerGene, Carcinogex, Fungustum, Molex, Neoplasmex, Pau d'arco Bark, ThermaPop, TNF-Max, TumGo, Tumorex, and VX-O as cures for cancer. Since then, these have been pulled from the market or relabeled.
* In 2008, the FDA sent a warning to Fem Health "super herbs",<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20090710043000/http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2008/ucm1048261.htm</ref> who were marketing "New Sun NKC-C Agaricus Blazei capsules", "New Sun NKC-C Agaricus Blazei Super Concentrate Vial", "New Sun Green Tea", "New Sun Grape Seed Extract", "New Sun LIV Combination", "New Sun Flax Seed Oil", "New Sun Super Sam (Super Sam Generic Samento, Cat's Claw)", "New Sun Vital PR. & BR.", and "New Sun Yew/Olive Combination" — among numerous other products — as cures for cancer. They have since been pulled off the shelf or rebranded.
* In 2008, the FDA sent a warning to Plant Cures Incorporated,<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20090710042541/http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2008/ucm1048278.htm</ref> who were marketing "Bloodroot Extract", "Ojibwa Tea" or "Essiac", and "C-Cell 4 Destroyer" as cures for cancer. Since then, the products have been pulled from the shelf or rebranded.
* In 2000, the FDA sent a warning to Richard McPhail<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20090710043013/http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2008/ucm1048293.htm</ref> to cease marketing Medicardium and P.D.Q.! Herbal Skin Cream as cures for cancer.
==External links==
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20090710041221/http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/ucm171057.htm 187 Fake Cancer "Cures" Consumers Should Avoid]
* [http://www.cancertreatmentwatch.org/reg/125.shtml 125 Fake Cancer "Cures" Consumers Should Avoid]
==References==
{{reflist|2|90%}}
[[Category:Cancer woo]]
[[Category:Alternative medicine]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/187_Fake_Cancer_%22Cures%22_Consumers_Should_Avoid | [
"Cancer woo",
"Alternative medicine"
] |
187 fake cures | 152,576 | 1,111,540 | 2012-12-01T13:48:13 | JzG | true | 187 Fake Cancer "Cures" Consumers Should Avoid | #redirect [[187 Fake Cancer "Cures" Consumers Should Avoid]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/187_fake_cures | [] |
1883 Bonilla Observation | 226,417 | 2,657,294 | 2024-06-23T09:18:19 | Flange | true | Reported UFO sightings and close encounters in Mexico | #REDIRECT [[Reported UFO sightings and close encounters in Mexico#The 1883 Bonilla Observation]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Mexico]]
[[Category:Ufology]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1883_Bonilla_Observation | [
"Astronomy",
"Mexico",
"Ufology"
] |
1905 Russian Revolution | 85,174 | 2,765,471 | 2025-10-21T23:51:33 | Peyre | false | null | {{Sources needed}}{{historynav}}
The '''1905 Russian Revolution''' is the name attributed to [[Russia]]n events that occurred in (unsurprisingly) 1905, a year of discontent aimed primarily at the [[Tsar|Tsarist]] government under Tsar Nicholas II of the Romanov Dynasty.
==Bloody Sunday==
On 22 January 1905, a peaceful protest led by one Father Gapon, an [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Orthodox]] [[priest]] and secret informant for the ''Okhrana'' (Tsarist secret police), marched through the city of St. Petersburg with the intention of presenting a petition to Tsar Nicholas II asking for changes to desperate living conditions. Troublesome protesters and those wielding weaponry were thrown from the march while the crowd walked through the Russian capital carrying the Tsar's portraits and singing patriotic songs such as ''God Save the Tsar''.<ref group=note>Not affiliated with the [[British]] national anthem "God Save the Queen" or the Sex Pistols song of the same name.</ref> Once the protesters reached the Winter Palace, the St Petersburg residence of the Tsar, however, they were fired upon by the Russian Imperial Guard.
==Reaction==
The events of Bloody Sunday triggered widespread outcry and discontent across Russia. Strikes occurred across all the major cities and towns, with terrorism against government officials spreading throughout the rural areas of Russia. A new rift between the Tsarists and the peasants, who had previously remained loyal to the Tsar's sanctified position in their Russian Orthodox faith, was a major political setback for the Tsar that the government never fully recovered from.
==The remaining year==
As the year progressed, the protests became more organized. The Russo-[[Japan]]ese war that began in February 1904 ended in September 1905, seeing Russia suffer an embarrassing defeat from a war that it was expected to win. This did little to improve the situation, and government officials feared the returning troops would aid the protesters.
==Concessions==
By autumn, the government was left issuing concessions to the dissenting groups. The October Manifesto, issued in... anyone?... yes, October, permitted the creation of a legislative Duma, a lower house of Parliament for the Russian people. With the October Manifesto came the promise of civil rights, freedom of speech, assembly and worship, and the right to form trade unions. This placated the middle-class reformers. The peasants were bought off in November with an announcement that mortgage repayments (the peasants' main grievance) were to be progressively reduced and eventually abolished. The industrial working class rebels could not be bought off, but instead were repressed. Rebellions in St. Petersburg and Moscow were crushed by December, and the revolution had ended.
==Aftermath==
The October Manifesto did not result in real reform as such, as the Fundamental Laws issued by Nicholas II in 1906 affirmed Nicholas' position of absolute control as head of Russia, as well as the Duma being subject to his will; he would suspend it repeatedly. Political repression of labor and socialist organizers increased to an even greater extent than it had in the pre-revolutionary period. Leaders of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, including Lenin and Trotsky, were sent into exile. The rift between the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions of the party was intensified, with the Mensheviks moving towards a reformist line and the Bolsheviks hardening their revolutionary line.
==See also==
*[[February Revolution]]
*[[October Revolution]]
==Further reading==
*''Reactions and Revolutions: Russia 1881 - 1924'', Michael Lynch, ISBN 0-340-53336-6
==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}
[[Category:Russian history]]
[[Category:Revolution]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution | [
"Russian history",
"Revolution"
] |
1926 General Strike | 230,349 | 2,763,285 | 2025-10-09T14:07:24 | GeeJayK | true | 1926 United Kingdom General Strike | #REDIRECT [[1926 United Kingdom General Strike]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1926_General_Strike | [] |
1926 United Kingdom General Strike | 182,220 | 2,763,284 | 2025-10-09T14:07:24 | GeeJayK | false | null | {{UKpolitics}}
The '''1926 General Strike''' was an industrial dispute in the [[United Kingdom]]. 1.7 million workers went on [[strike]] in support of coal miners, but they quickly gave up without winning any concessions. At the time, the action was viewed by certain sectors as [[communist]] conspiracy and the strike was opposed by many on the right, including from the nascent British [[fascist]] movement and more mainstream representatives of capitalism. It took place at a time of national tension, with arguments over female suffrage, paranoia about communism, economic depression, social changes from the recent [[World War One]], and unrest in the [[British Empire]] and recently-independent [[Ireland]], and therefore for conservatives it seemed a further symbol of British decline and society turning upside down.<ref name=saltzman/> Despite its failure and the lack of any revolutionary motivation (indeed, an apparent lack of any kind of planning) among its organisers, it remained for many years a dark spectre which right-wingers could use to invoke the danger of trades unions and [[socialism]].
==The strike==
The economy was in depression following [[World War One]], and the return to the [[gold standard]] in 1925 made things worse. The management of Britain's coal mines (then privately-owned) sought to reduce miners' pay and increase working hours from 7 to 8 hours per day. In 1925 the Trade Unions Congress (which included most major British unions) took action to stop the movement of any coal, and the government under [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] PM Stanley Baldwin stepped in to stop the dispute, subsidising the coal industry and set up a body, the Samuels Commission, to study conditions in the industry.<ref name=sw>[https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/24798/What+happened+in+the+1926+general+strike What happened in the 1926 general strike?], Socialist Worker</ref>
The dispute intensified in May 1926. Coal mine management imposed a lock-out starting on 1 May, which prevented miners from going to work. A general strike was called on 3 May 1926, in support of the miners, although not all workers were called out.<ref name=wp/> Transport workers were among the most militant and seen as key to bringing the government to its knees: the nation could survive without coal mining for months, especially in summer, but surviving without food on an island already dependent on imports would be a lot tougher. Hence it was there that efforts were focused by both sides: on 8 May scab workers managed to break the transport strike and bring food from London's docks. Although this weakened the strikers' position, actions continued for a few more days: the Flying Scotsman steam locomotive was derailed by militants on 10 May. But on 11 May 1926, the strike was called off, and workers were forced to accept most of their employers' demands.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/britain/generalstrikerev1.shtml The General Strike 1926], BBC GCSE Bitesize</ref>
==Press==
Workers in the media were often militant, particularly the printers, although the government tried to maintain a steady stream of propaganda, including the creation of its own newspaper, the ''British Gazette''.<ref>{{wpa|British Gazette}}</ref> The right-wing press was typically militant too. The ''[[Daily Mail]]'' published an editorial which declared: "A general strike is not an industrial dispute. It is a revolutionary move which can only succeed by destroying the government and subverting the rights and liberties of the people." However its own staff refused to print this editorial.<ref name=wp>{{wpa|1926 United Kingdom general strike}}</ref>
==Strikebreakers==
There was a large movement by those of the middle and upper classes to help out the government and industry during the strike by performing the tasks of striking workers, with an estimated 500,000 volunteers in total. This has been compared to "play-acting" or "fancy dress parties", giving nice upper-class people the chance to pretend to be lorry drivers or telephone operators, and thus making it a key event in the lives of the upper classes as well as the workers.<ref name=saltzman>[http://www.jstor.org/stable/3317548 Folklore as Politics in Great Britain: Working-Class Critiques of Upper-Class Strike Breakers in the 1926 General Strike], Rachelle H. Saltzman, Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 3, Symbols of Contention: Part 2 (Jul., 1994), pp. 105-121</ref>
===Organisation for the Maintenance of Supplies===
The strike was opposed by many on the right, with those hostile to organised labour forming the {{wpl|Organisation for the Maintenance of Supplies}} (OMS). This was intended to provide a pool of volunteers who would take over from striking workers in coal mines, railways, etc. As you might guess, this was a poorly thought out idea by people who at best were well-meaning amateurs.
The OMS, like many bad ideas, had its origin in a letter to the ''Times'' newspaper. It was founded by Lord Hardinge, a diplomat and former Viceroy of India, and was intended to be non-political. The ''[[Daily Mail]]'', known for its enthusiasm for fascism in the inter-war period, was a supporter. However, the OMS was criticised by most of the media. The ''Daily Express'', which was certainly not a communist organisation, denounced it as quasi-fascist and compared it to the [[Ku Klux Klan]] and Blackshirts. The Metropolitan Police refused to have anything to do with it at first.
When the strike began, the OMS gave its membership list to the government and its members were contacted to temporarily take over the jobs of striking trade unionists. Around 5000 volunteers took part, but unsurprisingly they proved rather useless at the tough and physically skilled jobs of dockers and railwaymen. They did publish a newspaper, the British Gazette, and many worked as car or truck drivers; overall there were about 5000 volunteers.<ref name=wpoms>{{wpa|Organisation for the Maintenance of Supplies}}</ref>
===Fascists===
[[Rotha Lintorn-Orman]]'s British Fascisti was also active in opposing the strike, but its members were required to leave the BF before signing up to the OMS. The party split as a result, with many members leaving to form the Loyalists and Scottish Loyalists, which allowed them to join the OMS.
Various individual fascists took up temporary work during the strike. These included journalist and rugby player Peter Howard, briefly a member of [[Oswald Mosley]]'s Blackshirts and later a leader of the Moral Re-Armament movement, who was one of several rugby union players to take an active role in strikebreaking.<ref>[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kvJ8AgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA125&ots=xDZaXDLBub&dq=Peter%20Howard%20general%20strike&pg=PA125#v=onepage&q=Peter%20Howard%20general%20strike&f=false A Social History of English Rugby Union], Tony Collins</ref> Neil Francis Hawkins, a major figure in the British Fascisti and later [[British Union of Fascists]], was also involved in the OMS's strikebreaking activities.<ref name=wpoms/>
===National Citizens' Union===
Formed in 1921 from the Middle Classes Union, which started up in response to the 1918 Reform Act that extended the franchise to the working classes. It was anti-semitic and right-wing and involved with OMS and strikebreaking. In the 1930s, the NCU worked closely with the even more anti-semitic and pro-Hitler Militant Christian Patriots.<ref>''Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations'', Peter Barberis, John McHugh, Mike Tyldesley, p632</ref><ref>{{wpa|Middle Class Union}}</ref>
==Conspiracy theories==
The strike came 2 years after the [[Zinoviev letter]] hoax, a purported [[USSR|Soviet]] plot contingent on a Labour election victory. Hence it was a time of febrile conspiracy theories about communist plots. The Communist Party of Great Britain admitted there was no intention of overthrowing the constitution.<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/pamphlets/1926/reds.htm The Reds and the General Strike: The Lessons of the First General Strike of the British Working Class], Communist Party of Great Britain, online at Marxists.org</ref> The Home Secretary William Joynson-Hicks argued that even though the communists in the [[Soviet Union]] hadn't actually organised the strike, it was still part of their evil plans for Revolution, conceived on a 1924 trip by left-wing trades unionists to Moscow.<ref>[http://contentdm.warwick.ac.uk/cdm/ref/collection/strike/id/1883 'Communist plotting: lessons from the General Strike'], pamphlet written by Sir William Joynson-Hicks, published by the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations, September 1926, copy from Union of Communication Workers archive at Warwick University</ref><ref>[http://contentdm.warwick.ac.uk/cdm/ref/collection/strike/id/1896 '"Jix" attacks the trade unions'], Trades Union Congress and Labour Party 'notes for speakers' criticising Sir William Joynson-Hicks' claims of 'Communist plotting', 20 August 1926, copy from Union of Communication Workers archive at Warwick University</ref>
On the other hand, the left also had its fantasies: some [[Trotskyite]]s blame the failure of the strike on the reluctance of the Communist Party of Great Britain and trade unionists to proceed from industrial action to true revolution. The [[Socialist Workers Party]] and many others on the extreme left blamed the failure on union leaders betraying their members and pretending the strike was weakening when in fact it was as strong as ever.<ref name=sw/><ref>[http://www.workerspower.co.uk/2012/10/1926-how-the-tuc-betrayed-the-general-strike/ 1926: How the TUC betrayed the General Strike], Dave StocktonWorkers Power, 2012</ref> As mentioned above, this isn't really true either.
==Later influence==
The threat of trade union influence obviously wasn't a great bogeyman because [[Labour Party|Labour]] came to power in the 1929 general election. New prime minister Ramsay MacDonald was able to improve conditions for miners a bit until the Great Depression came along and messed everything up again.
Even though the 1926 General Strike was a failure, the threat of another general strike loomed large over British industrial policy for decades. In the 1970s when there was large-scale trade union militancy against the governments of [[Edward Heath]], [[Harold Wilson]], and [[James Callaghan]] (which culminated in the 1978-79 winter of discontent) various individuals such as [[Walter Walker]] formed organisations of strikebreakers with the intent of repeating the actions of the OMS.
==References==
{{Reflist|2|90%}}
[[Category:European history]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1926_United_Kingdom_General_Strike | [
"European history"
] |
1943 Bengal Famine | 213,945 | 2,341,995 | 2021-07-10T16:22:06 | Monet | true | Great Bengal Famine of 1943 | #REDIRECT [[Great Bengal Famine of 1943]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1943_Bengal_Famine | [] |
1948 U.S. Presidential Election | 149,084 | 2,721,423 | 2025-03-02T00:27:29 | DuceMoosolini | true | Dewey Defeats Truman | #redirect [[Dewey Defeats Truman]]
[[Category:United States presidential elections]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1948_U.S._Presidential_Election | [
"United States presidential elections"
] |
1960 U.S. presidential election conspiracy theories | 225,141 | 2,768,761 | 2025-11-26T03:42:19 | Plutocow | false | null | [[File:ElectoralCollege1960.svg|right|thumb|300px|The jack, the crook, and the segregationist.]]
{{uspolitics}}
Long before [[Donald Trump]] was claiming the [[2020 U.S. presidential election|2020 Presidential Election]] was [[2021 U.S. coup attempt#Prelude|stolen from him]], the 1960 Presidential Election between [[John F. Kennedy]] and [[Richard Nixon]] was subject to many of the same conspiracy theories that still remain widely believed today. As David Greenberg wrote in a 2000 article for ''Salon'', "That Richard Nixon was cheated out of the presidency in 1960 has become almost an accepted fact."<ref name=Salon>[https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/10/was-nixon-robbed.html Was Nixon Robbed? The legend of the stolen 1960 presidential election.] by David Greenberg (Oct. 16, 2000, at 9:30 PM ET) ''Salon''.</ref>
The issue at hand is that these claims are total [[bullshit]].
==Origin==
Rumors of election fraud in specific parts of the country, most notably [[Chicago]], were common long before the 1960 Presidential Election occurred. Richard J. Daley, the then-mayor of Chicago, was famous for making the local Democratic Party a "political machine" in the words of historians.<ref>[https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/daley-richard-j Daley, Richard J.]</ref> However, the man widely credited as the person who brought these accusations to mainstream attention was Earl Mazo of ''The New York Herald Tribune''.<ref name=Salon/> Mazo was a biographer of Nixon who had published, ''Richard Nixon: A Political and Personal Portrait''<ref>''Richard Nixon: A Political and Personal Portrait'' by Earl Mazo (1959) Harper.</ref> the year before, when Nixon was still Vice President,<ref>[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-feb-20-me-mazo20-story.html Earl Mazo, 87; Nixon biographer also covered politics for New York papers]</ref> and the newspaper he wrote for "was a voice of [[Rockefeller Republican|moderate Republicanism]]"<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/topic/New-York-Herald New York Herald]</ref> during its time in print.
Mazo wrote a four-part series of articles alleging Nixon had been cheated, which have since been held up by historians and even Nixon himself as evidence of fraud. However, the articles are little more than a series of [[anecdotes]], several of which were disputed at the time.<ref name=sidebar>[https://web.archive.org/web/20121130180913/http://www.slate.com/sidebars/2000/10/sidebar_9.html Sidebar] of the David Greenberg article, "Was Nixon Robbed?" (archived from November 30, 2012).</ref>
==The truth==
At the time, [[Republicans]] went to court in order to demand a recount in various states that Nixon had lost, and the results were incredibly underwhelming. Although they were able to find the odd precinct where Nixon votes had been undercounted (just as they were able to find several where Kennedy votes were undercounted), none of them were by a great enough margin to actually change the results of the election. In fact, the only state which changed because of a recount was [[Hawaii]], which gave its [[United States Electoral College|electoral votes]] to Kennedy in spite of it originally being called for Nixon.<ref name=Salon/>
Many of these accusations can be explained away through a basic understanding of how elections work. For example, the Mazo articles focus heavily on Cook County,<ref name=sidebar/> a part of Illinois that Kennedy won with 318,736 votes. However, Kennedy did so well in the area primarily because the majority of the population being either [[African American|Black]] or [[Catholic]] (making up 20% and 39% of Cook County's residents respectively).<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/08/heres-a-voter-fraud-myth-richard-daley-stole-illinois-for-john-kennedy-in-the-1960-election/ Here’s a voter fraud myth: Richard Daley ‘stole’ Illinois for John Kennedy in the 1960 election]</ref> Given that Kennedy received about 70% of the Black vote in 1960<ref>[https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/civil-rights-movement THE MODERN CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND THE KENNEDY ADMINISTRATION]</ref> and somewhere between about 70-80% of the Catholic vote<ref>[https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2013-nov-22-la-ol-jfk-obama-catholics-20131122-story.html Not all Catholics venerated (or voted for) JFK]</ref> it is far from surprising that areas with high density of those two groups would end up voting for Kennedy.
Another common claim is that in [[Texas]] more people voted than were even registered to vote at the time. For example, Fannin County only had 4,895 registered voters, yet 6,138 votes were cast, with 75% of said votes going to Kennedy.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/11/17/another-race-to-the-finish/c810a41c-7da9-461a-927b-9da6d36a65dc/ Another Race To the Finish]</ref> However, this can once again be explained rather simply. At the time, in order to be counted as having registered to vote in the state, one was required to pay a poll tax (this was before the Twenty-fourth Amendment made all such laws [[United States Constitution|unconstitutional]]<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/topic/Twenty-fourth-Amendment Twenty-fourth Amendment]</ref>) which certain members of the population, such as veterans and the elderly, were exempt from.<ref>[https://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/vote-id-law-is-a-waste-of-money-3481335.php Vote ID law is a waste of money]</ref>
==The myth that will not die==
In spite of the fact that nobody has provided evidence to support this notion, that does not mean some have not attempted to continue repeating this claim as if it were proven fact, sometimes even using it to justify other conspiracy theories with equally little basis. As you could imagine, Donald Trump claiming the 2020 Presidential Election was stolen from him provided a large number of chances for this idea to come back into the mainstream. For example, [[Michael Knowles]] once defended [[Donald Trump]] claiming "No candidate has ever won both Florida and Ohio and lost. I won them both, by a lot! #SupremeCourt"<ref>[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1336691981981016066 "No candidate has ever won both Florida and Ohio and lost. I won them both, by a lot! #SupremeCourt"] by @realDonaldTrump, 12/9/2020</ref> by saying "The liberals invoking the 1960 presidential election to 'debunk' this claim might consider reading up on the 1960 presidential election."<ref>[https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles/status/1336735625719013377 "The liberals invoking the 1960 presidential election to 'debunk' this claim might consider reading up on the 1960 presidential election."] from @michaeljknowles, 12/9/2020</ref>
Even some (alleged) history books now contain information similar to this, with Paul Johnson's 1997 book ''A History of the American People''<ref name=Johnson>''A History of the American People'' by Paul Johnson</ref> serving as one example. A large chunk of the claims about the election have either been debunked elsewhere on this page or are on the minor side, however special mention goes to this one, a favorite of those who believe Nixon was robbed:
{{quotebox|Evidence of fraud in the two states was so blatant that a number of senior figures, including Eisenhower, urged Nixon to make a formal legal challenge to the result. But Nixon declined.<ref name=Johnson/>{{rp|854}}}}
This is a claim which has no evidence to back it up, with one journalist who was friends with Eisenhower saying "This was the first time I ever caught Nixon in a lie.”<ref>[https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/10/the-time-nixons-cronies-tried-to-overturn-a-presidential-election-428318 The Time Nixon’s Cronies Tried to Overturn a Presidential Election]</ref>
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Conspiracy theories]]
[[Category:United States presidential elections]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1960_U.S._presidential_election_conspiracy_theories | [
"Conspiracy theories",
"United States presidential elections"
] |
1974 Coyame UFO Crash | 226,416 | 2,657,289 | 2024-06-23T09:13:27 | Flange | true | Reported UFO sightings and close encounters in Mexico | #REDIRECT [[Reported UFO sightings and close encounters in Mexico#The 1974 Coyame UFO Crash]]
[[Category:Mexico]]
[[Category:Ufology]]
[[Category:Urban legends]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1974_Coyame_UFO_Crash | [
"Mexico",
"Ufology",
"Urban legends"
] |
1984 | 8,061 | 2,630,898 | 2024-03-01T14:30:56 | KarmaPolice | true | Nineteen Eighty-Four | #REDIRECT [[Nineteen Eighty-Four]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1984 | [] |
1984-85 miners' strike | 230,350 | 2,763,287 | 2025-10-09T14:07:59 | GeeJayK | true | 1984–1985 United Kingdom miners' strike | #REDIRECT [[1984–1985 United Kingdom miners' strike]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1984-85_miners'_strike | [] |
1984–1985 United Kingdom miners' strike | 189,681 | 2,763,286 | 2025-10-09T14:07:58 | GeeJayK | false | null | {{significantly problematic}}{{UKpolitics}}
{{Sources needed}}
The '''1984-85 miners strike''', otherwise known simply as "the miners' strike", was one of the most defining moments in 20<sup>th</sup> century [[British]] [[history]],<ref>{{cite news|title=1984: The beginning of the end for British coal |location=London |work=BBC News |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/12/newsid_3503000/3503346.stm|access-date=20 December 2014}}</ref> seeing a reverse in the strength of [[trade union]]s; the change from primary industry to retail, and the deterioration of community life in Northern England in the face of better living quality in the south.
==Causes==
In 1946, the Labour Party nationalised the [[coal]] industry under the National Coal Board, allowing for a national increase in safety and miners' wages rather than the varying qualities and pay in private industry. The industry enjoyed comfort until the 1960s when a lack of pay increase to keep up with inflation led to miners losing out. The earlier 1972 and 1974 strikes against the [[Edward Heath]] [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] government saw the successful increase of miners' wages, and further investment into improving the quality of collieries.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/6/newsid_4207000/4207111.stm 1974: Miners' strike comes to an end], ''On This Day'', BBC</ref> However, this was more in order to function with a depleted staff in future strikes than to increase production. When the Conservatives were elected in 1979 they sought to destroy trade union strength outright by weakening the human labour, and upscaled mechanisation of the industry to allow for redundancies.
==The strike==
[[File:Miners strike rally London 1984.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Miners' Strike Rally in London in 1984]]
{{main|Strike}}
In 1983 the government concluded in a report that, by their calculations, mechanisation would still lead to coal extraction being 25% more expensive than importing (lower quality) coal from abroad. In 1984 it was decided that a number of collieries would be closed. The majority of miners had lost interest in striking after the 1970s, and new laws brought in by the [[Thatcher]] ministry required a majority national vote for such strikes to be considered legal. Faced with this, the National Union of Miners called for one anyway. NUM leader [[Socialist Labour Party|Arthur Scargill]] became an easily-vilified figure in the press, especially for his refusal to condemn violence. Over the year the strike lost the support of the ''[[Daily Mirror]]'' and ''[[The Guardian]]'', and strikers in Yorkshire became dependent on soup kitchens and donations from the [[Soviet Union]] to prevent them going back to work. By early 1985 the Union was on the defensive, and regional officers were negotiating the protection of employment if action was called off. In South [[Wales]], a large number of strikers were starved back into work, and the proposal was rejected when the employers felt they had enough power. Yorkshire and Kent by this point were the only regions where the majority of miners actually were in favour of strike action; in the former case it was largely due to so many towns being dependent on collieries that further closures would effectively make the county impossibly jobless. In parts of Yorkshire the employment rate is still lagging behind national averages due to an ongoing [[brain drain]].{{cn}}
===Violence===
The strike was notorious for the level of violence which took place. More extreme strikers were known for throwing bricks at employees and broken miners and scabs, breaking car and house windows.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/9/newsid_2903000/2903651.stm 1984: Dozens arrested in picket line violence], ''On This Day'', BBC</ref> In one notorious incident, a taxi driver named David Wilkie was killed when two strikers dropped a concrete block onto his taxi to stop him driving a strike-breaker to work.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16/newsid_2512000/2512469.stm BBC on this day, 16 May 1985, Miners jailed for pit strike murder]</ref> On the other side, [[police brutality]] was a common threat, and in the Battle of Orgreaves, South Yorkshire's police were reinforced with aggressive police from elsewhere.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20150402235359/http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-16ab-Battle-of-Orgreave-30th-anniversary-We-demand-justice-for-victims-of-police-brutality,-says-1,500-strong-crowd</ref> Violence here was extreme enough that random homeowners were attacked as strikers ran down streets away from horse-mounted units. Afterwards 95 miners were arrested and charged with rioting for having allegedly attacked the police, but all were acquitted after it was proven that the police had attacked first - a fact which multiple police officers had lied about under oath, as established by an IPCC inquiry decades after the fact.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/06/south-yorkshire-interim-police-chief-welcomes-orgreave-inquiry South Yorkshire interim police chief welcomes Orgreave inquiry], The Guardian </ref> Following the Hillsborough inquest allegations have been raised to the national stage that there was a culture of police [[coverup]]s during the Thatcher ministry.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/01/orgreave-miners-strike-retired-police-evidence-cover-up Retired police to back miners over 1984 ‘battle of Orgreave’], The Guardian, 1 Oct 2016</ref>
==Effects==
==References==
{{reflist}} | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1984%E2%80%931985_United_Kingdom_miners'_strike | [] |
1988 U.S. Presidential Election | 170,094 | 2,697,660 | 2024-11-29T23:46:23 | DuceMoosolini | true | 1988 United States presidential election | #REDIRECT [[1988 United States presidential election]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1988_U.S._Presidential_Election | [] |
1988 U.S. presidential election | 227,787 | 2,697,656 | 2024-11-29T23:45:57 | DuceMoosolini | true | 1988 United States presidential election | #REDIRECT [[1988 United States presidential election]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1988_U.S._presidential_election | [] |
1988 United States presidential election | 141,896 | 2,721,406 | 2025-03-02T00:19:21 | DuceMoosolini | false | null | [[File:ElectoralCollege1988.svg|right|thumb|300px|The kind of election loss you get when you film a ridiculous video of yourself in a battle tank.<ref>[https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/dukakis-and-the-tank-099119 Dukakis and the Tank] King, Josh. ''Politico.'' 11.17.13</ref> ]]
{{uspolitics}}
The '''1988 U.S. presidential campaign''' was seemingly quite conventional, with [[George H.W. Bush]] defeating Michael Dukakis in the general election. It was, however, in many ways a baseline for what has happened since.
==Candidates==
[[File:George H. W. Bush, President of the United States, official portrait.jpg|left|thumb|120px|The winner, [[Republican]] [[George H. W. Bush|George "Stay the Course" Bush]]]][[File:Dukakis1988rally.jpg|left|thumb|120px|The loser, [[Democrat]] Michael [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7QP9Zqge4s "Can't Believe I'm Losing to This Guy"] Dukakis]]
After eight years of Republican rule, it seemed like the door might be open for a Democrat to be elected. But the ghost of [[Jimmy Carter]] was still haunting the Democrats. The Republican nomination was Bush's to lose, although he did face a surprisingly not-dead-on-arrival challenge from [[Pat Robertson]], who presumably ran so he could hasten the [[second coming]] of [[Jesus]] by getting his itchy finger on the nuclear button.
Nobody remembers who any of the other candidates were, nor cares:
* On the Democratic Party side, [[Al Gore]] made his first presidential run, [[Jesse Jackson]] his last. [[Joe Biden]] and Gary Hart are best remembered for dropping out of the race after scandals.
Notable third party campaigns included:
*[[Ron Paul]]'s run on the [[Libertarian Party]] ticket, which he parleyed into a successful newsletter business
*[[David Duke]]'s run on the Populist Party ticket, after which he ran successfully for the [[Louisiana]] legislature as a Republican
*And from the left, Lenora Fulani on the New Alliance Party ticket which managed to get on the ballot in all 50 states but only won 0.2% of the vote. With Joyce Dattner as running mate, they were the first all-female ticket to stand in every state.<ref>{{wpa|United States presidential election, 1988}}</ref>
*{{wpl|Willa Kenoyer}} for the [[Socialist Party USA]], who received 3882 votes, with 2587 of those in [[New Jersey]].<ref>{{wpa|Ron Ehrenreich}}</ref>
===Vice-president===
Bush added [[Dan Quayle]], a youngish senator from [[Indiana]], to his ticket, hoping to overcome the idea that Bush was an old, establishment politician. Sadly, Quayle proved to be an idiot. Sadder still, that didn't seem to matter.
Dukakis picked [[Texas|Texan]] war hero {{wpl|Lloyd Bentsen||,}} which might have been an attempt to counter Dukakis's patrician [[New England]]icity and taint of [[pacifism]]. It didn't help, because Bentsen appeared more presidential than Dukakis, even winning one electoral vote for the presidency in [[West Virginia]].
==Issues==
It's worth noting how damaging to American morale the 70's had been. There were certainly moments at the start of the 1970's when the outcome of the Cold War was far from clear; indeed, plenty of commentators felt that America and the west were destined to lose it. Vietnam hadn't been exorcised from the consciousness, and a lot of the military interventions up until 1990/91 had mixed results, too.
Major issues of the day included:
* [[Iran-Contra]]
*Concerns over weakness of the economy in the wake of the 1987 stock market crash
*An ongoing farm foreclosure crisis and drought in the Midwest
*And the [[Stopped clock|unlikely coalition]] of [[John Kerry]] and [[Jesse Helms]] raising questions about the U.S. government's relationship with [[Manuel Noriega]] of [[Panama]]
Michael Dukakis ran on his record as governor of [[Massachusetts]] — the "Massachusetts miracle" — where the state's economy had rebounded during his administration. Then-Vice President Bush began taking steps to distance himself from Reagan in preparation for his presidential run, such as declaring himself an [[environmentalism|environmentalist]]. Bush's ability to play a continuity card (with a glowing endorsement) was critical. Ultimately there didn't seem to be any compelling reason for changing direction. Dukakis couldn't have made a case, to be quite honest.
History would suggest that Dukakis was ahead of his time. By the time the next election rolled around the [[Soviet Union]] had collapsed, new countries were opening up to us, and perhaps for a brief period of a five years or so, the world seemed a relatively safe place (albeit we'd also hit another recession, so the feel-good factor was missing). Dukakis would have slotted into the 90's better than the tail end of the 80's. It's probable that [[Bob Dole]] faced a similar dynamic.
===Culture wars===
The 1988 election was the last one where the Soviet Union was a decisive electoral issue. Bush tried to push foreign policy campaign in 1992, but America wasn't listening any more. [[Bill Clinton|It was all about the economy, stupid!]] The GOP needed re-branding.
Domestically, the [[war on drugs]], [[AIDS]], [[Satanic panic]], the rising political power of the [[religious right]], and the public infatuation with [[crime]] and [[gang]]s such as the Crips and Bloods were all hot topics. This atmosphere of [[moral panic]] made 1988 the first of the modern presidential campaigns in which [[culture war]] issues took center stage. [[ACLU]] membership became a hindrance to winning instead of a plus, and the most effective campaign tactic turned out to be [[racist]] [[dog whistle]] attack ads featuring Willie Horton, a convicted murderer who was given weekend leave under Dukakis, and who then went on the run, committing several more crimes.
Though run by an independent PAC, Dukakis failed to respond clearly enough to repudiate claims made about him. Notably, "Willie Horton" was known by those close to him as simply "Will Horton", meaning that the name "Willie" was added in for pure rhetorical purposes. The Willie Horton ads became a symbol of a lot of what is wrong with U.S. presidential politics, in terms of negative campaigning winning out over staying positive, the use of focus groups in selecting issues tailored for maximum appeal to morons (aka the Silent Majority), and said morons falling for that level of demagoguery.
It was dirty as all hell, but it was far from one-sided, as the crime rate soared to [http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/13/us/violent-crimes-increase-by-5.5-for-1988-establishing-a-record.html record-breaking] levels. [[Lee Atwater]] was a slimy little toad, but the Dukakis campaign was simply too soft and gullible to win in 1988.
===Bloodbath===
The election of '88 was very much one of Dukakis getting the shit kicked out of him in the dirty tricks stakes. Something felt instinctively wrong about him throughout: It was a drip feed campaign, but it also moved quickly—like a boxer jabbing from multiple positions. No sooner was Dukakis responding to one jab, then the next one was being delivered and the fight had moved on. He was chasing shadows and gave the impression of not being in command. Many of these attacks were engineered by Atwater, who is now being credited as the mastermind.
Dukakis ended up FIRING John Sasso, citing he wanted to run a "clean" campaign. He stuck to principle by stating he opposed the [[death penalty]] in all circumstances, making him the last major party candidate to do so. Dukakis proudly mentioned his ACLU membership.
Bush ran on Willie Horton. He also successfully pinned Dukakis as being "soft on foreign policy". Dukakis tried to counter this by posing in a tank (which one of his advisers specifically said to NOT to do), but this backfired and made him a joke. Also, his first question in the CNN debate about the death penalty where, without any pause, he said he wouldn't want the death penalty for someone who killed his wife. Bush also ran on a promise of "no new taxes", which came back to haunt him.
We all know how taking the high road turned out. Dukakis went from leading in the polls to a 20 point deficit. This tells us more about ''Boobus Americanus'' than it does about Michael Dukakis.
Unfortunately for Dukakis, he was the last Democratic nominee to be trapped in that era in between when Democrats [[Southern Strategy|lost the South]] and when they found a way to win without it. Carter was able to overcome that disadvantage only once, by being a Southern Governor. It didn't help much in his second campaign. In the end Dukakis settled on a 20-state strategy of only campaigning in 20 states he needed to carry the electoral vote, conceding the entire south and intermountain west to Bush. Whether a different strategy would have worked is doubtful; he lost many of the states he was counting on winning, including [[Illinois]], [[California]], [[Maryland]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Ohio]], [[Michigan]], and [[Vermont]]. He came surprisingly close to winning [[South Dakota]] and [[Montana]] though, and might well have won them...''had he bothered to campaign there'', although this wouldn't have helped his electoral vote much especially if he diverted any resources from the big fish to go after smaller ones, as he would have only gained 7 electoral votes, which would only put him up at 118. He might have done better had he pursued a farm belt strategy in the Midwest and west instead of dumping all that money into such money sinks as Pennsylvania and California.
==Legacy==
Negative campaigning. Tough on crime posturing. The war on drugs. Establishing the baseline of the current red state-blue state divide after the Reagan Revolution had hit the reset button on whatever the old divide was (Democrats have simply added new states to the baseline established in 1988, giving up only one, West Virginia). [[Argumentum ad populum|Focus groups over principle.]] ACLU membership and opposition to the death penalty becoming seen as non-starters for a would-be president. The two vice-presidential candidates are remembered chiefly for demonstrating that vice-presidential picks [[Sarah Palin|rarely]] make a difference in elections. Lloyd Bentsen, Dukakis's running mate, crushed his opponent [[Dan Quayle]] with his "{{wpl|Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy||"}} comment, yet it failed to stop Bush from winning win the election.
Four years later it was almost the exact opposite. Clinton hired a great spin team headlined by Carville, Stephanopoulos, and Begala. It also was easier for Clinton because he was able to run against Bush specifically whereas Dukakis had to run off Reagan maybe more so than Bush, since they were both vying for a first term. (Also GHB was caught looking at his watch during a debate, which gave the impression that he just didn't care/took the election for granted.) Based on those two elections and the 2000 election, it has become crystal clear that a candidate's ability to win an election is more important than the ideas they bring.
Pat Robertson's 1988 primary run became the base for his [[Christian Coalition]] to set out to take over the Republican Party at the grassroots level. He wound up with a prime time speaking slot in the 1992 Republican convention along with [[Pat Buchanan]], which the two turned into an ugly culture war festival while the world watched. This backfired on the Republicans.
==See also==
* [[1992 U.S. Presidential Election]]
* [[2000 U.S. Presidential Election]]
==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}
[[Category:United States presidential elections]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1988_United_States_presidential_election | [
"United States presidential elections"
] |
1991 Mexico City UFO Flap | 226,415 | 2,657,288 | 2024-06-23T09:09:51 | Flange | true | Reported UFO sightings and close encounters in Mexico | #REDIRECT [[Reported UFO sightings and close encounters in Mexico#The 1991 Mexico City UFO Flap]]
[[Category:Ufology]]
[[Category:Mexico]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1991_Mexico_City_UFO_Flap | [
"Ufology",
"Mexico"
] |
1992 U.S. Presidential Election | 170,096 | 2,697,654 | 2024-11-29T23:45:36 | DuceMoosolini | true | 1992 United States presidential election | #REDIRECT [[1992 United States presidential election]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1992_U.S._Presidential_Election | [] |
1992 U.S. presidential election | 227,785 | 2,697,651 | 2024-11-29T23:45:17 | DuceMoosolini | true | 1992 United States presidential election | #REDIRECT [[1992 United States presidential election]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1992_U.S._presidential_election | [] |
1992 United Kingdom general election | 220,317 | 2,693,380 | 2024-11-08T01:21:27 | KarmaPolice | false | null | {{ukpolitics}}
The '''1992 UK general election''' was one of the more interesting results in recent history; where the incumbent [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservatives]] managed to win a historic fourth consecutive victory – one which the polls said wouldn't happen, and starting some twenty points behind in polling. During a [[recession]]. This contradiction led to the coining of the 'shy Tory factor' (echoing the earlier American phrase '[[Silent Majority]]'); where polling had lowballed public support for the Conservatives due to a perceived [[response bias]] against them (something again noted in the [[2015 United Kingdom general election|2015 election]] and later on in both [[2016 U.S. presidential election|2016]] and [[2020 U.S. presidential election|2020]] US Presidential elections).
The election itself was memorable for the new Conservative leader [[John Major]]'s relatively old-school campaigning with soapbox and impromptu speeches<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/30/newsid_3739000/3739176.stm 1992: John Major climbs onto his soapbox.] ''BBC News'', 20 March 2008.</ref>, the triumphalism of [[Labour Party|Labour]]'s Neil Kinnock<ref>[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rush-of-blood-was-kinnock-s-downfall-1583723.html 'Rush of blood' was Kinnock's downfall.] ''The Independent'', 26 November 1995.</ref> and the claims by ''[[The Sun]]'' that it was behind the victory<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/apr/25/rupert-murdoch-sun-wot-won-it-tasteless 'Sun wot won it' headline was tasteless and wrong.] ''The Guardian'', 25 April 2012.</ref>. It was also the first general election being contested by the newly formed [[Liberal Democrats]] and the first to be covered by a dedicated news channel – [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s Sky News.
==Background==
The early 1990s recession was global, but made worse in Britain due to a series of decisions by the [[Margaret Thatcher|Thatcher]] Government; such as a rapid [[deregulation]] of the finance sector, [[tax cuts]] for the rich and an overvalued currency. [[Nigel Lawson|Thatcherites]] believed they were ushering in a new era of growth; instead they got a ballooning import bill, rapidly rising [[inflation]] and signs of a property bubble<ref group=note>Finance degregulation + 'a strong Pound' = huge inflows of 'hot money' into the UK finance system while making UK production uncompetitive.</ref>. What goes up must come down; by late 1990 interest rates were at 15%, millions experienced the joys of 'the dole' and even more got to learn what 'negative equity' meant.<ref>[https://www.lovemoney.com/news/133/the-last-housing-crash The last housing crash] ''Love Money'', 8 October 2010.</ref>
Thatcher almost certainly would have survived this, if she'd not become obsessed about the '[[Flat tax|poll tax]]' in the meantime. Believing it was the sure-fire way of destroying Labour-run local councils through [[Starve the beast|the purse-strings]]; she [[autocratic]]ally 'handbagged' any and all who opposed her – like her own Cabinet, who were warning her it was deeply unpopular.<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38382416 National Archives: Thatcher's poll tax miscalculation] ''BBC News'', 30 December 2016.</ref> After ignoring [https://www.theguardian.com/gnm-archive/gallery/2015/mar/28/poll-tax-riots-revisited-in-pictures a few hints] over months, the Conservatives decided to 'dump the pilot'<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34673606 Ten days that toppled Margaret Thatcher] ''BBC News'', 30 October 2015.</ref> — replacing her with John Major, who soon after threw the poll tax out after her.
This – along with the end of the [[Cold War]], a successful conclusion to the [[Gulf War]] and the fact Major was a relative unknown politically (allowing the portrayal of them as a 'new' government) led them to claw back enough public support to have them level-pegging with Labour as the election approached.
==Campaign==
The Conservative campaign was rather traditional in scope – [[taxes]], inflation and the immigration – and primarily negative in nature, stating that Labour wanted to '[[Britain is full|open the floodgates]]' and couldn't be trusted with the [[economy]]<ref>[https://www.markpack.org.uk/files/2010/12/Labour-Tax-Bombshell-billboard-poster-1992-general-election.jpg 'Labour Tax Bombshell' Conservative attack poster, 1992] ''Mark Pack-org.uk'', 5 July 2016</ref><ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/background/pastelec/92keyiss.htm Key Issues in the 1992 Campaign] ''BBC News'', 'Politics 1997'.</ref> (the current recession, naturally not being ''their fault at all'').
Labour also followed a rather traditional pattern; focusing on the state of the [[welfare state]] (particularly the [[NHS]]) as well as the soaring inequality during the previous decade. Learning from the events of the two previous elections, Kinnock had given some effort to portray themselves as a 'government in waiting', with some success. The main thing remembered these days was the fact it was the last 'left wing' manifesto Labour would run on until [[2017 UK general election|2017]].
Perhaps surprisingly, it was the much smaller Liberal Democrats which 'won it' for the Tories. Their main policy was – as usual – that of '[[Proportional representation|electoral reform]]'. However, threats of a 'hung parliament' (due to the close polling) meant they'd be the kingmakers… except the Conservatives made it crystal clear there would be ''no'' change from the '[[first past the post]]' system (and thus, no coalition/agreement). This meant that basically, a vote for Liberal Democrats was in actuality a vote for Kinnock to get into No 10.
This was disastrous. Not only did this scare off many '[[classical liberal]]' voters to whom Labour was 'too [[socialist]]' but the fact Kinnock flip-flopped on the issue meant the Tories presented themselves as the 'only strong and stable' option, instead of the Lib-Lab 'coalition of [[chaos]]' (lines used again in [[2015 United Kingdom general election|2015]] and [[2017 United Kingdom general election|2017]]).
==Results==
[[File:House of Commons 1992 Election.svg|thumb|right|250px|Post-election composition of the House of Commons.]]
It was a shock result; the Conservatives win with a working majority of 21; even the exit polls had shown a hung parliament. While the Conservative vote generally held up well, a combination of a swing from the Liberal Democrats to Labour and some tactical voting meant the majority of seat losses were from the ruling party. The results showed the seeds of future decline; with the Conservative heartland increasingly concentrated in the Southern and Eastern parts of England – areas which had done well from the Thatcher era. Future Labour leader [[Tony Blair]] cited the need to appeal to this group, the aspirational {{wpl|Essex Man|'Essex Man'}} as a prime justification for what would become [[New Labour]].
[[File:1992 United Kingdom General Election.svg|thumb|right|450px|Map of the results.]]
{| class="wikitable"
! Turnout: 77.7% (+2.4%) !! Seats !! Change !! Vote % !! Change
|-
| <u>'''Conservatives'''</u> || '''336''' || <span style="color:red">'''-40'''</span> || '''41.9''' || <span style="color:red">'''-0.3'''</span>
|-
| <u>'''Labour'''</u> || '''271''' || <span style="color:green">'''+42'''</span> || '''34.4''' || <span style="color:green">'''+3.6'''</span>
|-
| <u>'''Liberal Democrats'''</u> || '''20''' || <span style="color:red">'''-2'''</span> || '''17.8''' || <span style="color:red">'''-4.8'''</span>
|-
| <u>'''Other'''</u> || '''24''' || '''+1''' || '''5.9''' || '''+1.5'''
|}
{{clear}}
==External links==
*[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/exclusive-how-did-labour-lose-in-92-the-most-authoritative-study-of-the-last-general-election-is-published-tomorrow-here-its-authors-present-their-conclusions-and-explode-the-myths-about-the-greatest-upset-since-1945-1439286.html How did Labour lose in '92?] 'Long read', ''The Independent''.
==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}
==References==
{{reflist|3|80%}}
[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:British politics]]
[[Category:UK general elections]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1992_United_Kingdom_general_election | [
"Elections",
"British politics",
"UK general elections"
] |
1992 United States presidential election | 142,491 | 2,728,657 | 2025-03-31T15:20:33 | Spud | false | null | {{sources needed}}
[[File:ElectoralCollege1992.svg|right|thumb|300px|No Perot?]]
{{uspolitics}}
The '''1992 U.S. presidential election''' saw [[Democrat]] [[Bill Clinton]] defeating independent candidate [[H. Ross Perot]] and the incumbent [[Republican]], [[George H.W. Bush]]. It was one of the more lively election seasons in memory.
==Background==
The political atmosphere had changed considerably in the four years since the [[1988 U.S. Presidential Election]] with an anti-incumbent "throw the rascals out" movement in full swing, and American popular culture arguably opening up space for more flamboyant [[liberal]], even radical expressions after having been subdued during most of the conservative backlash of the 1980s. The anti-establishment, anti-hero theme was back in film (''Thelma and Louise'', ''Point Break'', ''Pump Up the Volume'', ''Dances With Wolves''); grunge, gangsta rap, and other alternative [[music]] were suddenly very popular; [[environmentalism]] was popular with [[Earth Day]] revived as a major event; and radical groups like [[ACT UP]] and [[Earth First!]] were at their peak.
Media were popularizing a new generation coming of age, tagged "Generation X" after the popularity of the Douglas Coupland novel of the same name, [[stereotype]]d as apathetic slackers. The brief euphoria surrounding the fall of the [[Berlin Wall]] and end of the [[Cold War]] had given way to a general foreign policy malaise following the first [[Gulf War]]. Public anger was brewing over incidents ranging from the federal siege of Randy Weaver's cabin at [[Ruby Ridge]] to the [[police]] beating of [[Rodney King]], the latter leading to several nights of nationwide rioting after the police who instigated the beating were let off with a slap on the wrist.
Meanwhile, on the [[right-wing|right]], Bush had alienated his conservative constituency by going back on his "read my lips, no new [[tax]]es" pledge, [[conspiracy theories]] about the [[New World Order]] were beginning to gain a following and would soon lead to the [[militia movement]], and [[Pat Robertson]] had emerged as the ''de facto'' leader of the [[Religious Right]] following his [[1988 U.S. Presidential Election|1988 presidential run]]. Most notably, the brief, controversial rise and fall of Morton Downey Jr. was followed shortly thereafter by [[Rush Limbaugh]] and [[conservative talk radio]], which would prove to be a lasting influence.
==The primaries==
Bush's reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge and his use of the phrase "New World Order" in several speeches seem to have been the overriding motivators for former [[Nixon]] speechwriter and [[Reagan]] communications director [[Pat Buchanan]] to run a [[primary election]] challenge against Bush from the right. While not a serious threat to Bush's renomination, Buchanan's campaign galvanized the right wing, including such disparate figures ranging from Rush Limbaugh, to [[Murray Rothbard]] who had recently left the [[Libertarian Party]] in favor of trying to build a right-wing [[populist]]/[[paleoconservative]] alliance. [[David Duke]] also filed to run in the Republican primaries but was not a factor in the race. Bush was easily renominated. At the Republican convention however, Pat Buchanan along with Pat Robertson, whose [[Christian Coalition]] had become a major force at the grassroots level, were given prime time speaking slots. This backfired severely on the Republican Party when the two gave speeches declaring a [[culture war]] and denouncing everything from [[homosexuality]] and [[abortion]], to Rodney King and his supporters, to "[[Anti-environmentalism#Stereotyping|environmental extremists who put birds and rats and insects ahead of families and workers]]."
After many of the rumored "heavy hitters" such as Mario Cuomo declined to run, the Democratic Party primaries attracted several second stringers: [[Bill Clinton]], Paul Tsongas, [[Jerry Brown]], [[Tom Harkin]], Eugene McCarthy, Douglas Wilder, and Bob Kerrey. Dissatisfaction with those major candidates along with the anti-incumbent mood led to an unprecedented level of support for some even lesser known candidates: Irvine, [[California]] mayor Larry Agran, [[perennial candidate]] Charles Woods, and ''[[Billy Jack]]'' actor Tom Laughlin all did respectably well in some state primaries, and a write-in campaign for [[Ralph Nader]] in the [[New Hampshire]] primaries of both parties also attracted some support. Although Tsongas won the New Hampshire primary, Clinton solidified his status as the frontrunner on Super Tuesday. For the remainder of the primaries the race was between Clinton, whom the Democratic Party establishment had coalesced around, and [[Moonbeam]], running a populist campaign as an outsider, in part on a [[flat tax]] platform.
==Enter the coyote trickster==
As if the anti-incumbent populist mood typified by Buchanan and Brown wasn't enough... this is where it gets really fun. H. Ross Perot, [[Texas]] billionaire, had been dropping hints of wanting to run, and on one TV show in response to a question asking him why he doesn't run, he stated he would run as an independent candidate if his supporters would get him on the ballot in all 50 states. Almost overnight, groups formed to do just that. Perot's political orientation was hard to pin down. He had a reputation as a "[[Chickenhawk|hawk]]" and his company had staged a rescue of their own workers in [[Iran]], but he had opposed U.S. entry into the Gulf War. He came across as a conservative Texas businessman but was [[pro-choice]] and supported [[gun control]]. He was perhaps best known for his opposition to [[free trade]] agreements such as [[NAFTA]], which he characterized as a "giant sucking sound," and for his pie charts and graphs illustrating a disaster that awaited the U.S. due to the federal debt.
Perot's campaign attracted a disparate range of supporters, but arguably threw a [[trickster|monkey wrench]] into Bush's re-election chances. Then with polls showing the three running even, Perot dropped out of the race, citing his fear that his presence in the race would deny any candidate an electoral majority and throw the election to the U.S. [[House of Representatives]]. His dropping out angered his supporters so much that he re-entered the race, albeit with a much smaller standing in the polls after his reentry.
==Southern Strategy?==
Clinton selected [[Al Gore]] as his running mate, and the two used the Fleetwood Mac song "Don't Stop" as their campaign theme song. Clinton being from [[Arkansas]] and Gore from [[Tennessee]] meant both candidates were from the South, in marked contrast to the 1984 and 1988 nominees from [[Minnesota]] and [[Massachusetts]] respectively. How well this may have helped their vote could be debated. The Clinton-Gore ticket did carry several Southern states which had been otherwise trending Republican under the Republicans' [[Southern Strategy]] (mostly successful for almost 20 years at that point), including [[Arkansas]], [[Louisiana]], [[Tennessee]], [[Georgia]], and [[Kentucky]], and coming within 1% in [[North Carolina]].
==Chicken George==
Initially, Bush refused to meet Clinton in a direct debate. The Clinton campaign worked to portray him as cowardly, or chicken, culminating in Bush being followed and heckled on his campaign trail by a man in a giant chicken suit carrying signs and loudly squawking: "Read my beak, Chicken George is afraid to debate!" What began as an individual initiative of two [[Michigan]] natives proved successful and soon the Clinton campaign was ensuring that the chicken would appear at each Bush event. This continued for multiple weeks until Bush made the mistake of angrily confronting the chicken in front of cameras, making national and world news.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/30/us/the-1992-campaign-political-memo-those-chicken-georges-and-what-they-mean.html?src=pm Those Chicken Georges And What They Mean], ''The New York Times''</ref><ref>Alan Schroeder, ''The Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High-Risk TV'' [http://cup.columbia.edu/book/presidential-debates/9780231141048]</ref>
==Results==
Perot won 19% of the national popular vote, but carried no states. He came in second place in [[Maine]], which Clinton won, and [[Utah]], which Bush won, and in third in all other states. The election turned out to be a landslide victory for Clinton, who even carried states like Georgia, [[Montana]], and the then-still heavily Republican [[New Hampshire]].
The [[Bush]] family, meanwhile, would [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJJ5BOKsTFo plot their comeback.]
==See also==
*[[U.S. Presidential Election|Our list of U.S. Presidential elections]]
*Crank third party candidates [[Bo Gritz]], [[Natural Law Party|John Hagelin]], and [[John Yiamouyiannis]]
==External links==
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY0-UPHss3k 1992 Bush-Quayle political ads] - Everybody point and laugh
==References==
{{reflist|1|90%}}
[[Category:United States presidential elections]]
[[Category:The Clintons]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election | [
"United States presidential elections",
"The Clintons"
] |
1996 U.S. Presidential Election | 170,098 | 2,697,648 | 2024-11-29T23:44:43 | DuceMoosolini | true | 1996 United States presidential election | #REDIRECT [[1996 United States presidential election]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1996_U.S._Presidential_Election | [] |
1996 U.S. presidential election | 227,783 | 2,697,645 | 2024-11-29T23:44:27 | DuceMoosolini | true | 1996 United States presidential election | #REDIRECT [[1996 United States presidential election]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1996_U.S._presidential_election | [] |
1996 United States presidential election | 143,166 | 2,721,408 | 2025-03-02T00:20:05 | DuceMoosolini | false | null | [[File:ElectoralCollege1996.svg|right|thumb|300px|Completely unrelated to the fact that the Lewinsky scandal would be two years later, doesn't Florida look like a—]]{{uspolitics}}
The '''1996 U.S. presidential election''' saw [[Bill Clinton]] easily re-elected over the [[Republican Party]] candidate, [[Bob Dole]].<ref>[https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/summ.htm 1996 POPULAR VOTE SUMMARY FOR ALL CANDIDATES LISTED ON AT LEAST ONE STATE BALLOT]</ref> [[Ross Perot]] ran again, this time as the candidate of the fledgling [[Reform Party]], but received only about half the support he had in [[1992 U.S. Presidential Election|1992]].<ref>[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h915.html Election of 1996: Ross Perot Made It Interesting]</ref>
The early 1990s had been a time of growing anti-government sentiment, but this sentiment cooled considerably following the 1995 [[Timothy McVeigh|Oklahoma City bombing]] while a rebounding economy during the latter half of the decade helped further solidify Clinton's support. Bill Clinton did not face any serious challengers in the primary; the only recognizable name running against him was perennial fringe candidate [[Lyndon LaRouche]]. Several Republican candidates contested the primaries, including former Tennessee governor and now Senator Lamar Alexander, magazine publisher Steve Forbes, Senator [[Phil Gramm]] of Texas, perennial candidate [[Alan Keyes]], and finally [[Pat Buchanan]]. Buchanan won an upset victory in the New Hampshire primary and Forbes won a couple of early primaries as well, but Bob Dole, then Senate Majority Leader, solidified his front-runner status early on and his nomination was rarely in doubt. The Reform Party primaries were mostly memorable for former Democratic Governor of Colorado Richard Lamm challenging Ross Perot for the nomination and running up against a brick wall; it was Perot's party, he started it, and he wasn't going to let anyone else play in his private clubhouse.
[[Green Party]] activists convinced [[Ralph Nader]] to run that year as a candidate. He was on the ballot in only 22 states and mostly ran a passive campaign, unlike four years later in [[2000 U.S. Presidential Election|2000]] when he was much more of a factor in the race. Nader's strongest base of support was 2-4% in [[Oregon]], [[Alaska]], [[Hawaii]], [[Maine]], [[Washington]], and the [[District of Columbia]], negligible elsewhere. While the left was unhappy with Clinton over issues such as [[NAFTA]], the anti-[[globalization]] movement would not grab national attention until 1999-2000, and with Perot, who took the anti-NAFTA side in a televised debate with [[Al Gore]] in 1993, getting much of the anti-NAFTA vote, this did not translate into an upsurge in support for Nader as it would in 2000.
Bob Dole, at 73 years of age, was the oldest first-time presidential nominee of a major party, tying [[Ronald Reagan]]'s age when he ran for re-election in 1984. Clinton successfully framed the campaign as one of looking to the future rather than the past, while Dole ran on his age and his status as part of the [[World War II]] generation, in his nomination acceptance speech attacking "the elite who never grew up, never did anything real, never sacrificed, never suffered and never learned".<ref>[http://www.4president.org/speeches/dolekemp1996convention.htm Dole 1996 speech at the Republican convention]</ref> This didn't help him. Dole's running mate was Jack Kemp, known for being a longtime advocate of [[supply side economics]] in Congress.
The 1996 campaign is mostly memorable for being decidedly unmemorable.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996 United States presidential election, 1996]</ref>
== Buildup ==
Ever since Bill Clinton was elected, disaster ensued for the Democrats. In 1993, the Texas senate seat flipped, reducing the Democrats to 56-44 in the Senate. They also flipped governorships in [[New Jersey]] and [[Virginia]]. They also flipped mayorships in Los Angeles, and New York City. The New York mayorship would not go blue until 2013. Then, in 1994, the Republican Revolution struck. Republicans picked up 58 seats, and even defeated a speaker, and Democrats only picked up 4 open seats, giving the GOP a House majority for the first time since the 1950s.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/10/us/1994-elections-congress-overview-gop-celebrates-its-sweep-power-clinton-vows.html The 1994 Elections: Congress the Overview; G.O.P. Celebrates Its Sweep To Power; Clinton Vows To Find Common Ground]. The New York Times, 10 November 1994.</ref> They also gained 8 seats, and 2 senators changed affiliation<ref>[https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_changed_parties.htm#16 Senators Who Changed Parties During Senate Service (Since 1890)], United States Senate</ref>, allowing the Republicans to have a 54-46 majority in the Senate. They flipped ten governorships, including [[Connecticut]] off of the ''A Connecticut Party'', and 9 from Democrats. They did lose [[Maine]] to an Independent, and Democrats narrowly flipped [[Alaska]] by 0.3% from the Alaska Independence Party (who switched affiliation to the Republicans). In addition, multiple representatives throughout 1995 changed affiliation. In 1995, as well, despite the Democrats picking up the senate seat in [[Fun:Oregon|Oregon]], narrowing the GOP majority to 53-47, the Republicans picked up the governorship in [[Fun:Louisiana|Louisiana]].
==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:United States politics]]
[[Category:United States presidential elections]]
[[Category:The Clintons]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election | [
"United States politics",
"United States presidential elections",
"The Clintons"
] |
1997 United Kingdom general election | 220,290 | 2,778,208 | 2026-01-30T19:05:41 | KarmaPolice | false | null | {{ukpolitics}}
The '''1997 UK general election''' is mainly remembered for two things; the end of eighteen years of [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] rule with a defeat so heavy that they had the fewest MPs since 1906 and lowest vote-share ever (until [[2024 United Kingdom general election|2024]] that is), and the installation of [[New Labour]] under [[Tony Blair]] which would last itself until [[2010 United Kingdom general election|2010]]. It was also notable for the first [[internet]] coverage<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-parliaments-41111242 Election 97: The first online election] ''BBC News'', 4 September 2017</ref>, the best showing for a third party (the [[Liberal Democrats]]) since 1929 and bringing to power the youngest Prime Minister since 1812. It also gave Britons the first taste of modern, multi-angled political '[[spin]]' from slick willies like Alistair Campbell. Perhaps more ominously, it saw the [[Euroscepticism|anti-EU]] 'Referendum Party' garnish some 800,000 votes (about 2.6% of the total) nationally, which directly fed into the poisonous populists of [[UKIP]].
==Background==
After coming from behind to win a sneaky fourth victory in [[1992 United Kingdom general election|1992]], the Conservatives promptly tripped over on 'Black Wednesday'<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/sep/13/black-wednesday-20-years-pound-erm Black Wednesday 20 years on: how the day unfolded] ''The Guardian'', 13 September 2012</ref> – a situation which caused an devaluation of Sterling (netting [[George Soros]] $1 billion of the Bank of England's money) which finally trashed their reputation of 'being good with the [[economy]]' which extended the recession by perhaps six months and sent their poll numbers down by fifteen points. There it stayed, as [[John Major]] got to preside over a party increasingly unable to keep it's trousers up<ref>[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/the-yeo-resignation-minister-falls-foul-of-back-to-basics-policy-swift-demise-after-constituency-association-released-statement-1398284.html The Yeo Resignation: Minister falls foul of 'back to basics' policy: Swift demise after constituency association released statement] ''The Independent'', 6 January 1994.</ref>, [[Neil Hamilton|to say no to mysterious envelopes filled with cash]]<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1996/oct/01/conservatives.uk A lair and a cheat] ''The Guardian'', 1 October 1996.</ref>, to realise when they were being tone-deaf<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/apr/12/politics-sleaze Ah, I remember this sickly smell of sleaze] ''The Guardian'', 12 April 2009</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20220814060721/https://tidesofhistory.com/2017/12/23/sex-lies-and-hypocrisy-the-last-time-sleaze-brought-down-the-tories/ Sex, Lies and Hypocrisy: The last time Sleaze brought down the Tories] ''Tides of History'', 23 December 2017</ref> or from knifing each other over '[[Euroscepticism|Europe]]'<ref>[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-07-24-mn-16358-story.html Major Wins Confidence Vote on Europe Treaty] ''Los Angeles Times'', 24 July 1993</ref> (which with hindsight, was the prelude to the political war which became [[Brexit]]). Major's work also grew correspondingly harder through the Parliament, as his original majority of 21 was slowly whittled down by defections, deaths and resignations that by 1996 he'd lost his majority and was dependent on the Ulster Unionists on avoiding total governmental collapse.
A major 'black swan' in this story was the sudden death of the new Labour leader [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smith_(Labour_Party_leader) John Smith]<ref group=note>Taking over from Neil Kinnock after his resignation after his 1992 defeat.</ref> in 1994 which elevated Tony Blair into the slot; young, charismatic and promptly deploying [[Third Way|the whole toolkit]] developed to get [[Bill Clinton]] into the White House [[1992 United States presidential election|two years previous]]. The levels of ''how'' effective this rebrand/orientation was on electoral electoral success is often bitterly debated down sectarian lines - with the 'Blairites' arguing that it was this [[Great man theory|'wot won it' alone]]<ref>[https://thecritic.co.uk/how-blair-won-over-conservative-britain/ How Blair won over Conservative Britain] ''The Critic'', 1st May 2022.</ref> while the detractors arguing that Smith had been scoring 20-plus margins by 1994 and as the majority of issues had been 'unforced errors' from the Tories and/or structural shifts all the signs were he would have also entered No 10 with at least a solid majority<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/may/10/labour.politicalcolumnists The abiding myth about John Smith] ''The Guardian'', 10th May 2004.</ref>. Needless to say, this has become a popular 'divergence event' for alternative history discussions<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/apr/07/if-john-smith-had-lived If John Smith had lived.] ''The Guardian'', 7th April 2011.</ref>.
Other items of note in his tenure was the piles of burning cattle due to [[BSE]]<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/mad-cow-disease-british-crisis Mad cow disease – a very British response to an international crisis] ''The Guardian'', 25 April 2012</ref>, his timidity (or caution) over intervening in the [[Yugoslav Wars]]<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/apr/11/balkans11 Major, the chicken turned hawk] ''The Guardian'', 11 April 1999</ref>, the on-off cease-fire from the [[IRA]]<ref>[https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-ira-bomb-1996-arndale-13192606 The 1996 Manchester bomb: A day that changed our city forever] ''Manchester Evening News'', 15 June 2024</ref>, ill-considered policies such as the 'Cones Hotline'<ref>[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/cones-hotline-put-into-cold-storage-1601950.html Cones Hotline put into cold storage] ''The Independent'', 20 September 1995.</ref> or simple examples of [[right wing]] stupidity and/or [[prejudice]] from [[Ann Widdecombe|Tory MPs]] we would now call attempts to create a '[[culture war]]' (or just signs the average member was still [[Good old days|mentally living in the 1950s]]).
==Campaign==
The Conservatives ran a confused campaign, unsure whether to [[Red-baiting|demonise Labour]]<ref>[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprodmigration%2Fweb%2Fbin%2Fe585ae41-1dcd-3050-91f9-e5a3dd73dc8b.jpg?crop=1500%2C1000%2C0%2C0&resize=1500 'New Labour, New Danger' Conservative Party attack poster, 1997] ''The Times'', 25 March 2015</ref> or mock them for stealing their own policies. That is, when they weren't attacking themselves or being spooked by the rise of the [[astroturf]]ed Referendum Party [[James Goldsmith|who'd got enough money]] to send millions of election videos to voters (another UK first).<ref>[https://www.worldpr.org/2020/06/05/sir-james-goldsmith-and-the-referendum-party/ Sir James Goldsmith and the Referendum Party] ''WorldPR'', 5 June 2020</ref> The truth was a bit sadder than this; they knew they'd lose, only wondered by how much.
[[Labour Party|Labour]] went on the offensive with a content-light media campaign, mainly filled with similar happy-talk and windy [[Third Way]] uplift which had gotten [[Bill Clinton]] into the White House twice. This pissed off the more [[socialist]] end of their base, but by this point they were pretty hungry for power and would put up with almost anything to get it. One key asset was that of Tony Blair; a man who's clear, easy charisma and energy was in stark contract with the 'dull' Major, a man who appeared older, duller and straight-laced than he actually was.
The Liberal Democrats, not being fools saw how the wind was blowing due to Blair and the general lack of Labour-Liberal marginals seemed to have reached a 'non-aggression' pact between them to focus the fire (and tactical voting) against the incumbents (a pact which is now known to have been 'officially unofficial'<ref>[https://www.compassonline.org.uk/1997-then-now-labour-lib-dems-progressive-alliance-pact/ Inside story of 1997 Labour–Lib Dem deal] ''Compass Online'', 23 May 2022</ref>).
==Results==
[[File:House of Commons elected members, 1997.svg|thumb|right|250px|Post-election composition of the [[House of Commons]].]]
On the whole, the strategy worked — a Labour landslide, a 'working majority' of 182. A significant percentage of Labour supporters voted tactically for Liberals (and vice-versa); allowing the latter to more than double their seats despite a slight drop in total votes. The Conservatives lost a significant portion of their 'front bench', and were reduced to an England-only party. It also marked the start of the rise of the [[SNP]]; doubling to six MPs.
[[File:UK General Election, 1997.svg|thumb|right|400px|Map of the results.]]
{| class="wikitable"
! Turnout: 71.3% (-6.3%) !! Seats !! Change !! Vote % !! Change
|-
| <u>'''Labour'''</u> || '''419''' || <span style="color:green">'''+146'''</span> || '''43.2''' || <span style="color:green">'''+8.8'''</span>
|-
| <u>'''Conservatives'''</u> || '''165''' || <span style="color:red">'''-178'''</span> || '''30.7''' || <span style="color:red">'''-11.2'''</span>
|-
| <u>'''Liberal Democrats'''</u> || '''46''' || <span style="color:green">'''+28'''</span> || '''16.8''' || <span style="color:red">'''-1.0'''</span>
|-
| <u>'''Other'''</u> || '''29''' || '''+5''' || '''9.3''' || '''+3.4'''
|}
[[File:1997 UK General Election Constituencies.svg|thumb|left|225px|Map showing constituencies as equal area to better indicate the number of seats.]]
{{clear}}
==External links==
*[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/ BBC's 'Election '97' site]; still (mainly) functional.
==References==
{{reflist|3|80%}}
==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}
[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:British politics]]
[[Category:UK general elections]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1997_United_Kingdom_general_election | [
"Elections",
"British politics",
"UK general elections"
] |
19 Kids and Counting | 174,624 | 2,757,020 | 2025-09-11T04:34:36 | ResurrectingDeadLinks | false | null | [[File:Jim Bob & Michelle Duggar.jpg|thumb|165px|In the beginning, there was… Jim Bob and Michelle.]]
{{media}}{{title-italics}}
'''''19 Kids and Counting''''' was a crappy [[United States|American]] reality television show on the [[TLC]] network. The show featured the [[Fundamentalist Christianity|fundamentalist]] [[evangelical]] family of Jim Bob {{lived|1965}} and Michelle Duggar {{lived|1966}}, all their J-named kids, and their annoyingly [[Conservative correctness|very (warped)]] [[Christian]] views. The "values" presented on the show are associated with the [[Quiverfull]] movement, but the family states that they are [[Association fallacy|not part of the movement]].<ref>[http://www.duggarfamilyblog.com/p/faqs.html Duggar Family Blog FAQ]. ''The Duggars write in their second book, A Love That Multiplies: "Even though Wikipedia and some Internet blogs report that we are part of a QuiverFull movement, we are not. We are simply Bible-believing Christians who desire to follow God's Word and apply it to our lives" (page 92).''</ref> Jim Bob Duggar was a member of the Arkansas House of Representatives from 1999 to 2003.
The show, started in 2008 as ''17 Kids and Counting,'' [[Sexual intercourse|spawned]] numerous specials about the mom's latest deliveries and their oldest children's weddings. Some family members, notably Michelle Duggar, have come under fire for their [[anti-abortion]] and [[homophobic]] views.<ref>Abby Ohlheiser. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/08/19/listen-to-michelle-duggars-anti-anti-discrimination-robocall/ Listen to Michelle Duggar’s anti-anti-discrimination robocall]. ''The Washington Post.'' 29 August 2014. Retrieved on 21 September 2015.</ref>
==Canceled==
''19 Kids and Counting'' was suspended in May 2015 soon after allegations of incestuous sexual abuse concerning the eldest son, Josh Duggar {{lived|1988}}, and one of the family's younger daughters appeared in a story published by ''In Touch Weekly'' magazine. The scandal was exacerbated by the failure of the family to report the abuse to authorities.<ref>[https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/bombshell-duggar-police-report-jim-bob-duggar-didn-t-report-son-josh-s-alleged-sex-offenses-for-more-than-a-year-58906/ Bombshell Duggar Police Report: Jim Bob Duggar Didn’t Report Son Josh’s Alleged Sex Offenses For More Than a Year]. In Touch Weekly, 23 May 2015.</ref> The incest allegations also ended Josh Duggar's [[wingnut welfare]] job in the political arm of the [[Family Research Council]].<ref>Brian Tashman. [http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/flashback-duggars-call-lgbt-people-threat-child-safety-duggar-resigns-frc Flashback: Duggars Call LGBT People A Threat To Child Safety; Duggar Resigns From FRC]. rightwingwatch.org. 21 May 2015. Retrieved on 21 September 2015.</ref> Former governor [[Mike_Huckabee#Further_proof_of_the_previous_sentence|Mike Huckabee]] {{rep|R|AR}} stood by the family at first,<ref>Lesley Messer and Ben Gittleson. [http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/josh-duggar-mike-huckabee-defends-19-kids-counting/story?id=31236959 Josh Duggar: Mike Huckabee Defends the '19 Kids and Counting' Star]. ''ABC News''. 22 May 2015. Retrieved on 23 September 2015.</ref> then quietly stepped back from them. As if this example of pious preaching and less than pious conduct wasn't enough,<ref>Andrea Denhoad. [http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/josh-duggars-ashley-madison-problem Josh Duggar's Ashley Madison Problem.] ''The New Yorker.'' 21 August 2015. Retrieved on 8 October 2015. "Those claiming to profess a philosophy built on human brokenness might take more of a pause before making a show of declaring people mended."</ref> Josh Duggar's name also came up on the client list of the [[adultery]] website [[Ashley Madison]] after it was hacked.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/20/us/josh-duggar-ashley-madison/ Josh Duggar after Ashley Madison hack: 'I have been the biggest hypocrite ever'] by Dana Ford (Updated 10:46 AM ET, Fri August 21, 2015) ''CNN''.</ref> On July 16, 2015, TLC announced that the show was officially canceled.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150717202710/http://www.tlc.com/tv-shows/19-kids-and-counting/an-official-statement-from-tlc/ An Official Statement From TLC]. www.tlc.com. Retrieved on 16 September 2015.</ref> However, they quickly rebranded the show featuring various Duggars, except for the scandal-ridden Josh.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/duggar-family-new-show_us_56cc9977e4b041136f186e6c Duggar Family Returns With New Show On TLC After ‘19 Kids And Counting’]</ref> This show was itself canceled in July 2021, some time after Josh Duggar was arrested for downloading child pornography onto a laptop at his car dealership.<ref>Karen Butler, [https://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/TV/2021/07/03/duggar-family-counting-on/8211625332865/ Duggar family optimistic after 'Counting On' cancellation]. UPI, 3 July 2021.</ref>
==7 Kids and Busted==
In April 2021, Josh Duggar, the eldest of the 19 Duggar children and father of six (with a seventh on the way) was arrested for receipt and possession of child pornography:<ref>Hemant Mehta, [https://archive.ph/fDPSc Josh Duggar Faces 40 Years in Jail for Receiving and Possessing Child Porn]. Archived from patheos.com, 30 April 2021.</ref> {{quotebox|An HSI agent testified during Duggar’s bond hearing that one of the videos, “Daisy’s Destruction,” was one of the “Top Five Worst of the Worst” that he ever had to examine because it depicted the assault of an 18-month-old girl.<ref>Adam Klasfeld, [https://lawandcrime.com/celebrity/josh-duggar-tries-to-dismiss-child-porn-charges-on-grounds-that-trumps-homeland-security-leaders-were-unlawfully-appointed/ Josh Duggar Tries to Dismiss Child Porn Charges on Grounds That Trump’s Homeland Security Leaders Were Unlawfully Appointed]. Law and Crime, 20 August 2021.</ref><ref>Adam Klasfeld, [https://lawandcrime.com/objections-podcast/feds-say-they-found-a-toddler-rape-video-on-josh-duggars-computer-heres-the-horrendous-story-of-the-worlds-worst-pedophile-who-made-it/ Feds Say They Found a Toddler Rape Video on Josh Duggar’s Computer. Here’s the ‘Horrendous’ Story of the ‘World’s Worst Pedophile’ Who Made It.] Law and Crime, 22 June 2021.</ref>}}
In December 2021, he was convicted on all charges and faced up to 40 years in prison.<ref>[https://apnews.com/article/josh-duggar-convicted-child-pornography-26436604345361733003627af33bda78 Reality TV’s Josh Duggar convicted of child porn possession]. Associated Press, 9 December 2021.</ref> In May 2022, he was sentenced to over 12 years in prison for receiving child pornography.<ref>[https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/1101432829/josh-duggar-child-pornography-sentence-19-kids-and-counting Josh Duggar, a former reality TV star, gets 12 years in a child pornography case]. NPR via the Associated Press, 26 May 2022.</ref>
==External links==
*[http://www.duggarfamilyblog.com The awful family blog]
*[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1307083/ ''19 Kids and Counting'' on IMDb]
*[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/NineteenKidsAndCounting ''19 Kids and Counting''] on [[TV Tropes]]
==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}
[[Category:Baptists]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Conservative deceit]]
[[Category:Convicted felons]]
[[Category:Fundamentalism]]
[[Category:Numbers]]
[[Category:Paedophilia]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[Category:Television programmes]]
[[Category:United States politicians]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting | [
"Baptists",
"Christianity",
"Conservative deceit",
"Convicted felons",
"Fundamentalism",
"Numbers",
"Paedophilia",
"Sexuality",
"Television programmes",
"United States politicians"
] |
1 Maccabees | 92,921 | 2,522,355 | 2023-01-23T18:41:20 | Cosmikdebris | false | null | {{biblenav}}
'''First Maccabees''' or '''1 Maccabees''' is most famous as the source of the [[Jewish holidays|Jewish holiday]] of Hanukkah. Despite this, the book is not included as canon in the [[Tanakh]]. It is a deuterocanonical work in [[Roman Catholic]] and [[Eastern Orthodox]] tradition, and [[Apocrypha| apocryphal]] in [[Protestant]] tradition.
Unlike most of the [[Books of the Maccabees]], 1 Maccabees was written in [[Hebrew]] and translated into [[Fun:Greek| Greek]] as part of the [[Septuagint]]. The Hebrew version, lost for many years, was rediscovered in 1886.<ref>[http://nazarenespace.com/profiles/blogs/the-lost-hebrew-text-of-1st-maccabees-found The lost Hebrew text of 1st Maccabees found!]</ref>
Christian authorities did not give the book of 1 Maccabees full [[canon]]ical status, probably not because of objectionable content, but because - from the perspective of the compilers of the Bible - it was "too recent" or because the available text was written in Greek (rather than in [[Hebrew]] or in Aramaic).<ref>
[http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/omitting-the-maccabees/ Why the Maccabees Aren't in the Bible].
</ref>
Also, the Maccabees founded the Hasmonean dynasty of rulers, which the unpopular king [[Herod]] married into,<ref>Adam Kolman Marshak, ''The Many Faces of Herod the Great''. William. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2015. {{isbn|9780802866059}}.{{quotebox|Herod could not secure the high priesthood for himself, but if he was to become a legitimate king it would have to be as a Hasmonean or at least as the legitimate successor of the Hasmoneans. To achieve such status, Herod used both his marriage and the children he produced from it to further insinuate himself into the ruling family and to bind his family closer to it.}}</ref>{{rp|111}} so political PR could have had something to do with it too. Protestants may have disliked some of the "proof texts" used by Catholics taken from the work.
==Summary==
The Maccabees headed up the [[Jewish]] rebellion against the Seleucid King Antiochus Epiphanes.
After Alexander the Great died in 323 BCE, four of his generals divided his [[empire]] into sub-kingdoms for themselves. The area containing the modern state of [[Israel]] first came under the control of Ptolemaic Egypt, then - in 198 BCE — under the Antioch-based {{wpl|Seleucid dynasty||.}} in 198 BCE. King Antiochus IV (reigned 175 to 164 BCE, and self-styled ''Epiphanes'', which means something like "the glorious manifestation of god") wanted to Hellenize the [[Jew]]s. He prohibited [[circumcision]], placed idols representing Greek gods in the {{wpl|Second Temple}} in [[Jerusalem]], and banned the study of the [[Torah]].
A rebellion started, initially led by the priest Mattathias, and later by his sons, especially Judah, who became known as {{wpl|Judas Maccabeus}} — possibly meaning "Judah the Hammer". After a seven-year guerrilla struggle, the rebels, known to history as the "Maccabees", finally prevailed and purged the Temple of the idols. When they arrived at the Temple, they found that there was enough [[holy]] [[oil]] to provide light for one day, and replacements would not arrive for more than a week. According to tradition, [[God]] made the oil for one day last for eight days, hence the length of the holiday of [[Jewish holidays#Hanukkah |Hanukkah]] (the Festival of Lights).
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{BibleGuide}}
{{apolbox}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Maccabees, 1}}
[[Category:Judaism]]
[[Category:Deuterocanon]]
[[Category:Apocrypha]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1_Maccabees | [
"Judaism",
"Deuterocanon",
"Apocrypha"
] |
1 Peter | 128,293 | 878,880 | 2011-09-25T15:21:19 | WaitingforGodot | true | First Epistle of Peter | #REDIRECT [[First Epistle of Peter]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1_Peter | [] |
1 Thessalonians | 128,264 | 2,308,624 | 2021-04-05T04:55:08 | Plutocow | true | First Epistle to the Thessalonians | #REDIRECT [[First Epistle to the Thessalonians]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1_Thessalonians | [] |
1 Timothy | 212,200 | 2,308,640 | 2021-04-05T05:03:54 | Spud | true | First Epistle to Timothy | #REDIRECT [[First Epistle to Timothy]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1_Timothy | [] |
1st Amendment | 174,896 | 1,528,958 | 2015-09-17T22:38:56 | The Blade of the Northern Lights | true | First Amendment | #REDIRECT [[First Amendment]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1st_Amendment | [] |
2000 U.S. Presidential Election | 170,100 | 2,697,643 | 2024-11-29T23:43:54 | DuceMoosolini | true | 2000 United States presidential election | #REDIRECT [[2000 United States presidential election]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2000_U.S._Presidential_Election | [] |
2000 U.S. presidential election | 227,780 | 2,697,636 | 2024-11-29T23:43:29 | DuceMoosolini | true | 2000 United States presidential election | #REDIRECT [[2000 United States presidential election]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2000_U.S._presidential_election | [] |
2000 US Presidential Election | 158,182 | 2,697,641 | 2024-11-29T23:43:42 | DuceMoosolini | true | 2000 United States presidential election | #redirect [[2000 United States presidential election]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2000_US_Presidential_Election | [] |
2000 US presidential election | 189,666 | 2,697,642 | 2024-11-29T23:43:48 | DuceMoosolini | true | 2000 United States presidential election | #redirect[[2000 United States presidential election]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2000_US_presidential_election | [] |
2000 United States presidential election | 1,696 | 2,768,248 | 2025-11-23T21:54:38 | Scream!! | false | null | [[File:ElectoralCollege2000.svg|right|thumb|300px|All because people in Florida don't know how paper works (or because Americans can't design a decent fucking ballot).<ref name="badballots">[https://www.washington.edu/news/2016/03/14/documents-that-changed-the-world-hanging-chads-and-butterfly-ballots-florida-2000/ Documents that Changed the World: ‘Hanging chads’ and butterfly ballots — Florida, 2000] Kelley, Peter. ''UW News''. 03.14.16</ref>]]{{uspolitics}}
The '''2000 [[U.S.]] presidential election''' was a <s>disaster</s> highly controversial affair that was eventually decided by a 5-4 vote along ideological lines in the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] case of ''[[Bush v. Gore]]''. It ended with the [[Nepotism president|proclamation]] of [[George W. Bush]] as the public representative of [[Dick Cheney]], the ''real'' leader of the free world.
== Context ==
{{cquote|We don't really care for this ''Will & Grace'' thing. And ''here's'' what we're going to do about it.|||[[Jon Stewart]]}}
The evangelical movement was growing in influence and things like the Lewinski Scandal fed into the right-wing resurgence. (it's possible millennial eschatology also played a part, but it's hard to find stats to bear that out.) Bush represented a unique synthesis of the country club set and the [[religious right]] (which was rather ironic, given that his running mate Dick Cheney had an openly [[gay]] daughter; needless to say, this made things a little awakward on the campaign trail).<ref>https://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/07/31/mary.html</ref>
Both of Bush's campaigns were well-done. Maybe not the most ethical, but damn did they do a good job. The only real competition was [[John McCain|McCain]], and they dragged his name through the mud, but used other entities to do so ([[Swiftboating|similar]] to what they did to Kerry in '04); that way, the Bush campaign could remain clean. They even did push-polls on it. "[[Just Asking Questions|Would you be more or less likely]] to vote for John McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" Which implied that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was born out of wedlock. (Among [[Fun:South Carolina|South Carolinians]] too, Christ almighty.)
== Summary ==
[[File:George-W-Bush.jpeg|thumb|100px|The (official) winner, [[Republican]] [[George W. Bush]]]][[File:Al_Gore,_Vice_President_of_the_United_States,_official_portrait_1994.jpg|thumb|100px|The (actual) winner, [[Democrat]] [[Al Gore]]]]
{{cquote|He didn't know anything, but dammit, he was sure about what he didn't know. He was John McClane, and Al Gore was Hans Gruber.|||[[Matt Taibbi]]<ref>Taibbi, [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/revenge-of-the-simple-how-george-w-bush-gave-rise-to-trump-20160301 "Revenge of the Simple: How George W. Bush Gave Rise to Trump"], ''Rolling Stone'' 1 March 2016.</ref>}}
Gore was all about balancing the budget and spending down the deficit. He wanted to protect Social Security and Medicare while Bush was trying to [[Privatization|privatize]] it, proposed tax credits on green energy and college tuition, and favored middle-class tax cuts that wouldn't disproportionately skew to the 1% of income earners like Bush's did.
Bush, no joke, ran on not being the world's policeman and using American power with humility. He even wanted to remove U.S. peacekeepers from Bosnia. Gore ran on a more interventionist/globalist platform. Another huge part of Bush's campaign was based on his claims of "[[compassionate conservatism]]", i.e. stronger social programs and less demonizing of minorities and the poor; a strange U-turn for a man who worked with [[Lee Atwater]] and [[Roger Ailes]] as part of his [[George H.W. Bush|father's]] campaign during [[1988 U.S. presidential election]], and used {{wpl|Willie Horton}} to scare the bejeezus out of white America so they'd vote Republican.<ref>https://www.history.com/news/george-bush-willie-horton-racist-ad</ref><ref>https://www.vox.com/2018/12/1/18121221/george-hw-bush-willie-horton-dog-whistle-politics</ref> At the same time, faith was a major part of his persona, so he locked up the religious vote. You can see where the "guy you’d want to have a beer with"<ref>https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/02/trump-is-winning-the-guy-youd-want-to-have-a-beer-with-election.html</ref> stuff came from. Also Al Gore is about as exciting as a turtle.
You can see more than a little of this in [[Donald Trump]]'s dumber answers during his debates with [[Hillary Clinton]] over the course of the [[2016 U.S. presidential election]] (although his performance wasn't anywhere near as bad as Dubya's). The fact is, the American people don't hold it against you when you muddle through an obscure topic that they know even little about either. While the media mocked Bush as someone who resembled "a kid giving a book report about a book he didn't read" (a phrase also used to describe Trump),<ref>https://twitter.com/rtreatwilliams/status/1242233918180507651</ref> people across the country instead said: "Yerp, he's one of us." He was sort of a predecessor to both Palin and Trump, in that he was built to take every attack on himself and convert it into political fuel. He was risible by design. This Yale-attending scion of a blue-blooded New England family wore a cowboy hat and made Crawford his second White House to attract the scorn of non-Southerners. That's why liberals fumed and raved, because they could never defeat him (although they came close during his first run at the presidency).
Coming down from the high of the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] '90s, many comparisons between Vice President Gore and the other guy were downplayed and likened to "Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee."<ref>Or, as ''[[Futurama]]'' put it, "Jack Johnson and John Jackson."</ref> While the [[media]] proceeded to do little to expose what in hindsight were pretty significant ideological differences between Bush and Gore, and even between Gore and Clinton, some [[Ralph Nader|hippy]] also ran, hijacking the late Gen X/early Millennial vote from Gore (and even poaching some votes from Bush). Not helping the issue was that, in the aftermath of Clinton's sexcapades and {{wpl|Impeachment of Bill Clinton|impeachment}}, Gore made a point of trying to distance himself from the still-popular president, who still had approval ratings hovering around 60% at the time of the election.<ref>[https://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx Presidential Approval Ratings -- Bill Clinton], Gallup</ref> Correctly guessing that the Bush campaign would try to claim the moral high ground in contrast to Clinton's [[Manufactroversy|controversy-laden]] tenure, Gore chose as his running mate [[Joe Lieberman]] (a conservative Democrat who had famously denounced Clinton, and would later become a vocal supporter of Bush) and made a point of trying to portray himself as a loyal, dedicated husband, while only succeeding in making himself somehow appear even more calculating and robotic.<ref>[https://newsfeed.time.com/2014/02/14/17-memorable-kisses-throughout-history/slide/al-and-tipper-gore-kiss/ Al and Tipper Gore Kiss], ''Time''</ref>
Eight years of general prosperity under Clinton, virtually no wars, deficits under control. Gore should have mopped the floor with Bush, and even if Gore wasn't the world's worst campaigner and Bush was one of the best (he wasn't), the American people still should have had some common sense. But instead they got exactly what they deserved: two huge recessions in 2001 and [[Great Recession|2008]], [[Iraq War|a war based on a lie killing hundreds of thousands and paid for with a credit card]], and [[Hurricane Katrina|a natural disaster killing another 2,000 people]] (largely due to poor leadership). That's just the three greatest hits.
===Shenanigans, including "Jews for Buchanan" absurdity===
{{cquote|You know something, we are gonna win Florida, mark my words. You can write it down.|||George W. Bush<ref>https://www.scripts.com/script/fahrenheit_9/11_7937</ref>}}
The outcome in [[Florida]], which was the state that ultimately determined the winner in the [[United States Electoral College|Electoral College]], took more than a month to be considered definitive. The initial count in Florida had Bush winning by just 1,784 votes, which automatically triggered a recount. The clear disenfranchisement of minority voters and the [[Nepotism|very shady decisions which benefited Bush]] made by [[Jeb Bush|his brother]], who just so happened to be Governor of Florida at the time, contributed to the ultimate outcome. The Democrats in Florida were hardly innocent of such chicanery themselves, as they had spearheaded an effort to make it more difficult to count absentee ballots; this just happened to affect, among other groups, military voters, who consistently vote Republican.<ref>https://nypost.com/2000/11/20/team-al-defends-military-ballot-challenge/</ref> However, according to one source, Republican county clerks were actually the ones saying "'No, these [absentee ballots] can't be counted. They're being FedExed in three days after the election.'".<ref>https://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/02/politics/bush-gore-military-ballots/index.html</ref>
"The Republicans enlisted the aid of the military brass to increase the number of military ballots. They also pressed local election boards to validate military ballots that lacked postmarks, bore postmarks later than the November 7 Election Day, or failed to meet other legal requirements."<ref>https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/07/vote-j19.html</ref> "In Washington, senior Bush campaign officials urged the [[Pentagon]] to accelerate the collection and delivery of military ballots, and indeed ballots arrived more quickly than in previous elections. Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee helped the campaign obtain private contact information for military voters."<ref name="New York Times">https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/15/us/examining-the-vote-how-bush-took-florida-mining-the-overseas-absentee-vote.html</ref> The Bush campaign also explored "the legality of late voting [...] by members of the military, who, according to its internal memorandums, were "presumed" to "represent conservative electors."<ref name="New York Times" /> Many of these absentee ballots were blatantly invalid according to U.S. electoral laws. "[I]n about a dozen Republican-leaning counties [...] long-standing election rules were bent and even ignored. Boards counted ballots postmarked as many as seven days after the election, including some from within the United States. They counted two ballots sent by fax. Officials in Santa Rosa County even counted five ballots that arrived after the November 17 deadline. Again and again, election officials crossed out the words "REJECTED AS ILLEGAL" that had been stamped on ballot envelopes."<ref>https://gking.harvard.edu/files/ballots.pdf</ref>
Republicans were able to exploit the respect and reverence most U.S. citizens have for members of their own armed forces, and essentially argued that the rules should be overlooked in this case. The Democrats were finally beaten on the issue by none other than Gore's own running mate, Joe Lieberman, who decided to break ranks and announce on national television "that election officials should give the "benefit of the doubt" to military voters",<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/15/us/examining-the-vote-lieberman-put-democrats-in-retreat-on-military-vote.html</ref> handing the Republicans an easy victory.
However, to make matters even more complicated, it became clear, both for America and the entire rest of the world, that thousands of voters in Broward, Volusia, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach counties apparently possessed the collective IQ of a sea cucumber. These voters evidently had no idea what the ''hell'' they were supposed to do in the voting booths, and did things to the ballots that defied any kind of logic. Several thousands of people were apparently intent on voting for two presidents, or just seemed interested in wholly or partially punching out random holes in their ballots to see what would happen; the answer, as it turned out, was a totally {{wiktl|FUBAR}} result. Further adding to the confusion was the notorious "butterfly ballot" used in Palm Beach, where around three thousand people apparently managed to accidentally vote for ''[[Pat Buchanan]]'' because they couldn't be bothered to actually ''follow the arrows'' on their ballot.<ref name="badballots"></ref> Palm Beach County happens to have one of the highest concentrations of Jewish people in the country (approximately 255,000, or around 20% of the county's ''total'' population), which made the number of votes for Buchanan especially improbable, particularly when you take into account his history of open [[antisemitism]] and [[Holocaust denial]].<ref>https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB940785195432234780</ref> Buchanan even went on television and agreed that the votes he had received were likely the result of a mistake, which must be one of the only times in the history of politics that a candidate has actually '''rejected''' votes that were cast for them. He told reporters that "I don’t want any votes that I did not receive, and I don’t want to win any votes by mistake",<ref>https://nypost.com/2000/11/10/buchanan-these-votes-just-cant-be-for-me/</ref> an astonishingly principled position to take even at the time, and especially now, in an era when candidates are actually willing to foment a [[2021 U.S. Capitol riot|coup]] against their own government when democracy doesn't work in their favour.
===How not to design a ballot===
[[File:Hanging chad.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Election worker looking for hanging chads on a Florida ballot with a fucked-up design]]
{{cquote|Grandma Millie, man. [...] [S]he's the one who couldn't figure out how to fucking vote on the butterfly ballot.|||[[Enron]] trader<ref>https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2006/11/6/267527/-</ref>}}
How hard can it be to punch a paper ballot? "It's pretty God damn hard when you're eighty something years old, you're arthritic, and you're blind as a fucking bat. Unfortunately [...] blind fucking bats tend to vote Democratic."<ref>https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1000771/characters/nm0001459</ref> Looking back, the design of the ballots wasn't exactly brilliant;<ref>http://www.mit.edu/~jtidwell/ballot_design.html</ref> in particular, "the space that voters pressed to mark their choices was misaligned with the row of the given candidate".<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/19/bad-ballot-design-2020-democracy-america</ref> Oddly enough, the butterfly ballot design was an effort by the county's election commissioner (a registered Democrat, who was understandably voted out of office after this fiasco) to fit all the names on the ballot while making the font ''large enough to be clearly read''. No, seriously.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/09/us/2000-elections-palm-beach-ballot-florida-democrats-say-ballot-s-design-hurt-gore.html|title=THE 2000 ELECTIONS: THE PALM BEACH BALLOT; Florida Democrats Say Ballot's Design Hurt Gore | work=The New York Times | first1=Don|last1=Van Natta Jr|first2=Dana|last2=Canedy|date=November 9, 2000}}</ref> {{wpl|Dave Barry}} put it well when he said, "The way they talk, it sounds as though to understand this ballot, you would need, at minimum, a degree in nuclear physics"; then again, he also pointed out that asking Floridians to follow arrows is a dangerous game, even with the most basic tasks such as driving.<ref>https://www.today.com/today/amp/wbna3088161</ref>
This would not be the last time that "bad ballot design"<ref>https://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article226292680.html</ref> was cited as an issue in a Florida election. The infamous "dimpled chads"<ref>https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/666812854/the-florida-recount-of-2000-a-nightmare-that-goes-on-haunting?t=1638615051163</ref> were also likely the result of elderly voters who "may have failed to apply enough pressure to properly punch the ballot for their candidate."<ref>https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-nov-22-mn-55687-story.html</ref> "Some machines reportedly were jammed up with un-emptied chads that prevented the voter from punching out their choice".<ref name="Ballots">http://www.redandgreen.org/voting/Ballots.htm</ref> And even if you did manage to apply enough pressure, if any part of the chad was left clinging to the paper ("hanging chads"), such ballots "would not be registered as votes by vote-counting machines."<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/nov/23/uselections2000.usa</ref> The Republicans claimed that ""dimpled ballots" should not be counted because people were either indecisive or incompetent and a dimple doesn't represent a vote."<ref name="Ballots" /> Presumably the ballots just magically indented themselves.
"In the end, some 172,000 mis-votes were recorded."<ref name="Guardian">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/15/2016-election-old-voting-machines-hanging-chad</ref> This was no isolated incident either. "The American system of elections routinely fails to count hundreds of thousands of ballots because of errors by voters, confusing ballot instructions, poorly designed ballots, flawed voting and counting machines and the failure of election workers to adequately help voters."<ref name="CNN">https://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html</ref> After the national embarrassment that was the presidential election of 2000, "most states moved to bring on a new generation of voting machines".<ref name="Guardian" /> The infamous punch card voting system (known as the Votomatic, which was invented back in 1962) was last used in the United States in two counties in Idaho during the 2014 general election, twelve years after the "Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) effectively banned pre-scored punched card ballots."<ref>https://verifiedvoting.org/election-system/ess-votomatic/</ref> However, problems with outdated voting technology still persist to this day,<ref>https://www.wired.com/2015/09/dismal-state-americas-decade-old-voting-machines/</ref><ref>https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/us-election-machine-technology-is-out-of-date-experts-say.html</ref> and the issue has even been used by unscrupulous politicians to make dubious claims about [[2020 U.S. presidential election|elections]] which they clearly lost.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/02/03/voting-machines-election-steal-conspiracy-flaws/</ref>
===Voter suppression===
Even worse, a <s>successful attempt at voter suppression</s> "botched voter purge"<ref name="Nation">https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-the-2000-election-in-florida-led-to-a-new-wave-of-voter-disenfranchisement</ref> prevented thousands of legally eligible citizens from voting. Back in 2000, "Florida was one of eight states that prevented ex-felons from voting."<ref name="Nation" /> Katherine Harris, Florida's Secretary of State (who was also co-chair of George W. Bush's election efforts in Florida; surely no conflict of interest there), hired a company "to produce a list of probable and possible felons before the election."<ref name="Tampa">https://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/florida-voters-mistakenly-purged-in-2000/1235456/</ref> At the time, Florida was "the only state in the nation to contract the first stage of removal of voting rights to a private company".<ref>https://www.salon.com/2000/12/04/voter_file/</ref> "The company warned the state that many people on the list would not be felons, but officials wanted [them] to use broad parameters — that meant more felons off the rolls. People whose names appeared on the list of more than 50,000 names had to prove their innocence or automatically be dropped from the rolls within several weeks of receiving written notice. Twenty counties ignored the state's directive because they found the data unreliable, including the Madison County elections supervisor, '''who found her own name among suspected felon voters.'''"<ref name="Tampa" /> "No one could ever determine precisely how many voters who were incorrectly labeled felons were turned away from the polls",<ref name="Tampa" /> but one analysis "turned up 12,000 voters who shouldn’t have been labeled felons."<ref name="Tampa" /> Unsurprisingly, this "error" disproportionately affected African Americans, who tend to vote Democrat (what a coincidence). There was also jack shit the Dems could do about it afterwards, because you can't count votes which were never cast.
In the midst of all this confusion, both parties flooded Florida with enormous amounts of people, and what can only be described as a riot occured outside of the locked room where votes were being counted. In scenes which were eerily reminiscent of a more recent election, Republican supporters actually invaded the building housing the Miami-Dade County Canvassing Board, in an event which "became known as the "Brooks Brothers Riot" because the white protesters were well-dressed in button-down shirts and sport jackets."<ref name="HNN">https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/179367</ref> This was organized by Republican political strategist [[Roger Stone]], who also worked wonders for [[Richard Nixon]], [[Ronald Reagan]] and even The Donald himself. "Stone recruited Cuban-American protesters through warnings on the radio that Gore planned to stage a coup like [[Fidel Castro]] attempted in [[Cuba]]. Stone also organized phone banks that encouraged Miami Republicans to storm the downtown counting site. On the day of the rioting, he operated a command center from a Winnebago parked nearby. Other organizers arranged to fly Republican lawyers and staffers to Miami from Washington, D.C. in flights provided by the Enron and [[Halliburton]] corporations. Enron later disintegrated in scandal. Dick Cheney, CEO at Halliburton until the summer of 2000, became Vice President in the Bush administration."<ref name="HNN" />
"Several "rioters" appeared outside the room where counting was taking place. Screaming, "Stop the count! Stop the Fraud!" they pounded on doors and demanded, "Let us in!" The county’s Democratic Party co-chairman, Joe Geller, was at the scene during the melee. When he procured an Official Democratic Party Training Ballot, protesters accused him of stealing a voter’s ballot. They kicked and jabbed him. Geller later reported, "At one point I thought if they knocked me over, I could have literally got stomped to death." He escaped in an elevator, where several protesters quietly joined him. When the elevator doors opened, revealing television cameramen in the lobby, protesters screamed about voter fraud. They performed on-time for the national media."<ref name="HNN" /> This incident "left three canvassing board members fearful about intimidation and concerned about negative publicity. They decided to cancel the recount."<ref name="HNN" />
In addition to encouraging outright intimidation of vote counters, the Republican Party, with [[Tom Delay]] at the helm, quickly developed a strategy of taking advantage of possibly the dumbest trial judge in the State of Florida, who consistently delayed ordering a recount of the multiple defective Florida election results. The head of Bush's legal team, former Secretary of State {{wpl|James Baker}}, highlighted the irony of the situation. "We’re getting killed on 'count all the votes'...Who the hell could be against that?"<ref name="HNN" />
Déjà vu much?
===The Supreme Court steps in===
Eventually, after a lot of legal wrangling, "the Florida Supreme Court ordered a recount of undervotes in all of Florida's 67 counties".<ref>https://www.history.com/news/2000-election-bush-gore-votes-supreme-court</ref> In response, Bush's legal team immediately made an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, who decided to step in and order a halt to the recount. What was their rationale for this absurd and egregious violation of a sovereign state's electoral system? "The law is clear and long-established that the Supreme Court may halt another court’s order only if the person seeking the stay demonstrates that he or she would suffer an "irreparable injury" without one."<ref name="Bar Journal">https://archive.calbar.ca.gov/archive/calbar/2cbj/01jan/page8-1.htm</ref> And what sort of "irreparable injury" would be caused to George W. Bush by the counting of votes? According to Associate Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], "the counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view irreparable harm to [Bush] by casting a cloud on what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."<ref name="Bar Journal" /> Yes, you read that correctly.
After the sharpest lawyers money could buy had managed to finagle ''Gore vs. Harris'' all the way to the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia finally led the Court into one of its most ignominious rulings in history, which was basically that since so much time had elapsed (chiefly due to Republican dilatory tactics, but also partially due to thousands of ballots being so horrifically mangled that just from looking at them it was impossible to be certain what in ''fuckballs'' the voter's intentions were) and that there was no one statewide process for a recount guaranteeing that every ballot would be counted in the same way (as all of these procedures were county-level and inconsistent with each other), they would not count the votes because there would have been too much of a rush to do so and no guarantee that they would all be counted the same way. The ruling also declared that it should not be considered precedent in any future case, <s>to guard against the possibility of a future ''Republican'' candidate having an election victory stolen from him in a similar manner</s> because the circumstances were supposedly unique. When pressed on this matter, conservatives will typically point out that none of this would have happened if Gore had simply won his home state; while true, this [[Non sequitur|completely (and deliberately) misses the whole point]]. Scalia himself later described this ruling in surprisingly honest terms; it was "as we say in Brooklyn, a piece of shit".<ref>{{cite book |last=Thomas |first=Evan |date=2019 |title=First: Sandra Day O'Connor |location=New York |publisher=Random House |page=332 |isbn=9780399589287}}</ref>
In the end, Bush won Florida by a margin of only 537 votes out of almost 6 million which were cast in that state, a difference of 0.009%.<ref>https://chicago.suntimes.com/movies-and-tv/2020/10/20/21523389/537-votes-review-hbo-documentary-bush-gore-2000-election-president-elian-gonzalez</ref> However, according to the National Opinion Research Center, "with a full statewide hand recount, Gore would have won Florida under every possible vote standard. Depending on which standard was used, his margin of victory would have varied from 60 to 171 votes."<ref>https://theintercept.com/2018/11/10/democrats-should-remember-al-gore-won-florida-in-2000-but-lost-the-presidency-with-a-preemptive-surrender/</ref> Unfortunately, Gore's legal team never requested a statewide hand recount of the overvotes and undervotes, probably because they knew that no court in America would rule in favour of such a lengthy process, which would also require the implementation of a uniform standard of vote counting. "There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes."<ref name="CNN" /> Consequently, "Bush likely would have won the hand recount of undervotes ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, although by a smaller margin than the certified 537 vote difference."<ref name="CNN" />
Due to the circumstances surrounding the election, or the first several months of his presidency, some people ([[Michael Moore]], for example)<ref>''Stupid White Men'', Chapter 1.</ref> maintained that Bush was not the "legitimate" president, and that the presidency had been stolen by Bush, his brother [[Jeb Bush|Jeb]], the Governor of Florida at the time, and the aforementioned Katherine Harris, who <s>obstructed</s> "oversaw" the recount. The [[Communist Party USA|''People's Weekly World'']] went so far as to enclose the word "President" in scare quotes when referring to him. Such chatter mostly ceased when [[9/11]] and its aftermath gave these detractors a ready, large supply of valid reasons ([[9/11 conspiracy theories|with some exceptions on the validity part]]) to criticize Bush, such as concerns over [[PATRIOT Act|civil rights violations]].
===Long story short===
Dubya was well ahead for weeks until October, when he was considered the winner of many debates because he didn't actually shit himself off-camera (or if he did, his pants were of a stain-resistant material). Then a thin conservative majority in the Supreme Court will hand the Presidency over to the loser of the popular vote. Democracy!
In an example of supreme fucking irony, it turns out that if Bush had won the popular vote while losing in the Electoral College, his campaign would have engaged in "a multi-front battle to contest the results."<ref>https://theintercept.com/2016/10/21/it-isnt-just-donald-trump-the-bush-campaign-plotted-to-reject-election-results-in-2000/</ref>
You just can't make this shit up.
==Red state, Blue state==
<!-- Spelling variance of 'colour' is entirely intentional -->
The 2000 election was also notable in that it was the origin of the color assignment of [[Red state|red]] to the Republican Party and [[Blue state|blue]] to the Democratic Party on maps depicting who had carried what. This was largely by coincidence; it just so happened that red was given to Bush and Gore was given blue, and since this took so long to process, the color schemes stuck permanently in the public consciousness. This arrangement runs counter to the tradition in other democratic nations, where the [[conservative]]s are given the color blue, and the [[socialist]]s the color red, but [[American exceptionalism|us 'Muricans don't cotton to none'o that furrner nonsense]]. Besides, this arrangement gives sensible Americans an opportunity to proclaim "Better dead than red!"
Purple states were also born, these are swing states.
== Vote breakdown by education ==
{| cellpadding=3 style="background:black; color:black"
|- style="background:white"
| '''Voted'''<ref>http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm</ref> || <center>'''State'''</center> || '''% with bachelor degrees'''<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20100228164500/http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2003/R02T040.htm Percent of People 25 Years and Over Who Have Completed a Bachelor's Degree]</ref>
|- style="background:#999CFF; color:black"
| Gore || [[District of Columbia]] || 44.2
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[Massachusetts]] || 35.8
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Colorado]] || 34.7
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[Connecticut]] || 34.6
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[Maryland]] || 34.5
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Virginia]] || 32.2
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[New Jersey]] || 32.1
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[Vermont]] || 32.0
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[Minnesota]] || 30.6
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush ||[[ New Hampshire]] || 30.3
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore ||[[ Washington]] || 30.2
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[New York]] || 29.7
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[California]] || 29.1
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[Rhode Island]] || 29.1
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Kansas]] || 28.7
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[Hawaii]] || 28.2
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[Illinois]] || 28.1
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[Delaware]] || 27.6
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Alaska]] || 26.6
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[Oregon]] || 26.4
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Utah]] || 26.2
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[Maine]] || 25.9
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Montana]] || 25.8
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Georgia]] || 25.7
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Nebraska]] || 25.3
|- style="background:lightgray"
| Bush || [[Florida]]<ref>The Supreme Court declared that Bush had won Florida, but there was no reliable tally of the popular vote and the decision was that Gore had [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYQdogPMuRc ''no right to ask for a recount''.]</ref><ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-05-10-recountmain.htm</ref> || 25.0
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || North Dakota || 25.0
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Texas]] || 24.5
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Arizona]] || 24.3
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[Michigan]] || 24.3
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[North Carolina]] || 24.3
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[Pennsylvania]] || 24.2
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Missouri]] || 24.1
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Idaho]] || 24.0
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[Wisconsin]] || 23.8
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[New Mexico]] || 23.7
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Wyoming]] || 23.7
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[South Carolina]] || 23.2
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[South Dakota]] || 23.1
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Ohio]] || 23.0
|- style="background:#999CFF"
| Gore || [[Iowa]] || 22.5
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Oklahoma]] || 21.9
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Tennessee]] || 21.5
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Louisiana]] || 21.3
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Alabama]] || 21.2
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Indiana]] || 21.0
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Nevada]] || 19.5
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Mississippi]] || 18.7
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[Kentucky]] || 18.6
|- style="background:#FF999c"
| Bush || [[West Virginia]] || 17.0
|}
==See also==
*[[2004 U.S. presidential election]]
*[[2008 U.S. presidential election]]
*[[2012 U.S. presidential election]]
*[[2016 U.S. presidential election]]
*[[2020 U.S. presidential election]]
*[[Purple America]]
*[[Brett Kavanaugh]], who had a hand in the election recount
*[[Roger Stone]], who led the [[astroturf]] "Brooks Brothers Riot" during the recount
==External Links==
[https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/none-dare-call-it-treason/ None Dare Call It Treason]
==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}
{{POTUS00Nav}}
[[Category:Florida]]
[[Category:Government incompetence]]
[[Category:United States presidential elections]]
[[Category: United States politics]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election | [
"Florida",
"Government incompetence",
"United States presidential elections",
" United States politics"
] |
2001 Clear Channel memorandum | 204,837 | 2,697,054 | 2024-11-26T21:12:02 | Auttheum | false | null | {{media}}{{cquote|Catharsis was exactly the opposite of what corporate radio was promoting. There was no room for songs of peace or hate, loss or exorcism, anger or despair. What we got was bland and mildly upbeat, the Chevy-commercial sentiments of Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" and the cliched uplift of inspirational ballads like "Wind Beneath My Wings," surely one of the most annoying genres of music ever invented.|||Steven Wishnia<ref>Steven Wishnia, [http://web.archive.org/web/20080416014917/http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featwishnia_142.shtml Bad Transmission: Clear Channel's Hit List]. Archived from the original at lipmagazine.org, 24 October 2001.</ref>}}
On September 13, 2001, two days after the [[9/11|9/11 attacks]], the top brass at [[Right-wing media groups#iHeartMedia|Clear Channel]] sent an email to over 1,000 US [[radio]] stations "an updated and expanded list of songs with 'questionable lyrics' that they should avoid playing."<ref>[http://www.slate.com/id/1008314/ It's the End of the World as Clear Channel Knows It]. ''Slate'', 17 September 2001.</ref><ref>Thurston Hatcher, [https://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/20/rec.radio.playlist/ Radio stations retool playlists after attacks]. [[CNN]], 20 September 2001.</ref> Clear Channel denied the claim,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20020923200949/http://content.clearchannel.com/corporate/article/NationalBannedPlaylist.pdf Clear Channel says national "banned playlist" does not exist]. Clear Channel Communications press release, archived from the original at content.clearchannel.com, 18 September 2001.</ref> but it received considerable media coverage at the time.<ref>Jeremy Dutton and William Puchert, [https://web.archive.org/web/20080620024102/http://zephyr.unr.edu/zephyr/arts/archives/art_dutpuch_musicindustry.html Music industry responds to terrorism]. Archived from the original at zephyr.unr.edu (University of Nevada, Reno), 10 October 2001.</ref> Though many reports claimed that the list was meant to prohibit radio stations from playing songs listed on it, the list was circulated as guidance. Many stations, including some in the [[New York]] area, ignored the list.<ref>David Mikkelson, [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/radio-radio/ Clear Channel Banned Songs]. [[Snopes]], 15 April 2008.</ref>
Some of the songs making this list deal with fire or planes. In a perverse attempt to sterilize media in light of the terrorist attack, the memo recommends dropping songs like {{wpl|Fire_and_Rain_(song)|Fire and Rain}} by James Taylor, {{wpl|Smokin' (song)|Smokin'}} by Boston, {{wpl|Burnin' for You|Burnin' for You}} by Blue Öyster Cult, {{wpl|Jump (Van Halen song)|Jump}} by Van Halen, and {{wpl|Bennie and the Jets}} by Elton John from rotation, in case a listener might be [[triggered]] by the mere mention of a word.
The question was not that there would be kinds of [[music]] that would be inappropriate in the aftermath of the attacks, but the specific songs Clear Channel ultimately ''chose''. It seemed more like an 1960s-style [[social conservative]] attack on popular [[rock music]] than an understandable suggestions list.
Many found the list baffling, and considered it a misguided attempt to ensure the nation's mental health. As such, it was roundly criticized as [[censorship]] and an ominous side effect of President [[George W. Bush]]'s [[War on Terror]].<ref>Neil Strauss, [https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/19/arts/the-pop-life-after-the-horror-radio-stations-pull-some-songs.html The Pop Life; After the Horror, Radio Stations Pull Some Songs]. ''[[The New York Times]]'', 19 September 2001.</ref>
==The list==
{{cquote|…every single Rage Against the Machine song was notably poo-pooed by Clear Channel, as the [[Founding Fathers]] absolutely hated guitars that sound like turntables. Ditto goes for "I'm on Fire"… because nobody understands that the song was just Bruce Springsteen surreptitiously confessing that he's the Human Torch from the Fantastic Four.|||The 6 Most Hilarious Failures in Music Censorship History<ref>Mike Floorwalker. [https://www.cracked.com/article_20209_the-6-most-hilarious-failures-in-music-censorship-history.html The 6 Most Hilarious Failures in Music Censorship History]. [[Cracked]], 20 January 2013.</ref>}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Artist
! Song
! style="width: 40%;" | Notes
|-
| {{wpl|3 Doors Down}}
| Duck and Run
|
|-
| {{wpl|311 (Band)|311}}
| Down
|
|-
| {{wpl|AC/DC}}
| Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap
|
|-
| {{wpl|AC/DC}}
| Hells Bells
|
|-
| {{wpl|AC/DC}}
| Highway to Hell
|
|-
| {{wpl|AC/DC}}
| Safe in New York City
|
|-
| {{wpl|AC/DC}}
| Shoot to Thrill
|
|-
| {{wpl|AC/DC}}
| Shot Down in Flames
|
|-
| {{wpl|AC/DC}}
| T.N.T.
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Ad Libs}}
| The Boy from New York City
|
|-
| {{wpl|Afro Celt Sound System}}
| When You're Falling
|
|-
| {{wpl|Alice in Chains}}
| Down in a Hole
|
|-
| {{wpl|Alice in Chains}}
| Rooster
|
|-
| {{wpl|Alice in Chains}}
| Sea of Sorrow
|
|-
| {{wpl|Alice in Chains}}
| Them Bones
|
|-
| {{wpl|Alien Ant Farm}}
| Smooth Criminal
| {{wpl|Michael Jackson}}'s original version interestingly ''not'' on the memorandum.
|-
| {{wpl|The Animals}}
| We Gotta Get Out of This Place
|
|-
| {{wpl|Louis Armstrong}}
| {{wpl|What a Wonderful World}}
| This wonderful song's inclusion on the list exposed the callousness and hypocrisy of media executives in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
|-
| {{wpl|The Bangles}}
| Walk Like an Egyptian
| Only one of the perpetrators was Egyptian, ringleader {{wpl|Mohamed Atta}}
|-
| {{wpl|Barenaked Ladies}}
| Falling for the First Time
|
|-
| {{wpl|Fontella Bass}}
| Rescue Me
|
|-
| {{wpl|Beastie Boys}}
| Sabotage
|
|-
| {{wpl|Beastie Boys}}
| Sure Shot
|
|-
| [[The Beatles]]
| {{wpl|A Day in the Life}}
| A reflection on life, death, and war, inspired by [[LSD]]. Perhaps the reference to [[war]], i.e., "The English Army had just won the war" triggered inclusion on the list? Who knows.
|-
| [[The Beatles]]
| {{wpl|Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds}}
| Maybe they thought a mention of the sky would trigger someone?
|-
| [[The Beatles]]
| {{wpl|Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da}}
| Life goes on, and Clear Channel thought it would be too much for anyone to realize this.
|-
| [[The Beatles]]
| {{wpl|Ticket to Ride}}
|
|-
| {{wpl|Pat Benatar}}
| Hit Me with Your Best Shot
|
|-
| {{wpl|Pat Benatar}}
| Love Is a Battlefield
|
|-
| {{wpl|Black Sabbath}}
| Sabbath Bloody Sabbath
|
|-
| {{wpl|Black Sabbath}}
| War Pigs
|
|-
| {{wpl|Blood, Sweat and Tears}}
| And When I Die
|
|-
| {{wpl|Blue Öyster Cult}}
| Burnin' for You
|
|-
| {{wpl|Boston (band)|Boston}}
| Smokin'
|
|-
| {{wpl|Los Bravos}}
| Black Is Black
|
|-
| {{wpl|Jackson Browne}}
| Doctor My Eyes
|
|-
| {{wpl|Buddy Holly and the Crickets}}
| That'll Be the Day
|
|-
| {{wpl|Bush (band)|Bush}}
| Speed Kills
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Chi-Lites}}
| Have You Seen Her
|
|-
| {{wpl|Petula Clark}}
| A Sign of the Times
|
|-
| [[The Clash]]
| Rock the Casbah
|
|-
| {{wpl|Phil Collins}}
| In the Air Tonight
|
|-
| {{wpl|Sam Cooke}}
| Wonderful World
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Crazy World of Arthur Brown}}
| Fire
|
|-
| {{wpl|Creedence Clearwater Revival}}
| Travelin' Band
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Cult}}
| Fire Woman
|
|-
| {{wpl|Bobby Darin}}
| Mack the Knife
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Dave Clark Five}}
| Bits and Pieces
|
|-
| {{wpl|Skeeter Davis}}
| The End of the World
|
|-
| {{wpl|Neil Diamond}}
| America
|
|-
| {{wpl|Dio (band)|Dio}}
| Holy Diver
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Doors}}
| The End
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Drifters}}
| On Broadway
|
|-
| {{wpl|Drowning Pool}}
| Bodies
|
|-
| {{wpl|Bob Dylan}}
| Knockin' on Heaven's Door
|
|-
| {{wpl|Everclear (band)|Everclear}}
| Santa Monica
|
|-
| {{wpl|Shelley Fabares}}
| Johnny Angel
|
|-
| {{wpl|Filter (band)|Filter}}
| Hey Man, Nice Shot
| Maybe too close to home, as the song is about the suicide of {{wpl|Budd Dwyer}}
|-
| {{wpl|Foo Fighters}}
| Learn to Fly
|
|-
| {{wpl|Fuel (band)|Fuel}}
| Bad Day
| It's not the one Andy Bernard sang when he was firing Pete in "The Office".
|-
| {{wpl|The Gap Band}}
| You Dropped a Bomb on Me
|
|-
| {{wpl|Godsmack}}
| Bad Religion
|
|-
| {{wpl|Green Day}}
| Brain Stew
| But not "{{wpl|Welcome to Paradise}}", weirdly enough.
|-
| {{wpl|Norman Greenbaum}}
| Spirit in the Sky
|
|-
| {{wpl|Guns N' Roses}}
| Knockin' on Heaven's Door
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Happenings}}
| See You in September
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Jimi Hendrix Experience}}
| Hey Joe
| "Hey Joe, where you goin' with that gun in your hand?"
|-
| {{wpl|Herman's Hermits}}
| Wonderful World
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Hollies}}
| He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother
|
|-
| {{wpl|Jan and Dean}}
| Dead Man's Curve
|
|-
| {{wpl|Billy Joel}}
| Only the Good Die Young
|
|-
| {{wpl|Elton John}}
| Bennie and the Jets
|
|-
| {{wpl|Elton John}}
| Daniel
| "Daniel is traveling tonight on a plane…"
|-
| {{wpl|Elton John}}
| Rocket Man
|
|-
| {{wpl|Judas Priest}}
| Some Heads Are Gonna Roll
|
|-
| {{wpl|Kansas (band)|Kansas}}
| Dust in the Wind
|
|-
| {{wpl|Carole King}}
| I Feel the Earth Move
|
|-
| {{wpl|Korn}}
| Falling Away from Me
|
|-
| {{wpl|Lenny Kravitz}}
| Fly Away
|
|-
| {{wpl|Led Zeppelin}}
| Stairway to Heaven
|
|-
| [[John Lennon]]
| Imagine
|
|-
| {{wpl|Jerry Lee Lewis}}
| Great Balls of Fire
|
|-
| {{wpl|Limp Bizkit}}
| Break Stuff
|
|-
| {{wpl|Local H}}
| Bound for the Floor
|
|-
| {{wpl|Lynyrd Skynyrd}}
| Tuesday's Gone
|
|-
| {{wpl|Johnny Maestro & the Brooklyn Bridge}}
| The Worst That Could Happen
|
|-
| {{wpl|Martha and the Vandellas}}
| Dancing in the Street
|
|-
| {{wpl|Martha and the Vandellas}}
| Nowhere to Run
|
|-
| {{wpl|Dave Matthews Band}}
| Crash into Me
|
|-
| {{wpl|Wings (band)|Paul McCartney & Wings}}
| Live and Let Die
|
|-
| {{wpl|Barry McGuire}}
| Eve of Destruction
|
|-
| {{wpl|Don McLean}}
| American Pie
| Due to its references of "the day the music died", where Buddy Holly, Ritchie Vallens, and The Big Bopper died in a plane crash.
|-
| {{wpl|Megadeth}}
| Dread and the Fugitive Mind
|
|-
| {{wpl|Megadeth}}
| Sweating Bullets
|
|-
| {{wpl|John Mellencamp}}
| Crumblin' Down
|
|-
| {{wpl|John Mellencamp}}
| Paper in Fire
|
|-
| {{wpl|Metallica}}
| Enter Sandman
|
|-
| {{wpl|Metallica}}
| Fade to Black
|
|-
| {{wpl|Metallica}}
| Harvester of Sorrow
|
|-
| {{wpl|Metallica}}
| Seek & Destroy
|
|-
| {{wpl|Steve Miller Band}}
| Jet Airliner
|
|-
| {{wpl|Alanis Morissette}}
| Ironic
|
|-
| {{wpl|Mudvayne}}
| Death Blooms
|
|-
| {{wpl|Ricky Nelson}}
| Travelin' Man
|
|-
| {{wpl|Nena}}
| 99 Luftballons/99 Red Balloons
| Noted peace anthem about an accidental nuclear war
|-
| {{wpl|Nine Inch Nails}}
| Head Like a Hole
| "God money's not one to choose. Head like a hole, black as your soul, I'd rather die than give you control!"
|-
| {{wpl|Oingo Boingo}}
| Dead Man's Party
|
|-
| {{wpl|Ozzy Osbourne}}
| Suicide Solution
|
|-
| {{wpl|Paper Lace}}
| The Night Chicago Died
|
|-
| {{wpl|John Parr}}
| St. Elmo's Fire (Man in Motion)
| "I can feel radio censorship burning in me"
|-
| {{wpl|Peter and Gordon}}
| I Go to Pieces
|
|-
| {{wpl|Peter and Gordon}}
| A World Without Love
|
|-
| {{wpl|Peter, Paul and Mary}}
| Blowin' in the Wind
|
|-
| {{wpl|Peter, Paul and Mary}}
| Leaving on a Jet Plane
| Written by [[John Denver]] who coincidentally died in a light aircraft accident in 1997
|-
| {{wpl|Tom Petty}}
| Free Fallin'
|
|-
| {{wpl|Pink Floyd}}
| Mother
| "Mother, do you think they'll drop the bomb?"
|-
| {{wpl|Pink Floyd}}
| Run Like Hell
|
|-
| {{wpl|P.O.D.}}
| Boom
|
|-
| [[Elvis Presley]]
| (You're the) Devil in Disguise
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Pretenders}}
| My City Was Gone
|
|-
| {{wpl|Queen (band)|Queen}}
| Another One Bites the Dust
|
|-
| {{wpl|Queen (band)|Queen}}
| Killer Queen
|
|-
| [[Rage Against the Machine]]
| All songs
| "Lights out, Guerrilla Radio! Turn that sh*t off!"
|-
| {{wpl|Red Hot Chili Peppers}}
| Aeroplane
|
|-
| {{wpl|Red Hot Chili Peppers}}
| Under the Bridge
|
|-
| {{wpl|R.E.M.}}
| It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Rolling Stones}}
| Ruby Tuesday
| "Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday"
|-
| {{wpl|Mitch Ryder & the Detroit Wheels}}
| Devil with a Blue Dress On
|
|-
| {{wpl|Saliva (band)|Saliva}}
| Click Click Boom
|
|-
| {{wpl|Santana}}
| Evil Ways
|
|-
| {{wpl|Savage Garden}}
| Crash and Burn
|
|-
| {{wpl|Simon & Garfunkel}}
| Bridge over Troubled Water
| An odd choice: traditionally considered a very fitting song for sad times, and a perennial at funerals<ref>[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/another-one-bites-the-dust/ Songs Played at Funerals], Snopes, 15 May 2006</ref>
|-
| {{wpl|Frank Sinatra}}
| New York, New York
| aka "Theme from ''New York, New York''"; widely seen as a celebration of the city, and Liza Minnelli actually performed it at the first pro sports game in the New York metro after 9/11<ref>{{wpa|Theme from New York, New York}}</ref>
|-
| {{wpl|Slipknot (band)|Slipknot}}
| Left Behind
|
|-
| {{wpl|Slipknot (band)|Slipknot}}
| Wait and Bleed
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Smashing Pumpkins}}
| Bullet with Butterfly Wings
|
|-
| {{wpl|Soundgarden}}
| Black Hole Sun
|
|-
| {{wpl|Soundgarden}}
| Blow Up the Outside World
|
|-
| {{wpl|Soundgarden}}
| Fell on Black Days
|
|-
| {{wpl|Bruce Springsteen}}
| I'm Goin' Down
|
|-
| {{wpl|Bruce Springsteen}}
| I'm on Fire
|
|-
| {{wpl|Bruce Springsteen}}
| War
|
|-
| {{wpl|Edwin Starr}}
| War
|
|-
| {{wpl|Steam (band)|Steam}}
| Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye
|
|-
| {{wpl|Cat Stevens}}
| Morning Has Broken
|
|-
| {{wpl|Cat Stevens}}
| Peace Train
| It's unclear why 2 Stevens songs were on the list, aside from the fact that he's a [[Muslim]] and Clear Channel didn't want them on radio
|-
| {{wpl|Stone Temple Pilots}}
| Big Bang Baby
|
|-
| {{wpl|Stone Temple Pilots}}
| Dead and Bloated
|
|-
| {{wpl|Sugar Ray}}
| Fly
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Surfaris}}
| Wipe Out
|
|-
| {{wpl|System of a Down}}
| Chop Suey!
|
|-
| {{wpl|Talking Heads}}
| Burning Down the House
|
|-
| {{wpl|James Taylor}}
| {{wpl|Fire and Rain (song)|Fire and Rain}}
|
|-
| {{wpl|Temple of the Dog}}
| Say Hello 2 Heaven
|
|-
| {{wpl|Third Eye Blind}}
| Jumper
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Three Degrees}}
| When Will I See You Again
|
|-
| {{wpl|Tool (band)|Tool}}
| Intolerance
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Trammps}}
| Disco Inferno
|
|-
| {{wpl|U2}}
| Sunday Bloody Sunday
| The attack was on a Tuesday, although the song is peripherally about terrorism and primarily about the killing of innocent civilians by the British army<ref>{{wpa|Sunday Bloody Sunday}}</ref>
|-
| {{wpl|Van Halen}}
| Jump
|
|-
| {{wpl|Van Halen}}
| Dancing in the Street
|
|-
| {{wpl|J. Frank Wilson and the Cavaliers}}
| Last Kiss
|
|-
| {{wpl|The Youngbloods}}
| Get Together
|
|-
| {{wpl|Zager and Evans}}
| {{wpl|In the Year 2525}}
| "In the year 2525, if man is still alive"
|-
| {{wpl|The Zombies}}
| She's Not There
| Lyrically about an untrustworthy woman, not obviously connected with 9/11<ref>{{wpa|She's Not There}}</ref>
|}
==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}
[[Category:Censorship]]
[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Moral panics]]
[[Category:Music]]
[[Category:Radio]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2001_Clear_Channel_memorandum | [
"Censorship",
"Media",
"Moral panics",
"Music",
"Radio"
] |
2001 United Kingdom general election | 220,293 | 2,693,378 | 2024-11-08T01:20:16 | KarmaPolice | false | null | {{ukpolitics}}
The '''2001 UK general election''' is barely remembered ''at all''; it being perhaps the dullest and most non-controversial electoral outing for the country in living memory. This led to the ruling [[Labour Party]] to fear that voter apathy might ruin their chances. While turnout was the lowest since 1918, Labour managed to retain their [[1997 United Kingdom general election|1997 landslide]] almost completely intact. It was also notable for the continued rise of the [[Liberal Democrats]] (best showing since 1929) and a shift in Northern Ireland from the (relative) moderate 'Unionism' of the Ulster Unionist Party to the dogmatic [[right-wing]] variant of the [[Democratic Unionist Party]]. It was also the first election where all three major party leaders had been born after the [[Second World War]].
==Background==
Sometimes, politicians get lucky; and [[Tony Blair]] was certainly that in his first Ministry. The economy ticked over well, the UK managed to dodge the crisis from the {{wpl|Dot-com bubble|'dot-com crash'}} with barely a murmur and crises such as a serious foot-and-mouth outbreak<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35581830 When foot-and-mouth disease stopped the UK in its tracks] ''BBC News'', 17 February 2016</ref>, a fortnight-long 'Fuel Tax Strike' by lorry drivers and farmers<ref>[https://www.edp24.co.uk/lifestyle/20713445.remember-petrol-price-protests-20-years-ago/ Do you remember the petrol price protests from 20 years ago?] ''Eastern Daily Press'', 15 September 2020</ref><ref>[https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/nostalgia/fuel-crisis-protests-2000-led-24292701 The fuel crisis protests of 2000 that led to queues at pumps and panic buying] ''North Wales Live'', 26 June 2022</ref> and the [[NATO]] intervention in [[Kosovo War|Kosovo]]<ref>[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/war-in-the-balkans-air-strikes-raf-hits-serb-ground-troops-1085593.html War in the Balkans: Air Strikes - RAF hits Serb ground troops] ''The Independent'', 6 April 1999</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jun/11/balkans4 British in first to secure peace for Kosovo] ''The Guardian'', 11 June 2022</ref> were all small enough to be 'manageable' and was done so with some finesse (the ease and success of the latter leading to further British [[Afghanistan War|adventures]] with the [[Iraq War|Americans]].)
On the domestic front, the party was a cautious social liberal; performing actions such as passing the [[Human Rights Act 1998|Human Rights Act]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946390.stm Human Rights Act: How it works] ''BBC News'', 29 September 2000</ref> and introducing the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/115395.stm Minimum wage phased in for young] ''BBC News'', 18 June 1998</ref> while collecting most of the kudos for the {{wpl|Good_Friday_Agreement|}}, which put [[The Troubles]] in [[Northern Ireland]] in the freezer.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/11/world/irish-accord-overview-irish-talks-produce-accord-stop-decades-bloodshed-with.html An Irish Accord: The Overview] ''New York Times'', 11 April 1998</ref> It also presided over a bit of welcome democratisation; with 'reforms' to the House of Lords<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/jan/20/lordreform.constitution5 Lords reform] ''The Guardian'', 20 January 2000</ref>, the establishment of 'devolved administrations' in the non-English parts of the country<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/may/27/wales.devolution1 Welsh crown day with a song] ''The Guardian'', 27 May 1999</ref><ref>[https://eu.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/nation-world/1997/09/13/labor-celebrates-new-scottish-parliament/50591490007/ Labour celebrates new Scottish Parliament] ''South Coast Today'' 13 September 1997</ref>, and several directly-elected city mayors, such as for London<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/london_referendum/89327.stm Overwhelming vote for mayor] ''BBC News'', 8 May 1998</ref>. The main complaint was the lack of real increases in social spending to reverse two decades of Conservative rule, as the then-Chancellor [[Gordon Brown]] had promised in the last election to keep to Conservative spending plans – a key plank of '[[New Labour]]' being '[[Fiscal responsibility|credible on the economy]]'.
==Campaign==
With all the polls pointing to another landslide, Labour played it safe; another content-light media blitz mainly highlighting previous [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] failures or mocking the opposition leader William Hague as being nothing more than a dorkish schoolboy retread of [[Margaret Thatcher|Thatcher]]<ref>[https://blog.lboro.ac.uk/limit/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2020/11/Brewer-Mary-2.jpg 'Hague-Thatcher' Labour attack poster, 2001] ''Loughborough University Political Posters'', 20 November 2020</ref>. Hague wasn't ''that'' bad, but was quite clearly out of his political depth going head-to-head with Blair at his peak. Perhaps the ''only'' memorable incident was when the then deputy Prime Minister John Prescott punched a protestor.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16/newsid_4098000/4098929.stm 2001: Prescott punches protester] ''BBC News'', 2008</ref>
On their part, the Conservatives did try to put up a fight; but not only had they not recovered from their previous drubbing but more importantly, there wasn't a huge amount Blair and Company had done that they ''really'' objected to. In the end, it mainly featured an attempt to make the election a [[Euroscepticism|Eurosceptic]] 'referendum on joining the [[Euro]]'<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/07/election2001.uk16 Save the pound group attacks Tory tactics] ''The Guardian'', 7 June 2001</ref> and promising unspecified [[tax cuts]].
The [[Liberal Democrats]] continued their policy of running to the 'left' of Labour, this time proposing several policies explicitly ruled out by Blair, much to the chagrin of both [[socialists]] and social liberals of his party. Basically, it was a bet that as [[Third Way]] shifted Labour into the political centre, the Liberals could make hay on the exposed flank.
==Results==
[[File:House of Commons elected members, 2001.svg|thumb|right|250px|Post-election composition of the House of Commons.]]
The bookmakers started to pay out on bets made on a Labour victory even before the election, and they were right; another Labour landslide, 'only' a working majority of 170. The only real movements were between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but due to the fact the two parties are rarely direct competitors, the shift represented a slight Labour loss to the Conservatives, while an ''equal'' shift led Conservative seats being lost to the Liberals.
[[File:UK General Election, 2001.svg|thumb|right|400px|Map of the results.]]
{| class="wikitable"
! Turnout: 59.4% (-11.9%) !! Seats !! Change !! Vote % !! Change
|-
| <u>'''Labour'''</u> || '''413''' || <span style="color:red">'''-6'''</span> || '''40.7''' || <span style="color:red">'''-2.5'''</span>
|-
| <u>'''Conservatives'''</u> || '''166''' || <span style="color:green">'''+1'''</span> || '''31.6''' || <span style="color:green">'''+1.0'''</span>
|-
| <u>'''Liberal Democrats'''</u> || '''52''' || <span style="color:green">'''+6'''</span> || '''18.3''' || <span style="color:green">'''+1.5'''</span>
|-
| <u>'''Other'''</u> || '''28''' || '''-1''' || '''9.4''' || '''+0.1'''
|}
[[File:2001 UK General Election Constituencies.svg|thumb|left|225px|Map showing constituencies as equal area to better indicate the number of seats.]]
{{clear}}
==External links==
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/news/vote2001/ BBC's 'Election 2001' website]; still (mainly) functional.
==References==
{{reflist|3|80%}}
[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:British politics]]
[[Category:UK general elections]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2001_United_Kingdom_general_election | [
"Elections",
"British politics",
"UK general elections"
] |
2004 U.S. Presidential Election | 170,102 | 2,697,634 | 2024-11-29T23:42:37 | DuceMoosolini | true | 2004 United States presidential election | #REDIRECT [[2004 United States presidential election]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Presidential_Election | [] |
2004 U.S. presidential election | 227,778 | 2,697,630 | 2024-11-29T23:42:27 | DuceMoosolini | true | 2004 United States presidential election | #REDIRECT [[2004 United States presidential election]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election | [] |
2004 US Presidential Election | 157,923 | 2,697,633 | 2024-11-29T23:42:30 | DuceMoosolini | true | 2004 United States presidential election | #redirect [[2004 United States presidential election]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2004_US_Presidential_Election | [] |
2004 United States presidential election | 135,933 | 2,754,080 | 2025-08-19T22:33:17 | ThreePurpleHearts | false | null | [[File:ElectoralCollege2004.svg|right|thumb|300px|Now [[Ohio]] is the center of controversy.]]
{{uspolitics}}
{{Quote|[[Massachusetts|This land]] is [[John Kerry|your]] land, [[Texas|this land]] is [[George W. Bush|my]] land. I’m a Texas tiger, you're a liberal wiener. I’m a great crusader, you’re a Herman Munster. This land will surely vote for me.|[[George W. Bush]] (parody)<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8Q-sRdV7SY</ref>}}
{{Quote|This land is [[George W. Bush|your]] land, this land is [[John Kerry|my]] land. I’m an intellectual, you're a [[Stupidity|stupid dumbass]]. I’m a Purple Heart winner, and yes it’s true I won it thrice. This land will surely vote for me.|[[John Kerry]] (parody)<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8Q-sRdV7SY</ref>}}
The '''2004 [[U.S.]] presidential election''' was an opportunity for U.S. citizens to change the course of the first decade of the millennium for the better. [[Groupthink|They declined to]]. (Perhaps we may blame [[The Guardian|the ''Guardian'']].<ref>(November 4, 2004). [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3981823.stm "Did Guardian turn Ohio to Bush?"]. ''BBC News''.</ref>)
Kerry was the centrist brain genius to navigate the tumultuous political times: a veteran who threw his medals over a fence. Boom! Appeal to patriots and anti-war people at the same time. And what did the Republicans do? Call him a French fag with fake purple hearts. Devastating at the time (but in retrospect it's hilarious).
The '04 election also pivoted on gay marriage, which was a threat to Western civilization...somehow. At the time, papers thought America was turning into a Christian theocracy,<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/10/uselections2004.usa "Turning democracy into theocracy"], ''Guardian'' (10 November 2004, 6:54 PM EST).</ref> but as it turned out, it's more like a casino now.
==The Democratic challengers==
Given the sting felt from the [[2000 U.S. Presidential Election|previous election]], the recount and the loss of [[Florida]] in the [[Supreme Court]] decision ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'', many U.S. citizens felt it was time for a change. There was a big desire among [[Democrat]]s to win in the wake of the many failures of the Bush administration.
===Howard Dean===
Got really excited about taking down Bush, but became a sound bite that made him sound crazy.
[[Howard Dean]] went from being an obscure candidate early on to being the presumed frontrunner leading in the polls by the end of 2003, largely on the positive response to a speech he gave declaring himself a member of the "[[No True Scotsman|Democratic wing of the Democratic Party]]" and asking why most Democrats in [[Congress]] rolled over and voted with the Bush administration on the [[Iraq War]]. However, Dean soon became the target of nasty attack ads in [[Iowa]] from the Richard Gephardt campaign which, among other things, portrayed Dean as being weak on [[national security]]. Gephardt, who had won the Iowa caucuses in 1988, was counting on a repeat in 2004 to put him in frontrunner status going into the [[New Hampshire]] primary. Instead, the combination of Gephardt's going negative, and hordes of undisciplined Dean supporters descending on the state, turned Iowa voters off from both candidates. [[John Kerry]] and John Edwards, both of whom had played it cool and stayed above the fray, surged in the polls at the last minute. After Dean finished third in the Iowa caucus behind Kerry and Edwards, he gave a speech that was punctuated with an unusual... scream. This gaffe's popularity on [[Fox News]] and other [[media]] channels was seen as sinking his campaign, and he eventually dropped out of the race after Kerry swept almost all state primaries and caucuses. (Dean won only [[Vermont]] and the [[DC|District of Columbia]].)
===John Edwards===
One-term Senator from [[North Carolina]], previously notable for deposing Monica Lewinsky and being on the shortlist for [[Al Gore]]'s VP in 2000.<ref>https://www.npr.org/programs/specials/democrats2004/edwards.html</ref> Supported [[ObamaCare|the individual mandate]] before it was cool,<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20100127145817/http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/health-care-fact-sheet/</ref> wanted a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants,<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20100127145817/http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/health-care-fact-sheet/</ref> made the first "carbon-neutral' campaign,<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20100127145817/http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/health-care-fact-sheet/</ref> but voted for the [[Iraq War]]<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20100127145817/http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/health-care-fact-sheet/</ref> so none of it mattered. Eventually got picked up as Kerry's running mate, lost, tried to run in [[2008 U.S. Presidential Election|2008]], got beaten by some [[Hillary Clinton|other]] [[Barack Obama|people]], then eventually got caught cheating on his wife with cancer and covering it up with campaign money. As a future [[Donald Trump|president]] would say, Sad!
===Richard Gephardt===
Tearfully dropped out after coming in fourth in the Iowa caucus. Gephardt had run, as in [[1988 U.S. Presidential Election|1988]], as the candidate of [[trade union|organized labor]], but in 2004 John Edwards also played to that constituency and won over many voters eager for a fresher face and turned off by Gephardt's going negative against Dean.
===Wesley Clark===
Was a late entry into the primaries, the product of a draft Clark campaign, and endorsed by among others [[Michael Moore]]. Part of the appeal of Clark was voters who wanted somebody with a military background, thus who might be more immune to the "weak on national security" attacks being made on Howard Dean, but who was still opposed to the Iraq War. Clark only won one primary, [[Oklahoma]], and soon dropped out.
===Dennis Kucinich===
A formerly-obscure congressman from [[Ohio]], [[Dennis Kucinich]] caught a lot of people's attention when he gave speeches on the [[House of Representatives|House]] floor vehemently denouncing the buildup to the Iraq War, and the [[PATRIOT Act]], while proposing the creation of a cabinet-level Department of Peace. A draft Kucinich for President campaign followed. With Dean and Clark capturing much of the anti-Iraq War vote and Kucinich considered very much a longshot, his campaign failed to take off. As a sidenote, Kucinich had voted [[pro-life]] on [[consistent life ethic]] grounds up to that point, but reversed his position and declared himself [[pro-choice]] at the time he entered the 2004 presidential primaries.
===Joe Lieberman===
Having been [[Al Gore]]'s running mate in 2000 and a "[[Chickenhawk|hawk]]" on the Iraq War, [[Joe Lieberman]] was a candidate in the 2004 primaries. His campaign went nowhere. Two years later a grassroots primary campaign defeated him in the Democratic primary for [[U.S. Senate]], and he narrowly kept his seat by running as an independent in the general election. In [[2008 U.S. Presidential Election|2008]] he endorsed and spoke at the Republican convention in support of [[John McCain]].
===John Kerry===
[[File:Kerry02.jpg|thumb|300px|Senator Kerry holding a rally in St. Louis, [[Missouri]].]]
{{cquote|Kerry's theatrics did not improve as the primary campaign wore on. The Massachusetts senator all but asked Republicans to ridicule him, with ad-libs such as, 'Who among us does not love NASCAR?' In an interview in the men's magazine GQ, he joined he reporter for a beer (alcoholic—no teetotaler he!) while confessing to a modicum of lust for Charlize Theron and Catherine Zeta-Jones. One day during the campaign he invited reporters to follow him around on a 'day off,' when his errands included buying a jockstrap.|||Frank Rich, ''The Greatest Story Ever Sold''}}
The ultimate challenger would be [[Massachusetts]] Senator John Kerry, who swept every state primary excepting Oklahoma (Clark), Vermont and D.C. (Dean), and North and [[South Carolina]] (Edwards). [[North Carolina]] Senator John Edwards resigned from his Senate seat to campaign full-time with John Kerry, expecting to win. Bad move.
The Kerry campaign attempted to emphasize an expanded national service plan, including a proposal for four years of prepaid college tuition for two years of (either military or non-military - the latter presumably involving an expanded Americorps or something like it) national service. Kerry did not, however, emphasize issues that rank and file Democrats wanted to hear at the time, namely seriously challenging Bush on his foreign policy and domestic homeland security agenda. He went on a whistle-stop tour infamous for many gaffes - such as purposely not stopping in states like [[Kansas]] which were considered Bush country, leaving Edwards to have to go back and do damage control, and Teresa Heinz Kerry's opening words "Hello, [[Nevada]]" at a stop in [[Arizona]]. Having been for the war before being against it, but not willing to cut and run from Iraq either, his campaign's only strong point was that he was indeed not George W. Bush, despite being a wealthy Yale graduate who was a member of Skull and Bones. Most of his policies were vague and too similar to the GOP's. He ended up as Bush-Light, which like the beer of the same (sounding) name, proves weak and disappointing.
Republicans [[Karl Rove|went negative]] against Kerry in the same way they had against Michael Dukakis in 1988. Like Dukakis, Kerry tried taking the high ground and responded too little, too late. In both cases, this strategy backfired.
====Frankenstein====
Kerry was [[Ad hominem|made fun of]] for his Botox injections, which made his face appear fake and hard, much like [[Frankenstein]]'s monster. Some GOP [[pundit]]s called him "Frankenberry" or "Frankenkerry", so as to equate him as a [[Communist|pinko commie bastard]] (or possibly [[Gay|the other pink]]).
====Flip-flopping====
Kerry famously stated that he was against the War in Iraq before he voted for it (or was it the other way around?). Additionally, in late 2003 Kerry voted in favor of an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; later he voted against an updated version of that same bill in protest of the no-bid contracts that had been added to it since his initial vote. This led to his famous "''I voted for it before I voted against it''" comment, an ill-advised albeit technically accurate statement that quickly became the subject of ridicule.<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kerry-admits-clumsy-words-on-iraq/ Kerry Admits Clumsy Words On Iraq], ''CBS News''</ref> Kerry had in fact voted for the Iraq War resolution, and as the war was already underway during the 2004 race, could not or would not bring himself to call for bringing the troops home.
Republicans jumped on this inconsistency as a weakness, still under the belief that someone who was horribly stubborn in his ways was preferable to someone who was willing to look at both sides of an issue. Many GOP supporters started carrying flip-flop sandals around and stapling them to signs to hammer in this point, much to the dismay of Jimmy Buffett fans.
====Swiftboat controversy====
{{main|Swiftboating}}
Kerry was targeted by a group called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Their claim was that Kerry was not the [[Vietnam War]] hero he claimed to be. Despite all [[evidence]] against the claims (as well as the [[ironic]]/[[Newspeak]] name for the group), the tactics were partly responsible for the eventual outcome of the election. [[Jerome Corsi]] ([[conspiracy theorist]], [[abiotic oil]] crank, and [[WorldNetDaily]] columnist) and John O'Neill (who had been recruited by [[Chuck Colson]] of the [[Nixon]] [[White House]] to be a pro-war foil against Kerry in the early 1970s, and later co-founded Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) rushed their book ''Unfit for Command'', published by [[Regnery Publishing]], to market to coincide with the campaign. The book focused in part on attacking Kerry for his [[anti-war]] activities after coming home from Vietnam.
The same group tried to associate [[Barack Obama]] with [[Bill Ayers|William Ayers]] in [[2008 U.S. Presidential Election|2008]] but was less than successful.
==Other parties==
[[Ralph Nader]], the candidate of the [[Green Party]] in 2000, chose to run as an independent in 2004. The [[Reform Party]] endorsed him rather than run their own candidate. They couldn't stomach [[Pat Buchanan]] and [[Ross Perot]] was not available. He was not particularly a factor in the 2004 race. The Green Party's own nominated candidate, David Cobb, also was not a factor.
The [[Libertarian Party]] had a nasty primary battle between [[Aaron Russo]] and Gary Nolan. The nomination wound up going to one of the also-rans, Michael Badnarik, after he caught the convention off-guard with a rousing speech shifting much support in his direction. Nolan, more eager at that point to stop Russo from getting the nomination, released his delegates to vote for Badnarik.
==Incumbency==
[[File:George-W-Bush.jpeg|thumb|100px|The winner, [[Republican]] incumbent George W. Bush]]
The [[Republican Party]] chose to run its incumbents, then-current President [[George W. Bush]] and Vice President [[Dick Cheney]]. Their campaign strategy was largely "Let us finish the job" they started when they failed to finish the job in Iraq and [[Afghanistan]], even though finding [[WMD]]s and [[Osama bin Laden]] was apparently very low on their list of priorities.
===Ketchup===
One grocery goods manufacturer released "W.", the <s>torture</s> "American Flavored" ketchup.<ref>[http://www.wketchup.com W Ketchup]</ref> While the "W" in the name was obviously a plug for George W. Bush, the manufacturers claimed that it was set up to support the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund after the death of [[Ronald Reagan]]. In actuality, the ketchup was created to [[Conservative correctness|offer an alternative]] to Heinz Ketchup, as John Kerry was married to a Heinz.
It is recommended that "W." is ideal to pour on your [[freedom fries]] but not your [[Anthony Weiner|hot dogs]].
==Results==
Unable to prove that Americans were incapable of making a bad decision twice, they re-elected Bush/Cheney. Stung again, some Democrats continued to keep their "Kerry/Edwards" bumper stickers on the back of their Volvos and Subarus until the popular [[Barack Obama|Obama]] "Hope" stickers were made available three years later. Others had a 1/20/09 bumper sticker, noting Bush's last day. For some reason 3 of [[Captain Planet]]'s rings were also on the bumper sticker.
There was very little change in the electoral vote from 2000 to 2004. New Hampshire flipped to the Democratic column in 2004, and Iowa and [[New Mexico]] flipped into the Republican column. Otherwise the geography looked the same as in 2000, cementing in place the "[[red state]]/[[blue state]]" map popularized after 2000 by some pundits.
==Conspiracy theories==
[[File:Robert Kennedy Jr. speech 2.jpg|thumb|right|300px|RFK Jr. addressing a crowd in [[Illinois]], 2007.]]
[[Moonbat]] conspiracy theorists claim that the Republicans rigged the 2004 election. [[Robert Kennedy, Jr.|Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.]] argued in favor of this conspiracy theory in Issue 1002 of Rolling Stone in 2006.<ref name="RFK">[https://web.archive.org/web/20060614224028/http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen Was the 2004 Election Stolen?] by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (15 June 2006) ''Rolling Stone'' no. 1002, pp. 46-114 (archived from June 14, 2006).</ref>
===Ohio===
Because Ohio was the state that determined the outcome of the presidential election, and because there were myriad election irregularities that occurred on election day in Ohio, conspiracy theorists focus most of their time on Ohio. Had Ohio flipped blue, Kerry would have won in a 271-266 vote, the inverse of what Bush got in [[2000 U.S. presidential election|2000]].
====Voter purges====
Voters who haven’t voted in the last two presidential elections are considered inactive, and thus are purged from the voter rolls. Kenneth Blackwell, who was the Republican Ohio Secretary of State during the 2004 election, ordered the purge of some 300,000 inactive voters. However, about 10% of the voters purged were active voters and were unfairly disenfranchised. Since a non-negligible number of active voters purged were from Cleveland, a pro-Kerry constituency, RFK Jr. believes that Ken Blackwell’s decision to purge these voters from the rolls was an arbitrary and deliberate attempt to rig the election.<ref name="RFK"/> But it wasn’t arbitrary or deliberate – it was codified in state law. The Ohio code says that inactive voters must be purged.<ref name="code">Ohio code, [http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/ebook/part1/eligibility_rules_os.html 3503.19]</ref> Blackwell’s decision to purge voters from the rolls followed state law.
====Provisional ballots====
If a voter believes that they are registered, but they don’t show up on the rolls when they go to vote, they can fill out a provisional ballot, and the vote will be counted if it is determined that the voter in question is a registered voter. One in every four provisional ballots cast in Ohio were found to be invalid. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. writes that Kerry voters were disproportionately more likely to cast provisional ballots “thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots,”<ref name="RFK"/> citing the Democratic Party’s report on Ohio as evidence for this claim. But the report in question does not say that Kerry voters were disproportionately more likely to have to fill out a provisional ballot. In fact, the report says that 4.2 percent of Kerry voters and that 4.1 percent of Bush voters were forced to cast a provisional ballot – a far cry from RFK Jr’s claim of an astounding partisan bent.<ref name="DNC">Democratic National Committee: Institute of Voting Rights (2005), [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/Ohio2004/OhioReportCover2Cover.pdf Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio]</ref>
====Racial discrimination====
Black voters were more likely to experience voting irregularities on election day than whites. They were more likely to face long lines and cast provisional ballots.<ref name="DNC"/> RFK Jr claims that Republicans deliberately suppressed the black vote, pointing to Republican politicians distributing insufficient amounts of voting machines to predominantly black inner-city precincts, while allocating sufficient amounts to white Republican suburban precincts. The low number of voting machines in inner-city precincts meant that black voters faced longer lines, and according to Kennedy, these long lines dissuaded enough black people from voting for Kerry, costing him the state of Ohio, and thus the election.<ref name="RFK"/> There are three responses to this claim:
*The Democrats’ report on the 2004 election in Ohio showed that voters who didn’t vote due to long lines would have split evenly between Kerry and Bush.<ref name="DNC"/>
*[[Hanlon's razor]] applies here: There’s no direct evidence that Republican politicians did this with malicious intent. Incompetence is a much more reasonable explanation, as Ohio politicians failed to adequately respond to new changes in election technology.<ref name="manjoo">Farhad Manjoo, Salon, [https://www.salon.com/2006/06/03/kennedy_39/#.Wb3NOsnM0yM Was the 2004 Election Stolen? No. – Critique of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Rolling Stone Article] June 3, 2006</ref>
*Farhad Manjoo of Salon writes, “[I]n Ohio, decisions about voting-machine allocation and precinct location are determined by local boards of elections, which are bipartisan; any Republican effort to allocate machines in a way meant to harm Democrats would have necessarily involved Democratic officials.”<ref name="manjoo"/>
===Exit polls===
The early exits pointed to Kerry winning the election, but Bush won the actual vote; therefore, the early exits were wrong in predicting the winner. Mitosfky International, the polling company responsible for the early exits during the 2004 election, said that the polling error occurred as a result of Kerry voters being more likely to fill out exit polls, leading to a pro-Kerry bias in the exits.<ref name="mitofsky">Edison Media Research; Mitofsky International (January 19, 2005), [http://www.electionmathematics.org/em-exitpolls/EvaluationJan192005.pdf Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004,] archived from the original (PDF) on June 14, 2007.</ref>
Nevertheless, this hasn't stopped conspiracy theorists from believing that the exit polls accurately predicted the winner.
====Exit polls are actually accurate====
Conspiracy theorists will claim that exit polls are accurate by [[cherry picking|cherry picking]] the instances in which exit polls accurately predicted the winner. RFK Jr. claims that the exit polls accurately predicted the 2004 Ukrainian election.<ref name="RFK"/> But exit polls have a bad track record in Europe.<ref name="manjoo"/> In addition, exit polls are notoriously unreliable, since anyone can participate in an exit poll, which can lead to a biased sample. This is what happened in 2004, according to the exit pollsters: Kerry voters were oversampled, leading to a pro-Kerry bias in the exits.<ref name="mitofsky"/>
====Kerry had an insurmountable lead in early exits====
RFK Jr, writing for Rolling Stone, claims that Kerry had an insurmountable lead in ten battleground states, according to early exits.<ref name="RFK"/> But Kerry's lead in those ten battleground states was within the margin of error. It was not an insurmountable lead.
==See also==
*[[2000 U.S. presidential election]]
*[[2008 U.S. presidential election]]
*[[2012 U.S. presidential election]]
*[[2016 U.S. presidential election]]
*[[2020 U.S. presidential election]]
==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}
{{POTUS04nav}}
[[Category:Conspiracy theories]]
[[Category:Ohio]]
[[Category:United States presidential elections]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election | [
"Conspiracy theories",
"Ohio",
"United States presidential elections"
] |
2005 United Kingdom general election | 220,514 | 2,693,377 | 2024-11-08T01:19:28 | KarmaPolice | false | null | {{ukpolitics}}
The '''2005 UK general election''' is mainly remembered for two reasons; it was the first time the [[Labour Party]] ([[Tony Blair|and leader]]) won a third consecutive election and the first election after the events of the [[War on Terror]] and the [[Iraq War|Invasion of Iraq]]. Due to the strongest showing by the [[Liberal Democrats]] since 1929 and the vagaries of '[[First past the post|First Past the Post]]'; it holds the record in which a majority government was formed on the lowest share of the popular vote. It was also vaguely-notable in that it was the first election since 1935 where one of the major party leaders followed a non-[[Christian]] religion<ref group=note>The [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] leader, Michael Howard being [[Jewish]].</ref>.
==Background==
The shape of the Second Blair Ministry was formed two months in with the events of [[9/11|September 11<sup>th</sup>]]<ref group=note>The term '9/11' isn't popular due to the fact in the British date system that refers to the 9th of November.</ref> which had the United Kingdom immediately aligning with the [[United States]]. However, political strains (both inside the government and among the public in general) rapidly began to show as domestic attempts to combat '[[Islamic extremism]]' became reminiscent of the failed attempts to quash '[[The Troubles]]' and the deepening impression/suspicion that Blair was in fact [[George W. Bush|President Bush's]] stooge<ref>[https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/george-w-bush-tony-blair-iraq-war Why the George W. Bush–Tony Blair Political Bromance Is Still a Mystery] ''Vanity Fair'', 8 March 2016</ref> ("Bush's poodle"<ref>[https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/ten-years-later-still-bushs-poodle-8392 Ten Years Later, Still Bush's Poodle: Why is Tony Blair still defending George W. Bush?] ''The National Interest'', 23 April 2013.</ref>). This came to a head over the [[Iraq War]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2750983.stm Blair risks everything on Iraq] ''BBC News'', 12 February 2003</ref>; causing the largest single political protest in at least a century<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2767761.stm Anti-war rally makes its mark] ''BBC News'' 19 February 2003</ref>, the largest 'backbench rebellion' against Blair<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862325.stm Blair wins war backing amid revolt] ''BBC News'', 19 March 2003</ref>, irreparable damage to his popularity and a gaping division within Labour which took a political generation to recover from.
However, Blair's political luck hadn't completely given out. To his right, he had the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservatives]] who'd failed to make traction with Iain Duncan Smith for the same reasons William Hague had failed before — lack of appeal and credibility as a possible Prime Minister. So after a quick deposition<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/oct/29/conservatives.uk IDS loses confidence vote] ''The Guardian'', 29 Oct 2003</ref> the [[John Major|Major]]-era Home Secretary Michael Howard was brought in as a stopgap who could at least sort out the latter issue. On the left he faced the Liberals who under Charles Kennedy had proven a bit of a 'damp squib'; while gaining a significant number of anti-war and/or anti-[[Third Way]] supporters they tended to be in the 'wrong' places and perhaps more seriously, only managed to get a single defection from Labour in the whole parliament.<ref>[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/paul-marsden-i-have-lost-confidence-in-the-labour-government-9258099.html Paul Marsden: ' I have lost confidence in the Labour Government'] ''The Independent'', 11 December 2001</ref> Lastly, the internal opposition was disjointed, led by the same old suspects who were [[Diane Abbott|mainly people]] [[Jeremy Corbyn|Blair didn't]] [[George Galloway|like anyway]].<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/27/labour.uk Abbott faces reselection fight over Iraq] ''The Guardian'', 27 March 2003</ref><ref>[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-stop-the-war-speech-video-15-years-on-iraq-2003-a8211816.html Jeremy Corbyn's Stop The War speech is 15 years old today] ''The Independent'', 15 February 2018</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/oct/23/labour.georgegalloway Galloway expelled from Labour] ''The Guardian'', 23 October 2003</ref>
Two other events of long-term importance happened in this period; firstly the first round of '[[EU]] enlargement' took place which due to an 'open-door' policy and strong economy led to the first waves of some 1.5m Eastern Europeans who would come to work and live in the UK — half of which on a long-term basis<ref group=note>Representing a 1.25% long-term rise in the total UK population starting 2004.</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/17/eastern-european-uk-migrants Young, self-reliant, educated: portrait of UK's eastern European migrants] ''The Observer'', 17 January 2010</ref>. Naturally, the likes of [[Nigel Farage]] almost wet themselves on realising that they could now could get people to hate [[European Union|Brussels]] by tapping into their [[xenophobia]] but in a totally-not-[[racist]] manner. On the financial front, [[Gordon Brown]] not only failed to notice [[Great Recession|the coming storm]] despite the memos but was splashing out on (very needed) new hospitals, schools and roads but paying for them on the never-never via a wheeze called 'private finance initiatives',<ref group=note>To be fair, a Conservative invention.</ref> which provided the stuff now but avoided either raising [[taxes]] or issuing debt to pay for it immediately, which would make some headline numbers [[Fiscal responsibility|'look bad']].<ref>[https://theconversation.com/why-private-finance-initiatives-are-so-addictive-and-yet-offer-such-poor-value-for-money-40421 Why private finance initiatives are so addictive – and yet offer such poor value for money] ''The Conversation'' 1 September 2015 </ref>
==Campaign==
The polls had shown the two main parties rather close to each other in the approach; what with the lingering fallout of Iraq and Blair's own waning personal popularity. This led to a much stronger Labour fightback; pointing to the (apparently) stable economy and improving public services, while reminding them of the 'failures' of the Major era — something which was helped by the fact the Conservative leader had been a senior member of said government. This was also the first election campaign where the Chancellor played a major role; the jury is out whether the electoral bonuses were greater than the losses due to the clear antipathy and rivalry between Brown and Blair by this point.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jan/09/uk.labour1 Blair-Brown feud out of control over new claims] ''The Observer'', 9 January 2005</ref><ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01614/2005-fighting_1614460i.jpg?imwidth=960 'Blair-Brown Rift' Conservative attack poster, 2005] ''The Telegraph'', 12 April 2010</ref>
The Conservatives played a rather traditional 'immigration, crime and defence' manifesto, perhaps hoping to capitalise on Howard's Home Office experience and 'tough' reputation in a time where swathes of 'Middle England' was having vague fears over immigrants, criminals and/or [[terrorist]]s (partly due to the ''[[Daily Mail]]''). However, it soon realised it had an image problem; that some people were supportive of Conservative policies until told they ''were'' Conservative policies, and that they were still viewed as the 'Nasty Party'.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/oct/08/uk.conservatives2002 'Nasty party' warning to Tories] ''The Guardian'', 8 October 2002</ref>
The Liberals continued in their progressive tradition, running 'to the left' of Labour on issues of the public services and taxation. However, while Kennedy was clearly a popular leader with the public, he was a somewhat uneven campaigner; partly due to the stresses of being a new father and representing a remote constituency but also due to his [[Alcohol|drink]] problem, which was made public the following year.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4582930.stm Kennedy admits battling alcohol] ''BBC News'', 5 January 2006</ref>
==Results==
[[File:House of Commons 2005 Election.svg|thumb|right|250px|Post-election makeup of the House of Commons.]]
While much of the media portrayed the results as showing that the increasingly haughty Blair had been 'cut down to size', this reduced size was still a 'working majority' of 69 for Labour; one which was more than adequate. What's more, the two main opposition parties were considered unlikely to be able to present a united front on most issues. Once again, the vagaries of the electoral system caused somewhat confusing results; such as Labour losing votes to Liberals in constituencies which resulted in a Conservative victory. A clear message that while nearly 1.2m 'left' Labour, only 400k had gone to the Conservatives.
In the general dissatisfaction, the minor parties flourished; [[UKIP]] increased their popular vote by 50% (becoming the 'fourth party' in numbers), the Green Party managed similar growth numbers and the fascists from the [[BNP]] managed to grow threefold (all still failing to gain a seat, however). The 'Anti-War Coalition' had morphed into the '[[Respect Party]]', which if nothing else allowed the House of Commons to enjoy George Galloway's company for a while longer<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4519575.stm Galloway's East End street fight] ''BBC News'', 6 May 2005</ref> and the British people to watch his continuing strange political adventure.
Part of the decline in Labour seats was beyond mere voting patterns; due to [[Scottish]] devolution, the number of Scottish MPs was reduced by 18% (13 seats) and the majority of the abolished seats had been held by Labour (which is also why the 'Changed Seats' totals don't add up; in [[2001 United Kingdom general election|2001]] there was 659 seats, not the 646 contested in 2005).
[[File:2005UKElectionNominalMap.svg|thumb|right|450px|Results map.]]
{| class="wikitable"
! Turnout: 61.4% (+2%) !! Seats !! Change !! Vote % !! Change
|-
| <u>'''Labour'''</u> || '''355 '''|| <span style="color:red">'''-58'''</span> || '''35.2''' || <span style="color:red">'''-5.5'''</span>
|-
| <u>'''Conservatives'''</u> || '''198''' || <span style="color:green">'''+32'''</span> || '''32.4''' || <span style="color:green">'''+0.7'''</span>
|-
| <u>'''Liberal Democrats'''</u> || '''62''' || <span style="color:green">'''+10'''</span> || '''22.0''' || <span style="color:green">'''+3.7'''</span>
|-
| <u>'''Other'''</u> || '''31''' || '''+3''' || '''10.4''' || '''+1.0'''
|}
[[File:2005 UK General Election Constituencies.svg|thumb|left|225px|Map showing constituencies as equal area to better indicate the number of seats.]]
{{clear}}
==External links==
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/default.stm BBC's 'Election 2005' website], still (mainly) functional.
== Notes ==
{{reflist|group=note}}
==References==
{{reflist|3|80%}}
[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:British politics]]
[[Category:UK general elections]] | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/2005_United_Kingdom_general_election | [
"Elections",
"British politics",
"UK general elections"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.