Main Page/Archive index/107

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

US no longer willing to deal with Nuclear Iran

Retired Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the Marine Corps demonstrates that the US under Obama is no longer willing to deal with Iran militarily. [2]

Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism

Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism

A supporter of the Question evolution! campaign writes: "Feeble goal setting is fitting for passive and apathetic evolutionists, but not for Bible believing Christians. In 2012, our group desires to soar like eagles and make evolutionary dogma our prey."[1]

(photo obtained from Flickr, Title: Lock&Dam14-Bald Eagle & Fish, Flicker username: LAShibes, see: license agreement)
Also, in case anyone missed it...Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism EricAlstrom 17:47, 27 December 2011 (EST)
Should there be an event to bring media attention? I think that at this stage, media coverage would be very helpful in putting the campaign into peoples heads. Perhaps a fundraiser? RedGoliath 21:09, 4 January 2012 (GMT)

Archive

This page is now very long. Request it be archived.JonM 20:13, 27 December 2011 (EST)

Done.Conservative 21:58, 27 December 2011 (EST)

Europe

The U.S. has an enormously greater debt than the European one. In addition, the cultural unity of the United States isn't greater than the European one. The crisis is global, the U.S. has a greater percentage of poor people than the European countries. Why do you attack Europe? It makes no sense! --Kierkegaard 13:35, 28 December 2011 (EST)

Odd isn't it. By any sense of logic, Europe should be admired by conservatives due to the majority of member states electing conservative governments while the US has a progressive one. (Of course, it's well documented that the European right is far more left than the US left and many issues considered important by American conservatives (the three Gs: God, Guns and Gay Marriage) are met with very different responses by the European right). Nonetheless, we mustn't forget that even if the next recession derives from Europe, the previous one originated purely in the US. HumanGeographer 12:26, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Cecil B DeMille

Is long dead and died long after the age of 13. How did they do anything for the question evolution campaign? How does this have anything to do with him? Ayzmo :) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (EST)

If you would have read the linked article, you would have read, that it was "Cecil B. DeMille of biblical creation belief". The boy was just likened to Cecil B. DeMille.--VPropp 16:07, 28 December 2011 (EST)

Taking apart Gallup's "most admired" poll.

"None" beat Obama, but Obama beat George Bush. And Bill Clinton beat Billy Graham, the Pope and Newt Gingrich. Over on the women's side, Hillary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama beat Sarah Palin and Thatcher. Seems like conservatives aren't very admired in their own right, and are less admired than liberals. ScottDG 09:54, 29 December 2011 (EST)

Let's see how admired Obama is when a recession hits America in 2012. [3][4] Europe is looking mighty shaky and it could trigger a worldwide recession/depression. "Riding high in April, shot down in May." - Sinatra.  :) Conservative 14:35, 29 December 2011 (EST)
That does not address the points I brought up; the poll is not about the future, it's about this past year, when, even with a poor economy, Obama was more admired by the American people than were Newt Gingrich of the Gingrich Administration, the Pope, GWB and Billy Graham. Nor does it address the poor standing of conservatives on the female side. ScottDG 14:41, 29 December 2011 (EST)
Obama has put a piano on the back of the American economy with his enormous spending and the debt he created. America is heading into an economic storm weakened due to Obama. If some Americans fail to realize this due to their ignorance of economics and their short sightedness, I think a lot of them will come around once the consequences/effects are felt. Jimmy Carter 2.0. that is going to be Obama. Carter's popularity plunged when the economy took a hit. Conservative 14:50, 29 December 2011 (EST)
"Obama has put a piano on the back of the American economy with his enormous spending and the debt he created..." And yet he is still more admired than any conservative; and yet conservative women are less admired than Hilary Clinton, Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey. ScottDG 14:53, 29 December 2011 (EST)

Political history and economic history (Jimmy Carter) indicates that Obama's support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Many of his "friends/admirers" will be fair weather fans if a recession/depression hits in 2012 and it looks like it will (Europe triggering a recession, etc. etc.). The blame Bush excuse is not going to work in 2012 because it will be very far into Obama's presidency by then.Conservative 14:57, 29 December 2011 (EST)

I'm not making any claims about a future election. I'm just pointing out that conservative figures don't seem to resonate as well with the American people as do their opponents. They are, at least as far as this poll shows, less admired by the regular folk than are liberals. ScottDG 14:59, 29 December 2011 (EST)

Recent European history teaches us that a lot of American liberals are swine who like to feed off the government trough and when harder economic times trigger austerity measures they will squeal like stuck pigs. If you think things are going to be any different in America, then I think you are fooling yourself. Conservative 15:09, 29 December 2011 (EST)

Barring some economic miracle like a new source of energy being discovered, I think the USS Obama is heading for some economic rocks. I see underlying weakness in too many places in the world's economy. There is a flock of black swans that is on the horizon of the world economy and I think one of them will probably trigger an American recession/depression in 2012. Conservative 15:18, 29 December 2011 (EST)

You still haven't answered the question I'm trying to ask; why don't any conservatives come out on top of the Obamas, Hilary Clinton, or Oprah Winfrey? Why are Newt Gingrich and the Pope and Billy Graham less admired than Obama or Bill Clinton? Why are conservatives not topping the list of the most admired people in America? ScottDG 17:00, 29 December 2011 (EST)

Scott, you should know that most people do not admire efficient and intelligent people but love funny fashion 'cool' clowns --PhilipN 17:04, 29 December 2011 (EST)
You think so little of your co-citizens/the American people. That's sad, considering conservatism is at its heart meant to be a populist movement. ScottDG 17:08, 29 December 2011 (EST)
Scott, it is easy to be popular with some people when you give out supposed freebies on credit but the repo/austerity man is coming. There is no such thing as a free lunch in economics. Let's see how popular Obama is when he turns off the spigot of government largess and implements austerity measures. The European leaders' experience strongly suggests that Obama will lose a lot of popularity. I think there are plenty of good reasons why this will happen in 2012 and you haven't given me any reasons why it will not. Conservative 21:29, 29 December 2011 (EST)
One reason that more people admired Obama than any single conservative is probably that there are more conservatives worth admiring, so the votes get spread around more. An ounce of butter in a cube stands higher than two ounces spread on toast, but there still isn't as much of it. --ArtWellesley 21:34, 29 December 2011 (EST)
I haven't "given any reasons why it will not" because what might or might not happen in 2012 is irrelevant to a 2011 poll. More to the point, you haven't told me a good reason why conservative touchstones like Billy Graham, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin polled lower among a population that is supposed to be overwhelmingly conservative than liberal figures, and alse lower than "nobody." I'd love to hear your insights--or anybody's--on that question. ScottDG 21:39, 29 December 2011 (EST)
I'll say what I said a different way. If five people admire Obama and two people each admire Newt Gingrich, Billy Graham and Sarah Palin, do more people admire conservatives or liberals? --ArtWellesley 23:28, 29 December 2011 (EST)
Scott, who said the American population is overwhelmingly conservative? I certainly did not. Last time I checked, Obama did not appear to be a conservative when he ran in 2008. But liberals and moderates will learn to appreciate conservatism when the government largess spigot is turned down. Then all liberals will have to offer the public economically is overpriced services and taxes because more limited government is coming due to financial necessity (unless of course, you can show me that the trillions of government debt is going to be forgiven). Conservative 21:54, 29 December 2011 (EST)
It would be more interesting to see a state by state comparison. See here for comparisons in many other aspects, by God's grace. Daniel1212 08:13, 30 December 2011 (EST)
@ ScottDG I think user: conservative gave you an adequate answer. Liberals are more popular because they don't focus on long-term problem fixing, which comes with a lot of unpopular cutbacks. You can also add the lamestream media and its liberal coverage to the list of reasons. Those are some valid suggestions. I suggest, that if you want to know the reasons soo bad, you go out in the streets and ask a couple of hundred people why they would prefer Obama over Gingrich. Unless you give some constructive suggestions how to fix the popularity problem, I suggest you stop the chitter chatter. --VPropp 11:18, 30 December 2011 (EST)

==Torah Declaration on homosexuality is a public statement signed by 159 Rabbis, Community Leaders, and Mental Rm troll message by User:Daniel1212, who commented on 08:00, 30 December 2011 (EST)

FNC story

"Americans love Fox News, another solid year of ratings for FNC". Not to be too nitpicky, but this sentence needs to be rewritten. It should be "Americans love Fox News; the network enjoyed another year of solid ratings" or something along those lines. --GFitz 11:54, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Good suggestion, and I just improved it.--Andy Schlafly 23:58, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Election Odds Update

Mitt Romney has emerged as the undisputed GOP favourite, with Gingrich now seen as no more likely than Ron Paul to be the winner of this year's election. The contest between the parties is seen as too close to call. -- Ferret Nice old chat 17:09, 31 December 2011 (EST)

Japan & Population Drop

Is population decrease really a bad thing? I mean, I really have no idea how many human the Earth can support but there must be a limit somewhere, we cannot just keep multiplying, we have to take care of this limit sometime. --PhilipN 23:38, 1 January 2012 (EST)

That's a myth often promoted in public schools. The entire world's population would comfortably fit within the State of California, and food production is far greater than human needs. Obesity is a much bigger problem than hunger.--Andy Schlafly 23:53, 1 January 2012 (EST)
I agree about space and food (even if repartition is not optimum). I was more talking about other resources: Oil, Coal, Uranium, Nickel, Lithium, etc... All those resources won't be available forever if we keep using them as we do today. And this is even worse if you consider that developing countries are going to use more and more of them. --PhilipN 23:58, 1 January 2012 (EST)
But innovation increases with more people also, as it did for food production.--Andy Schlafly 23:59, 1 January 2012 (EST)
You are an optimist man Andy, let's hope that history will give you reason..--PhilipN 00:05, 2 January 2012 (EST)
History already has proven this. When I was growing up there were widespread predictions that oil would run out, but there is no sign of that. In fact, there is no sign of running out of anything essential or even helpful. Meanwhile, innovation (to the extent governments do not interfere with it) has produced remarkable improvements in the standard of living, from lighting to the delivery of information to transportation.--Andy Schlafly 00:30, 2 January 2012 (EST)
In my conception of things, there is a limited amount of oil (I take oil as an example, I could have taken anything). If we use it faster than it is formed (which is very probable in regard of the oil formation length), we will inevitably arrive to the end, maybe tomorrow, maybe in 500 years but we will get there. History give us some examples of success (as you said) but also some examples of failure (the example of Easter Island and the limited resource of wood is pretty good). --PhilipN 00:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)

I have to agree with Mr Schlafly on this one - for every person not born in Japan, that is one missed chance for a great scientist or engineer who could have solved these problems. As Sheik Yamani said "The stone age did not end for lack of stones." EricAlstrom 10:58, 2 January 2012 (EST)

There is a limit to the amount of people who can live adequately on a given area (i.e. 3 billion people living in California would be too much). We can always discuss what this limit is, but interestingly enough, God seems to have made things in such a way that when a society becomes more industrialized and comfortable (as in Japan) most people have between 1 and 3 children. --Intemporus 13:33, 2 January 2012 (EST)

It's an environmentalist shibboleth that "we" can only support a particular finite number of people. That notion justifies refusing to use oil reserves and to curb offshore drilling. The Limits to Growth crowd got kicked in the pants when a famous advocate had to pay off a bet about scarcity a couple decades back, but the media seem to have forgotten.
By the way, that's one percent Christians in Japan. --Ed Poor Talk 14:30, 2 January 2012 (EST)
Hi Ed. Are you saying that the Earth can support an infinite number of people. With all due respect, that's a logical fallacy. DO you truly believe that the Earth can support 1,000 billion people ? Or that Hawaii can support 1,000 billion people ? If your answer is 'no', you have to admit that there is a limit somewhere. I use the same reasoning for oil, you have to admit that there is a limit somewhere, it can't be infinite in a closed system (on Earth), it's a mathematical impossibility.--PhilipN 15:42, 2 January 2012 (EST)
I agree with you Philip. And let's not forget the shortage of drinking water.--Intemporus 16:03, 2 January 2012 (EST)
Ed, the fact that timing was wrong or that something hasn't happened as predicted does not mean the prediction itself was wrong. Paul predicted the endtimes within his lifetime yet ~2.3 billion Christians are still expectantly waiting(actually I'd say it is probably less than half believe in that bit.) The fact is that some resources are finite and some resources are not. We have limited trees(though the capacity to renew them) and if we cut them down faster than we plant new ones and allow them to grow we will eventually run out. The problem is that the rate of renewal of some resources is much slower than the rate at which we expend them. Ayzmo :) 18:42, 2 January 2012 (EST)

The most accurate survey says that 6% of Japan are Christians. [5] As to the other points above, there are no known limits on human innovation. Even in the implausible circumstance that oil and natural potable water were to become very scarce, human innovation would discover or develop satisfactory substitutes (such as alternative energy or desalination). But human innovation is proportional to population - it takes lots of people before another Thomas Edison is likely to appear.--Andy Schlafly 19:41, 2 January 2012 (EST)

Christianity is on the upswing in Japan. :) Another reason why global Christianity is increasing and global atheism is declining. :) Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good! :) Conservative 20:22, 2 January 2012 (EST)
I was just thinking, with Japan/America having a lot of communication between them, the upswing of Christianity in Asia and the increasing economic problems of Japan, it makes sense that Christianity would be on the upswing in Japan. I think the increasing economic pressure on Western countries will probably be a causal factor for secularism/atheism decreasing in Western Counties. And of course, the growing Question evolution! campaign! "For thine is the kingdom,: The power, and the glory,: For ever and ever. Amen!" - The Bible Conservative 20:30, 2 January 2012 (EST)
Andy, I agree that there is no known limit but:
  • We don't know if there is a limit
  • We don't know if innovation will come in time

Look at those 2 different scenarios:

  • We limit our resource consumption whereas there is actually no resource limit and no innovation limit -> Not a big deal
  • We don't limit our resource consumption and there is a resource limit and innovation does not come in time -> Huge mistake

--PhilipN 21:52, 2 January 2012 (EST)

Philip, I respectfully suggest that it is a big deal when resource production is limited, because much of the world suffers and many impoverished people die from a lack of energy.--Andy Schlafly 22:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)
Impoverished people do not die from a lack of energy production. Energy production is far greater than what humanity needs. Impoverished people die from a lack of energy repartition.--PhilipN 22:22, 2 January 2012 (EST)
I am guessing that mindset/culture and incentives is more important to innovation than population. If I am not mistaken, the United States still creates more innovation than China which has a far bigger population. Creative thinking skills can be taught though and rewards can be instituted. Also, I think divine inspiration can enter in. For example, I remember taking a course where the instructor gave the class a problem to solve and in frustration I said (silently or out loud) while walking across campus, "God give me the answer". In a few seconds, I had an elegant solution to the problem and only one student solved the problem as efficiently as the solution I gave the instructor. Lastly, like many things, I think the law of diminishing return applies to creativity. Eventually, you have to implement creative ideas and stop thinking of new ideas. Conservative 23:16, 2 January 2012 (EST)
Also in medieval times the muslimic world made more innovations than Europe which had more population, but then later their population grows and they invent nothing since hundreds of years, but Europe invents much. Lots of poor hungry people are too busy finding food to make new things. China is only peasants who copy European and American ideas. --JimmyK 23:25, 2 January 2012 (EST)
Jimmy, I spoke to someone from Bangladesh which is a very poor country and he said Bangladesh people could be a lot more prosperous if they worked harder. I also spoke to someone from Mali which is the poorest country in Africa and he told me everyone told him going to college was a waste of time even though the government makes it easy to go to college. They told him there would be no jobs when he got out of college. Well he now has an MBA and he has a nice job in Mali. I think in many cases even in hard circumstances, people can push themselves to do more plus I also believe God provides. Conservative 23:35, 2 January 2012 (EST)
Regardless of what your Bangladeshi source claims, I think you'll find that workers in developing countries already work much longer, harder hours than people in developed nations, often for little reward. Sweatshop workers would be the obvious example, and this is bearing in mind that sweatshop jobs tend to be the most desirable, best paying jobs available in those regions (Nike sweatshops in Vietnam pay double the national average wage). Any hard worker can prosper with the right combination of luck, effort, acumen etc. but sadly, not every worker who tries hard will prosper. As for birthrates, they are typically a reflection of a developed country. Better educated, wealthier and more stable households tend to produce fewer children. Maninahat 20:06, 05 January 2012 (EST)

News Article blurb inaccurate.

The science writer actually said that he's sure "the Earth is the only planet in the galaxy, at least, that can harbor intelligent life."(emphasis added) He says nothing about the universe beyond that. The most pessimistic interpretations of the Drake Equation have often given such results. Of course there are millions of galaxies so who knows? Ayzmo :) 23:53, 2 January 2012 (EST)

Bible believers know there are no ETs/little green men.[6] And there is plenty of evidence for the Bible. Pretty soon, with the upcoming budget cuts, American Bible believers will longer have to pay for liberal fantasies as NASA's budget for this fantasy will be cut. Conservative 00:42, 3 January 2012 (EST)
While I have no idea the extent of either world-view I do know that there are many bible believers who hold a very different point of view including very conservative Christians like Reverend José Gabriel Funes, head of the Vatican Observatory and a scientific adviser to the Pope. Just an aside, there is also contention about it on our own page. You cannot claim a monopoly on deciding belief. Ayzmo :) 08:15, 3 January 2012 (EST)

A lot of people don't distinguish between various concepts precisely. Let's not read too much into it, when they make minor verbal errors. You and I know that a galaxy is not the same (to an astronomer) as the universe. Be a little more charitable, okay? --Ed Poor Talk 11:32, 3 January 2012 (EST)

Fair enough. My intent was just to make the headline correct as to the article. Ayzmo :) 16:18, 3 January 2012 (EST)

No doubt the liberal Reverend José Gabriel Funes from the Vatican observatory is an evolutionist who cannot answer the 15 questions for evolutionists. Write him an email. I guaranteed you he will be not be able to answer them. Conservative 00:18, 4 January 2012 (EST)

So, Santorum won...

This is disastrous for the GOP right? I mean, Romney's no good, but people outside the GOP aren't going to vote for Santorum, and you need Independents to win. KrisGriffin 00:22, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Independents have a choice, stick with the miserable failure or vote the GOP candidate in. IA doesn't matter much in the scheme of things. --Jpatt 00:28, 4 January 2012 (EST)
Right, the general election will be a vote for or against the incumbent. Santorum's surprisingly strong showing is a victory for social conservatism, and the media are furious about that.--Andy Schlafly 00:33, 4 January 2012 (EST)
Right, he'll draw in social conservatives, but he won't draw in moderates or independents, which the GOP needs to pick up in order to win, since the Democratic Party is larger than the Republican Party in terms of registered voters. KrisGriffin 00:43, 4 January 2012 (EST)
Santorum moves everything to the right. Our Presidential Election 2012 does not rank him in the top 5, but Santorum's success in Iowa will cause all the campaigns -- even Obama's -- to move in the conservative direction.--Andy Schlafly 00:55, 4 January 2012 (EST)
I know I'm in danger of breaking 90/10, but why would he force the election towards the right? KrisGriffin 00:57, 4 January 2012 (EST)

UPDATE: According to the source provided and to according to THIS Fox News article, Romney beat Santorum with an ever so slight margin of 8 votes. Still a very impressive showing for Rick Santorum though. --VPropp 07:57, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for the update. Note that Santorum won the most number of delegates, beating Romney 8 to 7.--Andy Schlafly 08:15, 4 January 2012 (EST)
Sorry I missed that. I'm not too familiar with the American voting system. Do we know how much money Romney spent in Iowa? I'v read that Santorum spent only around 30'000$ which means he spent about a dollar per vote. Santorums moral victory is certainly a good thing since, unlike Romney he's not afraid to talk about conservative issues.--VPropp 09:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Michelle Bachmann ends her campaign

I just read in this article from the BBC that Michelle Bachmann has decided to bow out of the race. [7] --Dfrischknecht 12:10, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Santorum won 8 delegates...... think again

The article linked which claims Santorum won 8 delegates made a typo. Evidence: 8 is more than any other delegate, and hence Santorum would have won the caucus, yet the site places the tick next to Romney. Also, it would have placed Santorum at the top, which it didn't. And lastly: Iowa gets 28 delegates, but 3 are super-delegates, so the caucus only chooses 25. But... if Santorum had won 8 delegates, then the total that page gives would add up to 26, more than 25. It's more likely than it is supposed to say 7, which adds up to 25, and is supported by logic. - JamesCA 21:43, 4 January 2012 (EST)

You may be right. If the headline about this is now doubtful, then I'll change or remove it.--Andy Schlafly 22:15, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Tim Tebow

While it is true that a quarterback is the moral leader of a team, and contributes to a lot of what that team does, it doesn't mean Tebow is an amazing quarterback just because he was the starter for the winning Broncos. He has a mediocre QB rating of 72% and only completed passing attempts about 45% of the time. There are plenty of other stellar Broncos players who scored touchdowns and helped the Broncos win, as well as held back against opposing offenses. There's still plenty of exaggeration in calling him the worst, but he didn't exactly lead his team to a winning season. DynaboyJ 23:51, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Tebow led one of the worst teams in the NFL to the playoffs. Sure, other QBs have higher ratings, but they also have better linemen and wide receivers.--Andy Schlafly 00:03, 5 January 2012 (EST)
One of the worst teams in the NFL? You've got to be kidding me. The Broncos are mediocre, and Tebow helped them over-achieve into the playoffs against an easy schedule. Tebow didn't beat a single team with a winning record and the combined record of all the teams he beat were 48-64. They won a few games that could have gone either way, it doesn't make Tebow an amazing quaterback, just a mediocre one on a mediocre team. KrisGriffin 20:10, 5 January 2012 (EST)
But Kris, wouldn't you say that his leadership and effort have been admirable? He is getting the absolute most out of what he has. He plays his heart out every game. We don't need to only look up to the most skilled and successful players.KingHanksley 19:47, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Post Iowa election odds update

According to bookmakers, the biggest winner from the Iowa Caucus was not Mitt Romney, who has fallen away a little in the odds. Instead the movers were Rick Santorum who has gone from a 1.7% chance to a 4.1% chance, and Barack Obama, who has gone from a 47.5% chance to a 50.5% chance. Michele Bachmann has left the race and Joe Biden is now not listed as a possible winner. I've included independent Gary Johnson for the first time. 2012 Election Odds -- Ferret Nice old chat 03:59, 5 January 2012 (EST)

Saints Lions

The final score was 45-28, not 52-26. --JustinD 13:42, 8 January 2012 (EST)

News typo?

Should "German factory orders drop in the most in nearly 3 years" be instead "German factory orders drop the most in nearly 3 years"? Adambro 16:49, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Great catch. I fixed it based on your comment.--Andy Schlafly 17:21, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Awesome Tebow Picture

Hello Everyone! I found this awesome Tebow picture and I'd thought I'd share. [8] I don't have picture adding rights, but I thought it might be a nice addition to either the Tebow article or perhaps the mainpage considering Tebow's most recent win. :)

Tim Tebow Numbers

He wore different verses every game. He was also a fan of Phil 4:13. In the UF loss at the National Championship he wore John 16:33 which many people found quite presumptuous. 3:16 is his favorite verse though, I'll give you that. Ayzmo :) 08:18, 9 January 2012 (EST)

The problem I see with this headline is that it appears to be a version of the sharpshooter fallacy. I do agree that the odds that the yardage total matches exactly a given number, like 316, are somewhat small (not 10,000:1 against, but I would estimate 500:1 against). However, the probability that the yardage total will be some number that has a meaning attached to it (like 413, as Ayzmo pointed out), is much higher. GregG 11:27, 9 January 2012 (EST)
To be frank, doesn't the Lord have better things to do? --QPR 11:38, 9 January 2012 (EST)
I know that, as a non-American, I am bound to be baffled by any attention given to this odd sport. But, still, we've surely heard enough about this guy. This site is in danger of becoming Tebowpedia. --Jdixon 11:43, 9 January 2012 (EST)
I would agree. I don`t follow football, but I know having 7 Tim Tebow stories in the section `things that the MSM isn`t fully covering` is a little bit silly. The MSM already gives Tim Tebow more coverage than he deserves while ignoring the world wide persecution of Christians. Why isn`t Conservapedia doing the opposite. --PeterNant 12:24, 9 January 2012 (EST)
Some articles on Tebow are necessary, due to him being in the media spotlight at the moment. People may be more inclined to read news on him. As for Christian persecution, viewers can find it elsewhere on the site as they please, but, as far as I'm concerned, nothing newsworthy has popped up related to Christian persecution in the last week or so that hasn't already been mentioned on the MSM. --RedGoliath 18:21, 9 January 2012 (GMT)
I disagree. CNN failed to run the Tim Tebow story Sunday night when I checked its website's front page. Instead, CNN gave priority to liberal claptrap, as it often does.--Andy Schlafly 14:02, 9 January 2012 (EST)
I just looked at the CNN site and they do have a story on him in the featured section. Also, when I search his name in news sites, I come up with a lot more stories than on other quarter backs. I guess a better question to ask is how many other quarter backs have had the same sort of coverage as Tebow. I may be biased because I don`t follow football, but I don`t remember any.--PeterNant 14:32, 9 January 2012 (EST)
That goes without saying. Maybe merge the Tim Tebow news articles if they come up soon after each other? Should save some room. --RedGoliath 19:07, 9 January 2012 (GMT)
CNN now (not when I checked last night about an hour after the game) does have a reference to Tim Tebow buried as the last link under "U.S.", with a snotty title "Tim Tebow will keep us talking." If that isn't bias, then what do you think would be?--Andy Schlafly 15:30, 9 January 2012 (EST)
"Tim Tebow will keep us talking". How is that biased? Also, doesn't that imply that they will continue doing news stories on Tebow? In which case, they aren't trying to shy away from him like so much of the MSM does. --RedGoliath 20:37, 9 January 2012 (GMT)
This Tim Tebow news is getting insane. What's so great about coincidences in various football stats, anyway? There are plenty of categories Conservapedia could be writing about, but instead the main page counts one Tim Tebow anecdote as three different stories. I'm tired of hearing about football stars. DynaboyJ 16:57, 9 January 2012 (EST)
If Tim Tebow did not play football, would you be fine with discussing the same issues?--Andy Schlafly 17:16, 9 January 2012 (EST)
What issues do you mean; football or other news happenings? DynaboyJ 17:19, 9 January 2012 (EST)
In response to RedGoliath above, you didn't answer my question. I'll ask it one more time: "If that isn't bias, then what do you think would be?"--Andy Schlafly 17:59, 9 January 2012 (EST)
A headline like "Why does anyone care about Tebow?" or "Tebow is overrated" would be biased. Of course, those would be extreme examples, and they could do it more subtly. Another obviously bias would be if they didn't mention it at all! Maybe you are seeing something that I'm not? I haven't seen the website yet. However, by itself, the headline "Tim Tebow will keep us talking" shows no real bias. It seems completely neutral, if this is the full content. Again, I may be missing something, and I trust your judgement on this because you have seen the site. --RedGoliath 23:18, 9 January 2012
Tebow! Tebow! Tebow! I think it's great we had back to back stories on Tebow. I wouldn't mind if we made the whole front page be 100% Tebow for a day in commemoration of the Broncos glorious win over the Steelers led by the Christian quarterback Tim Tebow!  :) Conservative 18:07, 9 January 2012 (EST)
Never. DynaboyJ 02:00, 10 January 2012 (EST)
A fan of Tebow, not a fan of the numerology. I wish that we had more about how his faith contributes to his character (even atheists and non-Christians have admitted that they admire him) and less about silly mystical coincidences (along with some very inaccurate oddsmaking). Anyone want to take a shot at a Tebow essay? As a sports fan, I have to say Tebow is more overcovered than undercovered. Much more than other players of similar accomplishment. But NOT ENOUGH ATTENTION is given to the man's actual background and the role that his faith plays in his personal behavior (which is outstanding). The MSM is really into talking about how people react to Tebow, but what they're not talking about is Tebow's faith itself.KingHanksley 19:42, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Liberal university sued

Looks like the University of Iowa law school is finally getting its comeuppance for discriminating against conservatives. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/us/sidebar-lawsuit-against-iowa-law-school-pits-activism-against-diversity.html?_r=1&hp LeRoyB 12:44, 9 January 2012 (EST)

Todd Palin

The spouse of a failed half-term politician is hardly the kind of big-time endorsement that is going to carry a lot of weight. Maybe if his wife had managed to keep the job for longer than two years, but really, what has Todd Palin himself ever done that his opinion should carry any weight? ScottDG 21:52, 9 January 2012 (EST)

You make your point well. But the political significance of Todd's endorsement is that it foreshadows and creates suspense about Sarah's endorsement, which will follow and negate Mitt's win in NH.--Andy Schlafly 22:48, 9 January 2012 (EST)
Oh, Sarah. She was a Governor for a while, but quit, right? And was part of a losing presidential ticket? Can't really see why her opinion carries any political weight. Sorry. ScottDG 22:58, 9 January 2012 (EST)
Anybody who thinks that Sarah Palin's opinion carries no weight in this country is talking to the wrong people. She is a clear thinker and an icon for the silent majority in the country, the people who are tired of their values being eroded and compromised in the name of expediency. Sarah doesn't take any garbage from anyone, and is therefore the biggest threat to the MSM today. Is it any wonder her name has been dragged through the mud? TonyPark 23:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)
If Sarah Palin represents the silent majority, why does poll after poll show a majority of Americans disapprove of her and that an even larger majority would never vote for her? Remember that a societies values change, less than 50 years ago gay people were thrown in jail under sodomy laws, today states are starting too accept gay marriage. It is inevitable that there will be some moral laggards. Palin is just a reality star like Paris Hilton that appeals to the socially conservative right wing, she has no substance. StewieG 12:58, 10 January 2012 (EST)
Sarah Palin makes the rest of us conservatives look bad in my opinion. Jesus preached about humility, she goes on a constitution branded bus tour and titles her movie undefeated. I think it sets a bad precedent for our children. Some how you can fail at everything and still be undefeated, sounds like liberal wellfare state talk, "its ok you lost, but you get a ribbon for trying". --KenN 20:38, 10 January 2012 (EST)
I'd totally forgotten about her movie; of course, it was only in the theater for a few days, so that's not surprising. Another sign that her endorsement is irrelevant to the 2012 campaign. ScottDG 20:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)
I think Sarah Palin will endorse soon, and it will be interesting to observe how much influence her endorsement has.--Andy Schlafly 21:01, 10 January 2012 (EST)
Whatever people may think about her accomplishments, Sarah Palin does have influence. We have yet to see just how much influence. A year ago I'd wager it was more, as our fickle public seems to have lost some of its enthusiasm, as they are wont to do. I doubt it would be enough to suddenly bump Gingrich or anyone into the lead, even just in South Carolina, but it would certainly be some sort of a boon. Todd, on the other hand... DaveN 11:12, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Endorsement Predictions

http://conservapedia.com/Endorsements_2012 Who made these predictions? so far, of the 10 of them, 6 have proven false and only 1 proven right (the other three remain to be seen, but they don't seem to likely to me). I think it reflects poorly on Conservapedia - if we want to be taken seriously as a political website, we need to have some better analysis and predictions.

The mainstream media has a far worse rate of prediction, especially among so-called "liberal pundits." [1] Conservapedia represents a form of organization and decision making known as the "Best of the Public." Basically, by eliminating bias, allowing everyone to debate and demanding rigorous evidence of claims, a large enough group of citizens can make intelligent decisions more consistently than so-called "experts." It is actually a fairly common sense arrangement, seemingly obvious, but the concept was actually developed here on Conservapedia. TonyPark 22:57, 9 January 2012 (EST)
Well stated, Tony. In response to the unsigned comment above, I don't see 6 predictions "prove false." Moreover, predicting anything about the future is a success, and the predictions have already proven 1 right as you say. I expect the prediction about Sarah Palin endorsing Newt will come true later this week, exactly as predicted some time ago here in Endorsements 2012.--Andy Schlafly 23:03, 9 January 2012 (EST)
I have to agree with the unsigned post above, while it's a bit early to say too much, the record so far isn't great. So far you were right about the timing of McCain's endorsement, but wrong about the much more significant fact of who he endorses. You were wrong about the timing of Huckabee, and have yet to see who he endorses, likewise Herman Cain. You were wrong about Santorum, and if he endorses Romney at all it will be only after his nomination is a fait accompli. You were wrong about the Right to Life committee's timing, and again we have yet to see who they'll eventually endorse. Again, wrong about the timing of Trump, though your post-facto analysis seems correct. We'll see in the next week or so about your predictions for Palin and Graham. You were right about Christie, but he endorsed Romney before your predictions article was written. If had previously predicted this elsewhere on the site it's a fair victory though, but that's only one. If people are going to endorse Gingrich they better hurry up. If he doesn't have a very impressive showing in South Carolina he's probably dead in the water, as he's done quite poorly so far. Like it or not, Romney is looking like he is going to be the nominee, at which point he'll wrap up the lion's share of further endorsements.
As for the issue of pundits' predictions, of course they're not always right either. Though Tony links to an article which lists only ones they missed 6 years ago, so it obviously isn't representative. Admittedly, trying to select the timing of any endorsement is going to be particularly tricky, so you're playing a tough game there, and certainly can't expect to be right all, or even most of the time. I agree Todd's recent announcement is a good sign for your Palin prediction; we'll see if it pans out. DaveN 10:59, 11 January 2012 (EST)

References

  1. http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/2928.html

Post NH election odds update

The update to the election odds is here.

The biggest winner from NH, according to these numbers, was Barack Obama. What do people think of this? To me, it now appears much more likely that Romney will get the nomination sewn up early, meaning the GOP will not get too bogged down in internal mud-slinging and can turn their attention to beating the Democrats rather than each other - good news for them? On the other hand, if the GOP nomination is sewn up, that creates space for BO to get more attention on himself in the campaign.

My thought would be on balance it's good news for the Republicans, but that's not what the odds are showing.

-- Ferret Nice old chat 08:11, 11 January 2012 (EST)

That's a fascinating analysis: Romney's victory in the New Hampshire primary has increased the likelihood of Obama being reelected. Perhaps this is because Romney is less electable than other contenders.--Andy Schlafly 10:24, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Indonesia hit by 7.3 earthquake...

I'm unclear as to how a single earthquake can confirm "Conservapedia observations about an increasing frequency of large earthquakes". The latter is clearly an observation regarding an (apparent) trend which clearly one earthquake doesn't confirm, just as an absence of earthquakes for a particular period wouldn't disprove. Surely you've got to look at data regarding many earthquakes over an extended period of time? Adambro 08:52, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Great point, but we have been observing these large earthquakes, and they've been reported in the news also (e.g., quake in Turkey). This latest one is not the first in the past year.--Andy Schlafly 10:21, 11 January 2012 (EST)
That earthquakes have been reported in the news hardly seems too surprising. That we've had another magnitude 7+ earthquake hardly seems surprising either; according to the USGS the figure of 7+ magnitude earth per year has averaged around 16 based upon data since 1900. It therefore isn't clear how this latest earthquake confirms this theory that the frequency of large earthquakes is increasing. Adambro 10:58, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Creationism + the UK

Hey, I don't go on here very often but I recently saw a news story that I think you might be interested in. Apparently the UK gov't has effectively banned creationist schools in the UK. TonyB 12:47, 11 January 2012 (EST)

I don't see how this is possible, considering that the government has also has allowed the creation of "free schools". These are school that can effectively (to an extent) decide what they put in their own curriculum, instead of having to go by the national curriculum. If you type in 'creationism' on google news, there are a few articles telling us that there are creationist schools proposed for 2013. I'll just go and check on any updates, see if this is in fact the case. --RedGoliath 17:58, 11 January (GMT)
It appear as if creationists are planning counter measures to be instituted in January and February. [9][10] Conservative 02:57, 14 January 2012 (EST)
I'm afraid to say that, as a UK resident, and a member of one of the official universities, I don't know anyone apart from myself who is familiar with the campaign. Considering that my university is also a big biological science university, the fact that no one has heard about the campaign is quite telling. Lastly, many students based at this university are here to pursue careers in science, I can't expect that the 15 questions would prove a serious obstacle, since they have already been answered by users on this site. --RedGoliath 14:48, 14 January 2012 (GMT)
And what percentage of those at your university have spent even five minutes in the past year there reading from the Bible? Less than 1%?--Andy Schlafly 19:30, 14 January 2012 (EST)
Quite a few actually. Some members from the Christian society were out on the streets today talking to the public. The society is quite big up here, and the church plays a big role in the community. I'm not sure on exact numbers, but it's definitely larger than the 1% you suggest.
I am curious as to how this is relevant to the issue at hand. --RedGoliath 00:53, 15 January 2012 (GMT)
A few dozen out of 5,000 is still less than 1%. And sometimes street preachers at universities are not enrolled students. I bet the percentage of those enrolled in your university who casually read the Bible on their own is indeed less than 1%, or not much above it.
The relevance is this: comments like "no one has heard about" such-and-such are not persuasive when the sample size does not even open the most logical, the most popular, and the most influential book of all time.--Andy Schlafly 20:22, 14 January 2012 (EST)
Pardon me for asking, but where have you gotten your numbers from? --RedGoliath 01:29, 15 January 2012 (GMT)
The lamestream media obviously do not report on this, if that's what you're asking. But I've attended and graduated from universities, I've taught at a university, I've given talks at universities, and more recently my students have gone to universities. It's obvious that 99% or so of university students have not opened the Bible in years, not even once, to read it with an open mind.--Andy Schlafly 21:33, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Yes, the MSM doesn't seem to want to report it, which is, I think, the main issue and why people over here aren't familiar with the movement. However, Conservapedia has repeatedly stated that the QE! campaign is being pushed in the UK, with help, I believe, from one or two creationist organisations. Maybe it will take a little time to spread and build up momentum. Unfortunately, the first poster here was mostly correct. The UK government has declared that they will not fund any free schools that teach either Intelligent Design or Creationism. Strange, since free schools were brought in so that the community could decide itself how to teach their children, as I am told. No surprises that Richard Dawkins was partly behind the decision to stop the funding to such schools. --RedGoliath 13:18, 15 January 2012 (GMT)

Bad News for Democrats

Surely that should read, 'Bad News for America'. --QPR 16:06, 12 January 2012 (EST)

The significance of an economic downturn (less than a year before an election) for "America" is not as clear as the significance of an economic downturn for Democrats.--Andy Schlafly 00:03, 13 January 2012 (EST)
I for one would not want Americans to suffer just so that Democrats look worse. Let's root for the country to do well and not make fools of ourselves. KingHanksley 19:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)
I wasn't rooting for Americans to suffer. Logic is what prevails on this site, and the logical political effect of an economic downturn at this time is undeniable. This isn't the lamestream media, which denies logic frequently.--Andy Schlafly 20:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)
I'm not sure that logic always prevails on this site. I wish that it did. That aside,I agree that this is "bad news for Democrats." Obviously it is. But does that mean "good news for America"? A terrorist attack due to Obama's failures would be bad news for Democrats, so would a mass murder committed by liberals, and so would a catastrophic failure by the US military overseas. But all these things would be bad for America, and I would not celebrate them. I do not celebrate this downturn. I think the negative effects are very clear: more people (including some of my family members) remain jobless, and this hurts them, their belief in capitalism, their belief in themselves, and their ability to plan for the future.

The positive effects through the damage to Democrats: less clear. Do we know that Obama loses even with this downturn? Do we know that Obama would win without this downturn? Are we sure that even if someone like Romney gets elected, conservatism gets advanced? Or on a different level, are we sure that celebrating even temporary losses by the nation is good for conservatism?

I understand that some people are political minded but my faith does not teach me to be cynical and to weigh acceptable evils. This seems to me more like atheistic rationalization. I do not question your faith, but I also do not support this sentiment. It's possible I mistook it and that it was not celebratory, but just informative, and I agree wholly that the people should know that the Dem claims of a revived economy are false. Why not have a headline saying that the Democrats are making false claims, or mismanaging the economy, or trying to cover up their failures? All these things are true, and it is more clear what the sentiment is.KingHanksley 20:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)

It is a factually true observation, that the downturn in the economy at this time is "Bad News for Democrats." I can see why the morality underlying such an observation of fact may be of interest to God, but why should it be of interest to anyone else?--Andy Schlafly 19:37, 14 January 2012 (EST)
Yes. And it is an editorial decision to use that for a headline (and obviously yours to make). What is the purpose of that decision, if not to suggest that "Bad News for Democrats" is the most important thing about the struggling economy. It's the morality underlying the presentation of fact, not the observation, that concerns me, and the morality of my actions is always of concern to me. KingHanksley 14:43, 15 January 2012 (EST)

Tebow's performance tonight

The current score of the Denver-New England game is 42-7. Tim Tebow has been ineffective, with a quarterback rating of 39.6 (the same as what it would be if he threw every pass directly into the ground). What will reaction be to this, considering how much attention he has received on this site the past few weeks? LouW 22:17, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Here is where Tebow is winning. Last week, 1 million people researched John 3:16. --Jpatt 22:46, 14 January 2012 (EST)
I know one of Tebow's favorite passages is John 3:16, but there are also 48 other 3:16 passages in the New Testament, including ones about prostitutes (1 Kings) and swords (Judges). How can we be sure his 316 passing yards last week (which the front page puts so much stock into it borders on numerology) aren't in reference to another 3:16 passage? LouW 22:54, 14 January 2012 (EST)
On another note, I find it interesting that Tebow is losing to a quarterback who had a child out of wedlock (Tom Brady). Why would God allow a sinner like Brady throw 6 touchdown passes while Tebow throws for none? In fact, Brady has more touchdown passes tonight than Tebow has completions. LouW 22:57, 14 January 2012 (EST)
Don't expect God to work a miracle every day, or in every game. As one commenter pointed out here before, God likely has better things to do than manage football games every weekend. He gives us enough to get us started, and it's up to us to open a Bible, open our hearts and open our minds.--Andy Schlafly 23:09, 14 January 2012 (EST)
If God has better things to do than infuence football games, then why did he do it last week and other weeks before that, all the way back to when Tebow was playing pee-wee football in the mid-90s? Even Tebow himself said he "thanked the Lord" after the winning completion. LouW 23:14, 14 January 2012 (EST)
I don't see any inconsistency. Tebow lost the last three games of the regular season, and I don't think anyone was claiming that God was carrying him to victory every time.
Usually people ask for only one sign. The Bible makes clear that no amount of signs will be enough to persuade someone determined to disbelieve. And God has better things to do than to repeatedly try to persuade someone who is lacking in His generosity.--Andy Schlafly 00:28, 15 January 2012 (EST)
Question- If God is omnipotent, then why wouldn't he shower favor upon his disciples in a football game, like Tebow? In this round of the playoffs, the liberal cities of San Francisco and Boston have been rewarded, while Tebow and the evangelical state of Colorado have lost. If God has the power to do anything at any time, then why would he take a week off during Tebow's most important professional game yet? It seems if He wanted to make a statement through Tebow he would have caused him to win the Super Bowl. LouW 12:43, 15 January 2012 (EST)
God took no direct involvement in Tebow's wins, nor did he abandon him in this loss. Rather, Tebow's faith gave him personal conviction that was able to take this team very far considering its skills and abilities, and at some point it was just too much of a matchup to win. Tebow impressed millions with his character and has made himself a viable spokesman for Christianity. KingHanksley 14:38, 15 January 2012 (EST)

The high price of NOT asking the 15 questions for evolutionists in the classroom

User:Conservative, you encourage pupils to ask the 15 questions of the Question Evolution! Campaign in class. But what happens when the evolutionist teacher answers the questions? How are the pupils able to see that these answers may be not satisfactory?

As for now, you haven't provided any rebuttals to the answers proposed in Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists. This is a disservice to the pupils who follow your advice - as calling the teacher a fraudulent shyster when he comes up with answers to these unanswerable questions won't do the trick.

AugustO 03:18, 15 January 2012 (EST)

Creation Ministries International on their questions for evolutionists page offers 15 links to additional information which will assist students in seeing their teachers are unknowledgeable or engaging in evobabble nonsense. I suggest you read the content on those 15 links repeatedly until the folly of evolutionism sinks in. By the way, how many fewer members do you think your liberal religious body that accepts Darwinian naturalism (and is unsurprisingly spiritually dead) will have by the end of 2012 and by the end of the decade? We both know that the spiritually dead religious body you belong to is losing members and is on the slope and that your women "pastors" and "pastors" who perform "blessings" over homosexual "marriages" are not going to help turn things around. If there was a big economic downturn in Germany perhaps your church could see some growth, but I am betting that even if this happened, conservative churches would probably grow faster. Conservative 06:30, 15 January 2012 (EST)
Reported in 2004: "The Germany Evangelical Free Church is the only denomination that's growing right now in Germany" [11] The conservative Evangelical Free Church denomination is known for being creationists in composition.[12] Lastly, as much as I enjoy racking up debate point after debate point with you in our exchanges, I am afraid at this point I don't see you having a strong comeback so I am afraid I am going to have to declare victory. :) Conservative 06:55, 15 January 2012 (EST)
I am afraid I am going to have to declare that you lost as soon as you gave up focusing on the point AugustO was making and instead turned to simply attacking whatever Church it may be that he/she is a member of. Adambro 07:51, 15 January 2012 (EST)
When the evolutionist high school biology teachers charge at the creationist students with their evolutionist evobabble, the creationist students will easily and effortlessly deflect the evolutionary indoctrination with the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. Well informed creationist students will be like masters of Aikido who use the amateurish energies/momentum of their opponents against them. The more errant/misleading/flawed arguments evolutionist teachers bring forth, the more evolutionist "arguments" that will be shown to be in error. Conservative 08:01, 15 January 2012 (EST)
  • The EKKW has at the moment perhaps 900,000 members. At the end of the decade, there may be 50,000 - 100,000 less, due to the demographic development here in Germany
  • Still, you know not much about the German situation. For instance the article you are quoting from states that "evangelical Christians only make up about 3% of Germany’s population". What it omits is that the majority of these evangelical Christians is organized under the roof of the various Landeskirchen (one of these is the EKKW), not in the Free Evangelical Churches. So there are those who even you may accept as conservatives within our midst.
  • The evangelical Christians within the EKKW will help to keep the church alive: its history reaches back to 1524, there is no reason that it can't go on splendidly for another 500 years.
  • If Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf has taught us one thing, it's that even the constant declaration of victory doesn't win a war.
  • Feel free to add the answers by Creation Ministries International to the various answers made at Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists. By chance they may fit the points made...

AugustO 08:27, 15 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for letting me know more about the German church situation. It sounds like the Anglican church which currently has a mix of conservatives/liberals people in terms of their theology. Secondly, in the very near term, I don't think we are going to come to any agreement as far as the Question evolution! campaign's 15 questions or its prospects for growth. It does appear as if some significant changes may be made as far as the campaign's promulgation methodology that may significantly increase the dissemination rate of the campaign.[13] 14:27, 15 January 2012 (EST)
No, there won't be any agreement as long you are declaring victory without doing any actual debating. But I hope that you just stop your unjustified attacks against my church. AugustO 14:43, 15 January 2012 (EST)
User:Conservative, you linked to the blog article What it’s Like to Go to an Evangelical Church to make the point that the conservative Evangelical Free Church denomination is known for being creationists in composition. Do you think that this is an accurate report of the Evangelical Free Church? In the article I read:
Churchgoers should especially avoid “atheist” evolution. “Don’t believe it!” And don’t discuss any of these topics with others who promote these ideas. That is a sure road to darkness, he warned.
Do you think the pastor is correct? Or quoted correctly? To you heed this advice? Then some significant changes may be made as far as the campaign's promulgation methodology that may significantly increase the dissemination rate of the campaign is the right thing to do... AugustO 15:02, 15 January 2012 (EST)
I really think this discussion is superfluous since it appears creationist pupils are going to be more assertive in the classroom as far as opposing Darwinism.[14] I think this will greatly hamper the promulgation of Darwinism. According to the Question evolution! campaign blog, it also appears as if curriculum may be developed around the 15 questions so the students will be prepared to oppose Darwinism using these questions. Conservative 15:53, 15 January 2012 (EST)
What of the pupils who come to this site expecting to see a rebbutal to the evolutionist answers, only to find that there are no creationist responses posted (or just the one)? What is the first thought that will go through their mind?
I suggest that you fill out the creationist responses so that pupils who come to this site are reassured that creationists have to answers to what the evolutionists say. --RedGoliath 22:16, 15 January 2012 (GMT)

Also too - please fix the main page left headline. Right now, it makes no sense. --SharonW 17:31, 15 January 2012 (EST)

RedGolaih, I have a feeling that creationist students will not have to be reassured due to the large amount of damage to evolutionism in 2012. Plus, any reasonable person who reads Conservapedia's evolution and creation science articles and their accompanying sources will certainly understand that evolutionism is another case of liberal pseudoscience. Ever heard of the 1970's "Global cooling" fear mongering by liberals? But I do thank you for your suggestion. Conservative 20:01, 15 January 2012 (EST)
SharonW, done. Thanks. Conservative 20:01, 15 January 2012 (EST)

RedGoliath, first I do feel it is important for people to see the actual 15 questions early on in the debate page which have 15 links of accompanying material. This gives important context. So I added that to the top of the article. Also, I added three links which give CMI's rebuttals of evolutionists' lame "answers" at the top of the debate page. It was very easy to add this information to the top of the debate page so I added that information for students. Thanks for your input. Conservative 20:39, 15 January 2012 (EST)

I suppose this is just stating the obvious, but the science questions in the 15 questions have been dealt with in biology classes long before the CMI came up with them. A creationist student asking for answers is likely to be told "we covered that last week".--PeterNant 08:53, 16 January 2012 (EST)
re: Questions under the evolutionary paradigm: "The funny thing about unanswered questions is that they often continue to go on unanswered". :) [15] Conservative 11:01, 16 January 2012 (EST)

NFL ratings

Nowhere in the cited article is is said that Tebow saved the NFL from a ratings disaster. While ratings did slip, the only mention of Tebow is that his game on the NFL Network (against an extremely popular team) was above average for that station. A 2% slide is surprising, and probably attributable to the lockout. But stop drawing conclusions from articles when there is scant evidence there for their factuality. LouW 21:57, 15 January 2012 (EST)

Tim Tebow's ratings were much higher than the rest of the NFL. His playoff victory, for example set the record in ratings for a wild-card game over the past two decades.--Andy Schlafly 19:47, 16 January 2012 (EST)
Yet despite this, Tebow's game this round drew an amazing 11 million less viewers than the Green Bay-New York game. It appears to me that Tebow-time is over. LouW 13:00, 17 January 2012 (EST)


Ratings created or saved, if you will. JoeNamath 11:27, 17 January 2012 (EST)

Fox News: Romneys the most likely candidate to kick Obama out of office

THISarticle from Fox News suggests, that Romney would be the only contender to have a chance at beating Obama. Yet Conservapedia and lots of other conservatives do not comment favorably on Romney. I'm not an American, so I don't really get it... isn't the main goal to get Obama out of Office, no matter what? Why is the Republican Party and the conservative movement not fully backing the candidate most likely to achieve that goal? I understand that Romney is a moderate, but isn't a moderate Republican still better than Obama continuing his desastrous policies? Sinverely--VPropp 13:01, 16 January 2012 (EST)

We had a moderate Republican in Bush who kicked off the big spending policies that have continued and worsened today. With the debt-to-GDP ratio constantly rising, a bold president with big ideas is needed to reverse our current trend. A tiny slow down in the build up of debt is not the answer. I think that's why we all favor a truer conservative. EricAlstrom 19:39, 16 January 2012 (EST)
VPropp, the liberal media have favored Mitt Romney for months, and now Fox News Channel joins them in demanding that conservatives vote for Romney. Romney does well in polls against Obama now because Romney gets favorable reporting from the media. If Romney were to win the nomination, afterward lots of negative press would then probably render him unelectable. And if Romney did win the general election anyway, liberals expect that he will do what they want in policy and legislation.--Andy Schlafly 19:52, 16 January 2012 (EST)
Interesting. I guess I underestimated the influence of the media in US politics. Thanks for the answers and let's hope that a true conservative gets elected.--VPropp 08:54, 17 January 2012 (EST)
Personal tools