Talk:Main Page/Archive index/101

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Turning to Conservapedia for balance

Hi guys! I am new to this. So, please bear with me for any technical faux pas I may make. I am contributing new information on a conservative political group known as the, Digg Patriots. Additionally, I wanted to contribute information for an up and coming social news site called Old Dogg. Old Dogg is an alternative to the liberal biased social news site, Digg.com. Finally, as a member of the Digg Patriots, our group has been under vicious attack by various people over at Digg, because of our Conservative idologies. We have been stalked, harassed, and maligned via an organized effort on Digg. We even have had our private Yahoo discussion group hacked, with tens of thousands of our emails having been stolen and disseminated throughout Digg, and the liberal blogosphere. So, I am thrilled to find Conservapedia, which I hope allows me to place information about the above mentioned groups, without a gaggle of leftists butting in and deleting my entries, or twisting those entries to fall in line with the skewed Progressive world view. For those with any questions, please feel free to drop me a line at: tomatopuree1@hotmail.com

Thanks!

"rjwusa 18:43, 28 August 2011 (EDT)"

Wow. There are still people at Digg. heh. --Sciencedominates 22:25, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

News story?

I don't know if this is the right place to go, but I have a possible story for the news space. http://physics.about.com/b/2011/05/11/scientistsareliars.htm It's an article about scientists where a scicentist admits that "good" scientists are liars. I haven't read the article, but it sounds promising. Could this be something useable? --ZachJ 16:17, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

You want this posted as news...but haven't read the article yourself? Doesn't seem like you're too informed on this one. The title of his article may be misleading, as the comments on it seem to imply that too. Having said that I don't know how 'news worthy' this article is.--Sciencedominates 00:53, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
I think Zach has been misled by the catchy headline. The article's point isn't that scientists intentionally tell lies but that a good scientist needs the ability to produce new, testable hypotheses by generalising and speculating from known facts (to be precise, from hypotheses which have been rigorously tested and not disproved). KhalidM 19:29, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
This is true. You are right. But the article's title.. well more the content, gives the impression that it's part of the job to lie.. Conservapedia's own definition of a lie is
"A lie is the deliberate fabrication or misrepresentation of the truth." source
Based on what the article goes into, it gives the impression lying is part of the scientific method, that is not true. Scientists are the first to admit they don't know something, that is what gives birth to experimentation after forming an hypothesis. They aren't deliberately fabricating or misrepresenting the truth, there is no truth to hide if what you are doing is forming an hypothesis, about something you have little to no knowledge about. The author's title was a poor choice of words.--Sciencedominates 20:55, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Smartphone bias

I can confirm the iPhone vs. Android thing. My friends in New York City last month told me it's the same as Democrat vs. Republican. My "anti-union" contractor friend has a big Android. None of my gay friends has one. --Ed Poor Talk 16:57, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

I have had Android since its inception and agree mostly with the results of the article. Now running a Samsung Galaxy S (Vibrant) with Simply Galaxy Sweet Honey mod. --Jpatt 21:36, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Could these be more evidence for a young earth/universe

Turns out the moon rocks are not as old as once thought. MaxFletcher 22:52, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Oh boy! 4.36 billion years old instead of 4.56 billion years old, that seals it I'm turning YEC tonight! AsherL 17:47, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

Ten Cheapest Celebrity Tippers: who also happen to be Liberal!

Ten Worst Celebrity Tippers It appears that these celebrities refuse to cough up a few bucks on top of the millions they make, but they are such caring liberals. This article is another piece of evidence for the persuasive case that: liberals are uncharitable relative to conservatives. -- Austenbosten 00:40, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

I have no idea how many of those are liberals or not - Tiger Woods I personally doubt - but that does not change the fact that is an appalling piece of work. in 8 out of the 10 cases, they cite as their "evidence" 1 example where the people tipped badly. There are a lot of possible reasons why someone tipped badly on one occasion. Maybe the service was bad, maybe they didn't have enough change on them. Whatever the reason, there is not enough evidence presented that these people are bad tippers, let alone for the proposition that liberals are uncharitable in general. --DamianJohn 01:04, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
It is obvious that many of them are liberal, the story is persuasive, and the excuses given for the stinginess are lame. Moreover, liberals are generally less charitable than conservatives, despite their pretensions to the contrary. It's an eye-opener many people to see how nasty many celebrities and/or rich liberals really are.--Andy Schlafly 10:45, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
Come on Andy, thats a piece of gossip that holds no weight at all. No excuses are given in the majority of the cases because none were asked for. Out of the thousands of times someone has eaten out, its ridiculous to pick one time that they gave a bad tip without knowing any of the details. Would you give a big tip if the waiter was rude, brought you the wrong food, and stank of alcohol? How do you know that these cases weren't like that? The simple answer is that this is a gossipy snarky piece of tabloid journalism at its worst that should be safely ignored. --DamianJohn 15:08, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
So some of these "stars" left their autograph as a tip for ... rude service? I don't think so. The anecdotes have details that lend to their credibility, and some of the "stars" mentioned have shown their self-centeredness in other ways too.--Andy Schlafly 15:21, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
Fair enough, I can't imagine you are convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you, but we shall have to agree to disagree. --DamianJohn 01:46, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
This entire story is based on gossip. I thought Conservapedia had a rule against that? RobertE 15:29, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
If this can be proven to be nothing more than gossip with no merit, then I will be happy to remove this article. -- Austenbosten 17:32, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
It is interesting how a criticism of "stars" and media favorites can spark more opposition than a political commentary. Is there something sacred about the worship system pushed by the lamestream media?--Andy Schlafly 10:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
When liberals are criticized, they call it gossip. When conservatives are slandered, they call it "investigative journalism." DouglasA 11:01, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Vehicle standards article

I read the article and unfortunately it didnt answer all my questions, so I would love some imput. Its says the average cost of a new car right now is about 28thousand, and will result in an 11 thousand increase in the next 15 years due to new standards. the reason i wanted input is because I know a lot of a lot of the cheaper entry level cars already meet some of the standards. The 2008 Ford Focus i own gets about 32 on the highway. I'm under the impression the new ones and others like the civic gets even higher. So my question is, will these new standards effect the prices of these vehicles, or only luxury vehicles like SUVs and sports cars? --KenN 10:33, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Good question, and more research on this issue would be helpful. The Obama Administration should be explaining this better.--Andy Schlafly 10:40, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

NASA "scientists" use "Alien Attack" to push radical Global Warming agenda

NASA "scientists" threaten "alien attack" to push Global Warming agenda I cannot make this up, I am stumped beyond words. NASA "scientists" claim that rising greenhouse gasses could provoke an attack from "green aliens". The first question that comes to my mind is with the absolute lack of any evidence for extraterrestrial life—or water on other planetary bodies for that matter—why would these "intellignent ETs" have any care about: SUVs, oil rigs and/or flatulent mammals? -- Austenbosten 14:40, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

I read that and instantly thought they got drunk and mistook the day the earth stood still as plausible. --SeanS 14:54, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
"Unbelievable! NASA speculating about extraterrestrial invasion! " and "NASA "scientists" use "Alien Attack" to push radical Global Warming agenda" This is all very misleading and not accurate.
Some facts...
"Again, claims we released a study about aliens are not true. Here are the facts from the report's author" source http://twitter.com/NASA/statuses/104582412255760384
"Yes, @FoxNews & @CNN have it wrong. There is no NASA study about aliens. Facts from one of the report's authors" source http://twitter.com/NASA/statuses/104678195764277248
"So here’s the thing. This isn’t a “NASA report.” It’s not work funded by NASA, nor is it work supported by NASA in other ways. It was just a fun paper written by a few friends, one of whom happens to have a NASA affiliation." source http://paleblueblog.org/post/9110304050/some-important-points-of-clarification Google Cache
http://www.universetoday.com/88325/no-nasa-is-not-predicting-well-be-destroyed-by-aliens/
In short, NASA has nothing to do with this, they did not fund it, they did not release any study.. it is an individual who happens to work at NASA and his opinion, not the opinions of NASA. --Sciencedominates 10:38, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for your posting. Accordingly, I've removed the headline pending further review.--Andy Schlafly 11:05, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Public schools make homosexuals

Does this headline mean something akin to public schools manufacturing homosexuals? Was a word left out? --DrDean 15:38, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Hi Doc. I added the statement. It comes from here [2] It is a good example of public schools ideological alignment with the gay agenda. Do public schools create homosexuals? They create, push, manipulate, protect homosexuality. The answer is yes.--Jpatt 18:00, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

"“I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?” Three minutes later, Buell posted another comment: “By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”"

This is the quote that he posted on Facebook. I've seen teachers get fired for saying much more tame things than this. Where was the outcry then? Its not like he was suspended for saying he was against gay marriage, he was suspended for the vulgar and offensive way he said it. You can say teachers should be able to say whatever they want on their own time, but don't turn this into "the censorship of the gay agenda" --Jab512 17:34, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

The truth is not vulgar and yes, he was suspended because he is publicly against homosexual marriage and that will not be tolerated. --Jpatt 18:00, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
The man's entitled to his opinion, and as far as I can see, unless he's pushing his opinion on students, it's none of their doggone business. I can just see somebody getting fired from a school for being a member of Conservapedia; they'd probably say we're a gay-hating right-wing extremist site. DMorris 18:22, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
I agree that he shouldn't have been suspended for a facebook post, but what he said was indeed vulgar. Saying that a group of people is a "cesspool of whatever" is a pretty offensive way of saying you disagree with their lifestyle. Like I said before, don't make this about "the homosexual agenda" when there are larger issues at stake --Jab512 19:23, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
You are 100%....wrong. This is not about offensive talk, this is only, I repeat, this is only about the gay agenda. Nothing more can be gleaned from the story. Even the Fox News headline has it right.Suspended for offensive talk? no suspended for anti-gay views. --Jpatt 20:17, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/24670937/detail.html
http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/ashley-payne-former-teacher-fired-facebook-pictures-2515440.html
Here's two more examples of teachers getting fired for the things they posted on facebook. This kind of thing happens all the time. And anyways i dont really see a difference in "offensive talk" and "Anti-gay talk". If a teacher posted something racist would you still try to make the distinction?--Jab512 22:17, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
Jab512, you seem to be saying that 'anti-gay' talk is offensive. I assume that's not what you meant? Jcw 10:51, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
I'd say it's no better than racism--Jab512 16:59, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
There's nothing offensive about pointing out the kind of perversion that a liberal state government allows and how it goes against God's law. -EdgarP 14:36, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
Jab512, Liberal teachers get away with much more, in your words, "vulgar" public comments - and in some cases, I'm willing to bet, they are even commended for such statements. Heck - I've had instructors who, at the University of Washington, accuse -- in class lectures -- the United States of being an "Imperialist" nation. Yet, when a Conservative teacher publicly reveals his or her views, whether on Facebook or elsewhere, they are fired. The most liberal fueled teacher firing I've seen happened when a history teacher was fired for writing and creating a video of this conservative song. DerekE 18:26, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
You say "imperialist" as if it were a bad thing. Do you believe that the US never engaged in Imperialism, or what? If you are using imperialism to mean "extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas" then are you sure the USA never did this?
Or are you saying that US imperialism was so benign (or temporary) that it wasn't so bad? This is like saying that discrimination and prejudice based on race aren't "racism" if it's an oppressed race reacting to an oppressor.
Clear terms are important. It is generally people who are trying to trick others into a false belief who use words with unclear or double meanings. For example, I know two people who last year were agreeing with each other that "America is not a democracy" (i.e., not a "direct democracy") but choosing not to make any effort to point out that it is in fact a representative democracy. --Ed Poor Talk 13:42, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

Microsoft's Internet Explorer is like Government Issue

I do realize this is not a weighty issue, and good men can disagree, but rather than Firefox being them more negatively influenced by liberals, as the story infers, i would say it is IE that is more like the liberal elite, as supposing they know what your preferences should be, and thus IE offers,

1. no freedom to change themes (grey and blue is not exactly how God made things in, but at least it is not pink), versus Firefox which treats users as persons with individuality, and variety, which is how God made them, as well as being a community with all having something to offer, with certain laws needing to be obeyed.

2. no way to get multiple tab rows, whereas in FF one can get around 20 tabs across using TabMixPlus, which also allows you to reduce the width, and a theme like PitchDark or DarkOrgange. See screenshot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/14822395@N03/5924894528/ (i have about 100 open now, in 4 narrow rows),

3. No way to get different different tab colors, as with the FF Colorful Tabs extension

4. no way to save more than one session,

5. no way count words, savewithurl, stopautoplay, etc which greatly enhances browser functionality.

As for security, FF updates far faster, and the reason McAfee SiteAdvisor will not works with the newer versions of Mozilla Firefox is because it is updated to a new version about every 6 weeks, not 3 years.

In addition, IE9 is not available to use in the world's most used OS, which is XP.

IE is also slow loading for me, and is only useful for a few pages. But all have their preferences. Daniel1212 22:11, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Although I'm not a fan of IE, imn going to go through your points that are a little flimsy
  • 1) IE is a mass produced Browser, and most people that will use it don't have any reason to need it be personalized, as they don't do much on it besides social websites, maybe some flash game sites and streaming media websites
  • 2) Although thats useful, im a bit worried about why you need 100 tabs open O.o
  • 3) Please see point one about how that's a non-issue
  • 4) For most people, that also tends to be a non-issue
The rest I agree on (Although I prefer a personalized browser). Internet Explorer is like Windows, and Firefox is like any other OS: if you need a lot of computers for say, a school or an office, you get a microsoft OS, because that is what they are built for. If you want a personalized computer, you go for the other OS's because they tend to be more built for the computer-savvy home user (I use XP, with plans to move to 7)--SeanS 22:25, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
I am under XP; take note of missing features in w/7: [3] http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/10-Things-Missing-From-Windows-7-728146/ Daniel1212 11:29, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
I have more than 100 tabs open, if you count the other browsers (like Sea Monkey) that are often running concurrently, and i do it for speed. I am blessed to be able to work in a full time faith ministry, and work much on the Internet by the grace of God, as unworthy as i am, and am working on many projects or documents (I have 31 open now in Open Office), which require research, most of which to do with Christian apologetics in which i also watch and post material or links to different forums from sites i have open, including my own. For more speed CapsLock is remapped to Ctrl+C and Esc to Ctrl+V (two of many hot keys).
I do bookmark, and have an extensive and organized collection of them, but often find it quicker to just go to the tab. I run out of mental energy, and leaving a tab open that i want to go back to also reminds me to do it. Very little is media (but this has a few good videos). I rarely reboot, but hit a special key to go into suspend.
This many open apps and pages does use of a lot of my 3gb of system memory, and so in the future i hope to have a 64bit PC and OS, as the Lord provides. But for me FF really helps, thanks be to God. Daniel1212 05:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
Sean, please continue development of the Internet Explorer article. --Ed Poor Talk 13:45, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

HP item

I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but what relevance does the HP item on MPR have to conservative news? It seems like an ad or promotion to me. If someone could enlighten me I'd really appreciate it. WLambert 13:02, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

The news reflects the growing shift away from newspapers and televisions for information ... which is a conservative trend.--Andy Schlafly 13:52, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
The link says the increased sales are due to a sharp price drop because HP is ending production of the product. If anything, this is proof that people like sales. WLambert 13:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
People like the HP item too if they're paying $99 for it.--Andy Schlafly 14:00, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
Then would you agree that the excellent sales record of the Apple iPad is indicative of a conservative trend, even though you've claimed that apple is a liberal company? WLambert 14:01, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
The touchpad is a terrible product and the free market spoke, but even with a liberal product like an ipad allows athiest to be exposed to shockofgods question.--KenN 21:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
You people seem to be putting way too much liberal/conservative skin into this game of which product is better. --DrDean 13:34, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
You might be right. But politics does influence more than what most people realize. Orwell was insightful when he said, "all issues are political issues."--Andy Schlafly 17:15, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
I always took that more to mean that politics comes into everything. HP prices and quality versus apple prices and quality are affected by everything from tariffs to Indonesian labor regulations to american public school educational policy. I just think there is a real risk to picking a product like this as a political horse in the race. Something as trivial as how attractive the model in the ad for the product is doesn't have real bearing on the political discussion, but it has huge bearing on the sales irregardless of politics. The average American gets something like 6 minutes of political news a week, I do not think that they are divining from that the appropriate level of interest in one product or another. It's very easy to all into the divination trap, where in we think we recognize patterns that aren't really there, most of the occult is based on that sort of thing, divining the future for bird entrails and the like. --DrDean 17:39, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

University chancellor resigns over S&M scandal...

...another fine example of professor values in action! [4]

--Benp 15:58, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Health and human services...

I recognize this is not your source, but I thought it would be worth while to point this out none the less. I read through the pamphlet being criticized. Not once is the word "infant" used and the actual quote is "Children are human beings and therefore sexual beings."

I just felt the mainpage news item was somewhat misleading... --SLionel 20:13, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

if you re-read, the page says "portion of the HHS Web site, also describes children and infants as “sexual beings.” Also, the URL includes "children and inf", a reference to infants.--Jpatt 20:44, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
This is absolutely disgusting. I always knew the government was filled with pedophiles. --OliviaB 22:18, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
I disagree with the logic, but my point is this: the source is flawed. If you want to criticize that pamphlet, do so directly; do not use a bad quote. That eliminates the site`s credibility. --SLionel 22:44, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
On the issue you raise, I think the source goes slightly overboard emphasizing the children and infant quotes from the pamphlet. I felt that after reading the pamphlet there was a somewhat different message being portrayed. However, that criticism may have been to emphasize the lengths that the pamphlet goes to sexualize all humans regardless of age or gender. I sort of agree with some of the criticism in that the pamphlet assumes children (and yes, it does say infants) act as sexual beings, almost to say that very young children often think or behave sexually. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that children don't really know what they're doing? The pamphlet seems to be more concerned with being politically correct than accurate; in other words, it is censoring some facts and emphasizing less common scenarios.
I think the majority of criticism is directed at the About Sexual Orientation pages from the pamphlet. The pamphlet over-emphasizes homosexual behavior in teens, literally saying it happens "quite common." The pamphlet assumes teens often behave bisexual (or on some invisible line between being gay and straight) while they explore sexual experiences, suggesting that most kids are likely to experiment with both sexes to learn about their true self. I almost feel like it's promoting the behavior while exaggerating how often a teen would actually explore sexual experiences with the same sex. Thats just my opinion.. So we're clear on my views, I have no problem with homosexuals and believe our Constitution says that all men are created equal and equally share our rights given to us by God. While I'm unsure if the term "marriage" (which is by definition and traditionally between a man and a women) should be fundamentally changed to include a committed homosexual relationship, I do believe that any gay person shares the same rights as any other person - as our Constitution outlines - "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." DerekE 00:57, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
Some men or women may not have a problem with homosexuality but the Creator who made man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary and only joined them in marriage, (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4) does. The fact we may have perverse or inordinate desires due the Fall and nurture does not justify acting it out, although God does take into account the degree of accountability in determining the level of guilt. (Lk. 12:48; Mt. 11:21)
And attempts to force homosexual relations into passages it does not belong extends even to pro homosexual apologetics on the Bible, the specious nature of which as [Homosexuality and biblical interpretation] reveals, and i find the manipulation of the Bible by them to be more serious than even homosexuality.
And equating civil rights based upon gender, race or national origin with the right to practice immoral behavior is an extension of the confusion that sexually joins together what God has placed asunder.
But we are all guilty of serious sins, which we cannot justify, and there is room at the cross for all who will turn to Christ from sin, trusting Him to save them by His blood and righteousness, and so follow Him daily, and repent when convicted of not doing so, as i often am. Daniel1212 07:25, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
You worded it much better than I did. Thank you! DerekE 13:30, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
Good, but i disagree that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," means sanction of immoral sexual unions or practices, whether it be with animals or same genders. And neither was this a historical understanding. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Mass.Gen.Laws.htmlDaniel1212 05:01, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
I understand our disagreement. I consider this topic not one of my strong areas of debate. In my opinion, if two people choose to sin but are not affecting anyone else or violating other's constitutional rights, then their rights should not be taken away. Although this debate has been ongoing since America's founding and laws change from state to state, it seems that the Federal government does not have the constitutional authority to interfere with these state decisions. I'm not saying that such immoral sexual unions or practices are right or healthy, but I am saying that the freedom to choose shouldn't be infringed upon. That being said, I do not believe the term "marriage" should be expanded to include gays and lesbians, because such acts do not fall under the definition or tradition of marriage (I believe traditions are important); I also do not agree with the sexualizing of our military by removing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. As someone who is a Marine, to me it seems like removing this policy will and could affect unit cohesion. The policy doesn't ban being gay or lesbian, it just puts it out of site and out of mind, which in the military is a good thing. Both gay and straight people in the military know that they joined to accomplish a mission and possibly fight for our country - not meet new people that they could potentially hook up with. Besides, if removing the policy would make straight men or women uncomfortable, then why would the gay community still push for it? That makes things awkward. That's my two-cents for now.. DerekE 17:17, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
"if two people choose to sin but are not affecting anyone else"

Which is never the case, as any of our sins of omission as well as commission in heart and deed affect not only ourselves, but others, as does a virtuous heart and actions for good. Moral decline precedes the demise of a country, as General Douglas MacArthur once stated, “History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline," however long-suffering God may be. The nation that sanctions abomination is under condemnation and is headed for damnation.

The sanction of homosexual relations depends upon a superficial view of its effects, and while man looks at the immediate effects of personal sin (unlike environmental aspects) God has greater wisdom, and the widespread practice and sanction of homosexual relations and impenitence are part of a general moral decline resulting from idolatry, worshiping the creature over the Creator, and making the latter into an image of one's own liking, and marks an end stage of degeneration going before judgment, Romans 1 as it controverts what God made and placed together in His wisdom, insulting the Creator, and i must repent for often dishonoring Him in heart or in deed.

Besides the most serious effect of the loss of Divine favor, that the typical homosexual lifestyle, esp. among males, is deleterious to both individual and society is well evidenced by the study of the Health Effects of Homosexual Lifestyle, with a greatly increased incidence of infectious diseases and premature death. Added to that is the 100,000+ to 600,000 lifetime cost of treating a patient with AIDS, most of which is the result of homosexual relations.

While marriage would seem to prevent the rampant promiscuity of the homosexual lifestyle, some studies indicate that this institution has itself been radicalized so that monogamy is an exception among males.

"I am saying that the freedom to choose shouldn't be infringed upon"

Civil rights are not for moral wrongs, and right to do the latter are "infringed upon" every day, thanks be to God, as liberty has its necessary limits, which the Bible should be the basis for. On the basis of health alone, which is not the basic reason that homosexual relations are wrong, I am quite sure that if consensually taking part in the Lord's Supper resulted in the health effects of consensual homosexual relations then the freedom to practice it would face restrictions that bath houses would not tolerate.

But as said, my basis for condemning this is because of what God teaches in the Bible, and not because i think i have arrived, which is far from the case, or have a personal animosity toward homosexuals, which i would seek to help as much as toward heterosexuals. But as i and we all must repent from that which dishonors God in heart and in deed (and i often do, esp in the former) and follow Christ, so it is with homosexual relations, rather than acceptance of it being pushed as normative.

As for the military, when a chaplain cannot pray "in Jesus name" (though that does not necessarily mean a prayer really is) or reprove homosexual relations in public, nor can anyone else, but such is criminalized in many other ways, then one wonders what kind of country you will end up fighting for. "If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under." (Reagan)

All may join together to fight a common foe in certain situations, but it is the iniquity within more than the adversaries without that will be America's ruin as a nation.

I will leave you with a poem i believe God helped me compose years ago in an appeal to moral sense.

Freedom not Sodom

There's freedom in America, the land of the red white and blue; but there still must be laws, things you just can't do.

You can't marry your sister, your brother, or the family pet; a sheep, or a goat - at least not yet!

That how is it with homosexuality, what the Bible calls sodomy; men lying with men as with women, is perversity!

That they're not designed that way, tis easy to perceive, but yielding to sinful desires, man is soon deceived.

A moral wrong is not a civil right; like the sin itself, that's confusion; calling evil good and exchanging light for darkness, is sure delusion!

History tells us where this will lead, from societies now in dust, When a nation casts off the laws of God, and follows it's own lusts.

Promoting a sin which sends one to Hell [often] from an early grave, dishonors God and robs man of the Life He gave.

There's but one answer: the Risen Jesus gave Himself for our sins; Repent and believe, then truly follow Him! Daniel1212 06:35, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Liberal Psychos seek to make Child Rape Legal and Normal

I told Liberals that once homosexuality becomes decriminalized, legalized and then normalized, that pedophilia would be next, and now the sickos are seeking to remove Pedophilia from the APA's mental illness book. [Sick, demented, perverted, evil "psychiatrists" talk about making pedophilia legal] First HHS secretary Kathleen Sillyus talking about children being "sexual beings" now this! -- Austenbosten 15:40, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

If you actually read the source it says that it is a small group of people, and it does not mention their political affiliations. And there's no way that what they're suggesting is ever going to happen. Also i don't see how homosexuality has anything to do with this. Homosexual relationships are between two consenting adults, with no victim. Children are not mature enough to give consent, therefore there is a victim.--Jab512 23:51, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Michelle Bachmann vs. Lady Gaga

Interesting tidbit: Michelle Bachmann is the 22nd most powerful woman....but she is below Lady gaga! What a crazy world! MaxFletcher 21:30, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Those rankings are often publicity stunts by magazines. They aren't worth the paper they are printed on.--Andy Schlafly 22:38, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
Agreed, I was just bringing it up because I can't see how anyone could judge a talentless bozo like Lady Gaga ahead of someone who looks like they could take the US Presidency. MaxFletcher 22:40, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
Lady Gaga is actually a very talented pianist who has allowed image to overtake her musical skills. --SharonW 00:08, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
Good point, but there are thousands of very talented pianists, and it's unclear what influence they have. They certainly don't face and overcome opposition the way that Bachmann does.--Andy Schlafly 00:55, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
My comment was actually directed at User:MaxFletcher, who called Gaga a "talentless bozo". --SharonW 21:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
I'm sure it's not come out the way you meant it, but that's a very sweeping generalization about talented pianists.--QPR 14:50, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
Sorry, I meant talentless when compared to Bachmann in the sphere of influence. Never mind, I was editorializing because I dislike her music. Sorry. MaxFletcher 22:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
They're both crazy...--Jab512 01:39, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Eugenie Scott Debate

Hi, is this debate available by podcast or the like? I followed the link to 'The Voice of Russia' (which has now gone) but couldn't find any reference to that broadcast. CharlieJ 23:07, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

It's on the Voice of Russia site here. RobertE 23:20, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
Thank you, Robert, I have it now. CharlieJ 01:26, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

Some articles in the "Ship" Category are copied from elsewhere

I clicked the "Random Page" link earlier today and got the page for Barnegat-I, a ship built in 1891. The language and the sentence construction seemed unusual to me and it had only one reference, to the "Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships." So I followed that link to reach a page with a list of links to pages about ships whose names start with the letter "B." In there I found a page for Barnegat-1 whose text was almost identical. Then I registered. I created the talk page for this ship and put a comment on it. I checked a few other pages from the "Ship" category and found articles copied almost in their entirety and sometimes changed by a few words or with the first sentence removed. I didn't do an exhaustive check, so I'm not saying all articles in the category are copied. -- Randall Jackson 20:54, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

It is perfectly legal to reuse information from the US Navy's site as it is released into the public domain by the government. So what's the big deal? DMorris 21:03, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
Right. The public can freely copy what it already owns, which includes most works of the federal government.--Andy Schlafly 21:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for checking on this, though. Copyright laws can be confusing, and I would guess that most people are not aware about the application of the laws toward government work. Itt's better to be safe than sorry. --SharonW 13:57, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

College Campus Bans National Anthem, Says It's 'Too Violent'

Liberals gone wild: College campus bans National Anthem. Does this school receive federal funding? Seems like they are infringing upon our First Amendment rights, banning American patriotism. DerekE 17:30, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

I think it's important to distinguish Liberal from pacifism. This so-called "liberal" college is actually a private, Mennonite, Christian college. Mennonites are known for their strong pacifist views along with other Amish Christian faiths and other Protestant faiths such as Quakers and some Pentecostals. Is it in poor taste? I think so, yes. But this is not a liberal college since most Amish and Mennonites hold very Conservative values. Also Goshen College is private, so no they don't receive federal funding and how is this infringing upon First Amendment rights? The First Amendment allows that school to choose to sing the National Anthem or not, also they switched the Star-Spangeled Banner for another equally beautiful American song "America the Beautiful" so they are in no way banning American patriotism, remember before 1931 "America the Beautiful" and "God Bless America" were de facto national anthems of the US, and "America the Beautiful" uses God in the lyrics, so perhaps they wanted something more Christian to pledge to during their sporting events. So your accusations are slightly lacking in judgement. -- Austenbosten 18:55, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
"Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment — but only where the government is concerned."--SeanS 19:10, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

How the left conquered wikipedia - part 1

How the left conquered wikipedia - part 1: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ Conservative 12:16, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Hurricane Irene and NYC

I take issue with your description of the precautions being taken to safeguard NYC residents. The Subway is being shut down because of the winds. When we had the blizzard over Christmas, people were stuck in trains for 8 hours because of the snow and wind. The wind is the reason for this shut down, it takes 8 hours to shut down the system. It's better to have the system shut down than to risk people being stranded, especially if tunnels end up flooding. This is a serious emergency, and your attempts to politicize it are Pathetic. And for the record, it has been raining in NYC.--IreneNYC 16:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

I think it only started raining in the NYC area within the last hour (after 3pm) ... which is hours after the government transit system shut down, inconveniencing millions. High winds have not occurred yet as far as I can tell.
Looks to me like liberal Michael Bloomberg wanted to assert some control and not be bothered with the public's need for transportation. But where's the refund for the services paid for but not provided?--Andy Schlafly 16:07, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
Like I said, it takes 8 hours to shut the system down, hence why they are shutting down now. Shutting down now and moving everything to a safe place makes it easier to start up again. Sure it's inconvenient, but again, this is about safety. Lets try to avoid politicizing it.
I'm not a Bloomberg fan, but in no way is he a liberal. Although the cities response to the coming storm may be overkill, I'm sure he's looking to avoid another disaster like the one we had for the blizzard.
Also, the MTA is a corporation, looking to make a profit, why would they offer refunds, this storm is costing them money as is, the last thing they need is to give handouts to the welfare sucking liberal scum who are looking for any handout they can get.--IreneNYC 16:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
p.s. it was pouring here earlier this morning, so claiming that "hardly a drop of rain has fallen" is false.
Gee, Aschlafly, the city is 24 hours away from maybe facing a serious weather situation that could involve power outages, flooding, etc--most people aren't too worried about the 12 or 14 bucks represented by a few days' worth of a metropass. I'm sure the city has other priorities right now. Why not wait until the storm has passed and give the transportation authority a chance to work out a plan? Given the scope of the potential problems facing the city, whinging about a few days' worth of subway fare seems petty to me. At least the city is taking a potential disaster seriously. BrentH 16:19, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
(edit conflict)The MTA is subsidized by the public. As far as I can tell liberals Bloomberg and/or Cuomo are inconveniencing millions of people in order to avoid some potential political criticism if a few people are stranded for a few hours. It's absurd: people in some parts of NYC have been told to evacuate by 5pm, but mass transit was shut off at noon!
The NYC mass transit has never, ever been shut down like this before due to a possible storm. It's an outrage.--Andy Schlafly 16:24, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
Would you rather they take precautions after the storm? BrentH 16:27, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
They were told to Evacuate a day ago and fares were suspended for all buses and at subway stations near evacuation zones. This isn't about politics, it's about safety. If you want to turn it into a political argument, go for it, but in the end it reflects poorly on this website.--IreneNYC 16:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
Shutting down mass transit hours ahead of time in an unprecedented manner is not helpful. Perhaps liberals like Bloomberg and Cuomo don't realize it, but ordinary people have real caregiving and other responsibilities that depend on mass transit that the public has already paid for. Again, I ask, where's the refund?--Andy Schlafly 16:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
Keep on digging that hole Andy! End of the day this was the sensible option, and people who have real caregiving responsibilities would have already taken steps to ensure that those responsibilities were met well before now.--IreneNYC 16:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
How would know that everyone who had "real" (??) caregiving responsibilities were able to get others to do the work for them? Most people don't have the luxuries that Bloomberg and Cuomo and other limousine liberals have.--Andy Schlafly 17:08, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
"Real" was your term, Andy. Hospitals and Nurshing homes in the evacuation zones were evacuated on Thursday night. Again, waiting until the storm hit to shut down transit could have led to trains being trapped in tunnels, and much more widespread damage, than if they are safely parked to wait out the storm.
As for refunds, anyone who is petty enough to get upset about loosing ten bucks in subway rides has their priorities backwards. Anyways, half the city is shut down anyway, so where are people going to go? Also, we didn't get refunds for 9/11 or the blackout, so I don't think people are going to be that upset. Everyone I know here has stocked up with food and water and is enjoying a weekend at home.
Please keep digging deeper Andy, you're only showing the readers of this site that you are willing to politicize anything if it serves your agenda, even when it involves the lives of thousands of the everyday people you pretend to care about.--IreneNYC 17:27, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
Also, even if it is an inconvenience, these actions are being taken not only to save the lives of city residents, but also train operators, and first responders who's lives would be at risk if the system continued as normal throughout the storm! --IreneNYC 17:27, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
You didn't answer my question: How would you know that everyone who had real caregiving responsibilities were able to get others to do the work for them? You didn't address the mindset of limousine liberals either.
We have a 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk. If you're not here to contribute in a substantive and educational way, then this site is probably not for you. Relying on personal putdowns is not informative.--Andy Schlafly 17:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
My point is that there has been plenty of warning. Anyone having responsibilities would have attended to them by now. To fail to do so would be the definition of irresponsibility. I would think that that is a concept that you as a conservative would be able to wrap your head around. Are you really suggesting that people rely on the government to help them attend to their responsibilities? Isn't that a liberal POV?
As for your 90/10 rule, if you feel the need to block me for pointing out the flaws in your logic, go for it. Again, it will only serve to put on display the extent of your pettiness. Frankly, I'm hunkered down bracing myself for a hurricane currently. Something that will possibly be a disaster which I can provide on the ground reports of. If you don't value that, than it's obvious that providing substantive and educational content is not the purpose of your site. Revert/block this if you feel like it will help you advance your agenda. However, I will be taking a screen shots of the page so a record of our conversation exists and that everyone can see the depths you will sink to when trying to advance your agenda!--IreneNYC 17:44, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Some more questions for you Andy: are the lives of first responders and MTA employes worth the convenience of having transit running? Also, this is happening on a weekend, and shutting down service now, as opposed to after the storm starts will make starting up for Monday much quicker. Obviously an extended MTA shutdown on Monday would be a sizable blow to the economy. Is that worth the convenience of having some trains running? --IreneNYC 17:53, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

I choose to block Irene as they only seemed interesting in causing trouble/attacking Andy. If you want to unblock, go ahead, i won't contest it--SeanS 18:01, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
My first thought was that Bloomberg had learned the political lesson of New Orleans and Katrina. Don't wait till the last minute. I think he'd rather be called out on failing to provide refunds for prepaid MetroCards than be raked over the coals if anyone died inside a flooded subway station.
When I went outside at 5:00 P.M. on 120th Street in Manhattan, there was scarcely a drizzle falling. But weather prediction is difficult, and Bloomberg understands CYA. --Ed Poor Talk 21:26, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
If transportation was handled by the private sector, there would be no need for "CYA". HP 21:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
Well, at the risk of violated 90/10 myself, I'd have to agree with you. The principle of accountablity is lost on liberals; it's anathema to them; they just want power.
It's the private sector that has to be accountable, because if they don't pay attention to profit they go out of business. And the only way to make profit is to provide goods and services that people want. If you don't maintain and safeguard your fleet, you can't give people rides.
I wonder how late the buses kept running in and out of the Port Authority Terminal on 42nd Street and 8th Avenue? Those are mostly for-profit. --Ed Poor Talk 23:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
The Megabus and BoltBus, at least (both for-profit bus lines) had no Boston-New York service at all Saturday and have cancelled service for tomorrow as well. I am at a meeting in Boston and many are stranded here because there is little transport of any kind leaving. --MarkGall 23:50, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
Also, I understand that Greyhound has cancelled all their routes on the east coast everywhere between Richmond and Boston as of Saturday afternoon (not sure exactly when). I assume they will take large losses -- hard to see how to blame liberals for this one. --MarkGall 23:58, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
Worth looking into further. Thanks for the info. It's possible that the demand for traveling long distances tonight (in the northeast corridor) decreased to almost nothing, thereby justifying the cancellations from a business perspective. But mass transit within a city would not have that excuse. I imagine many would have wanted to take a 15-minute subway ride within the city this afternoon.--Andy Schlafly 00:39, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
Well, it's going to be a future subtopic for the Liberal stupidity article. While I appreciate the shutting down of the subway system, Bloomberg not only did it too soon, but he ordered an evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people from lower New York. Fine, right? Did he bother to check that the subways were their only means of transportation, that most of those people don't own a car? Unless they're walking, those people are now stuck right where they're at, exactly like 10,000 people were in New Orleans during Katrina, when another idiotic liberal mayor demanded they go Greyhound! Karajou 07:48, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

You know, at this point, most people are thanking God, or their lucky stars, or whatever, that a major American city was spared the effects of a major hurricane passing through it, and not trying to score a cheap political point. BrentH 09:50, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

And what constitutes a "cheap political point"? A demand that the subway system be used as much as possible to the very last minute to get as many people out of harm's way as possible? You call that a cheap politcal point? That happens to be a conservative position, which is a far cry from what liberalism demands. Liberalism is what happened in New Orleans when Katrina hit, so why should we allow it to happen again in New York City? Karajou 10:03, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
There has to be a cut-off time when systems are closed. Unlike other natural disasters, hurricanes give plenty of warning. People shouldn't wait until the "last minute" to evacuate if they're in a threatened area. Too often I've heard stories here in Florida about people who don't heed the evactuation warnings because they either don't believe it will happen to them, they don't care, or they're too self-centered to comply and then need rescuing, needlessly using resources better used in other, more necessary areas and endangering rescue workers' lives. I have little sympathy for people who wait. --SharonW 10:44, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

I guess we know what Andy's fate is going to be. Genesis 7 21-22. --QPR 12:12, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtaphotos/ --Harrymd 17:00, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Andy, you know that the headline you just posted is completely the opposite of what the article is about, right? TerryB 17:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Articles are cited for facts, not opinion. Conservapedia is very different from Wikipedia, which cites liberal articles in order to claim that opinions contained in them must somehow be true because they appeared in an article.--Andy Schlafly 18:53, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Is it over?

So has the storm passed NYC? What's the damage? MaxFletcher 17:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

It has been a heavy rainfall and some lost of power. It's still drizzling a bit.
It's possible more people were harmed by liberal politicians' shutdown of mass transit than by the storm.--Andy Schlafly 18:55, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
"It's possible more people were harmed by liberal politicians' shutdown of mass transit than by the storm" - that seems a very peculiar and politicized comment. I've seen no claims that anyone has died because the subway was (quite correctly, given the flooding danger) shut down, but it seems eleven people have indeed died because of the storm. Even the Governor of your own State acknowledges that the damage in New Jersey alone may be into "tens of billions"[5]. Can you support your claim? TommyF 19:37, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
It's not just the subway that was shut down by liberals. Buses and trains were also. How do you think people without cars could get to the hospital, or get to a family member or friend who needed care?--Andy Schlafly 20:02, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that "more people were harmed" or is it just speculation on your part? And are you suggesting that the transit system should not have been shut down, or that it be shut down a few hours later? Unless I was a transit system engineer, I'd hesitate to claim I knew how long it would take to get all the systems shut down. I have no idea but I could easily believe that, for a massive metropolis like NYC, getting the no-doubt thousands of buses and trains back to base, secured, and the staff clear would have taken five hours at least. Five hours before the storm was due to hit seems kinda last-minute to me TommyF 20:15, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
I just want to laugh when I hear that New Yorkers are complaining about lack of bus service after a hurricane. Here in Florida, we were hit by three hurricanes in six weeks. We not only didn't have transit, but we were without power for weeks, had no fresh food or ice to keep it on if we did manage to get some, no AC in the heat of summer, thousands of trees down blocking streets and half our roof off the house. NYers whining about such a trivial thing says so much about them. --SharonW 19:09, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
One difference - people in Florida have cars, while many in NYC do not.--Andy Schlafly 20:02, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
So people stay home for a day and not go shopping or to the theater, or even to work - it won't kill them and the world probably won't end. We were without services for weeks. We had to boil water for drinking. There was no food at the grocery stores. No ice. As for having cars, yeah, we do. However, when the hurricanes hit, we were without power, so no gasoline for those cars because the pumps don't work without electricity. There were also gas shortages. Sorry, I just don't sympathize about lack of buses. --SharonW 21:12, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I can't figure out a way to articulate how frustrating a conversation is with you. I give up. TerryB 19:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
I am pleased everyone is OK! MaxFletcher 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

The reporter who mocked Obama

Mr. Schlafly, didn't you say "I don't think an employee can way whatever he likes if his employer disapproves?" Maybe ESPN doesn't approve of what the reporter said about Mr. Obama. (I refuse to call him President until we see the birth certificate.) But in this case, I think there's no story here because I think (and it seems you do too) that ESPN was well within their rights. --OliviaB 22:54, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

My comment referred to statements in the course of the employment (teachers) and statements criticizing the employer (Microsoft hypothetical). Political remarks having nothing to do with the employer and on an employee's own time should typically be respected as free speech.--Andy Schlafly 23:09, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
The problem, as I think you'll agree, is that a teacher who disagrees with his employer about a political issue like the definition of marriage may be seen as criticizing the employer. The public school system insists that teachers agree (or keep quiet), even about issues on which their First Amendment rights ought to be respected.
We should do a series of articles on how socialist governments (including the left-leaning Democratic Party here in the good ol' US of A) trample on free speech. It's all in the name of some noble sounding principle, but that kind of censorship reveals their real fear: they cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas.
And that is why I find Conservapedia a more congenial place than Wikipedia: here, no one is censored for giving their opinion, or for writing about an opinion ... provided they follow some simple (and quite loose) guidelines.
Only a tyrant fears an opposing viewpoint. Only a liar or faker refuses to have his arguments analyzed and his evidence scrutinized. Which is the main difference between conservatives (and real scientists) on the one hand, and the liberals with their fake "science" on the other. --Ed Poor Talk 23:37, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Ed,

I'd like to know what you consider real "science". Obviously you fail to understand simple concepts of science that are obvious to children.

Go ahead and delude yourself into thinking that there is a free expression of ideas on this site. The truth is that you found a bunch of buddies here who share your opinions and like to cry about how hard it is for white, christian men.

I doubt that you would ever be able to stand up to the everyday realities that are faced by people who aren't fortunate enough to be white men. I would love to see you try to live one day as someone who is actually disenfranchised.

And do you really not see the censorship here that happens every moment of every day? I mean, you guys can't even deal with the fact that Truth, Justice and the American way wasn't added to the Superman mythos until the US got involved in WW2, even though this fact is well documented.

Censorship is alive and well on conservapedia, just as it is alive and well in dictatorships across the world! Just you watch as this very edit is censored by the very people who you consider your champions of free speech!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TylerP (talk)

Comparing Conservapedia to a real world dictatorship is a little extreme. As for censorship, it is a private site. As the property of Andrew Schlafly (I presume), it is his decision what is and isn't allowed here. Just like if it were his house.--CamilleT 11:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Power Outages

Hi Andy, I don't understand how the power outage in Connecticut has anything to do with power rationing. No matter how much power you make if the lines are down it can't go anywhere! MaxFletcher 23:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Because alternative powerplants tend to be smaller I'd imagine that they are more evenly distributed and would lead to fewer power outages not more, but as Max pointed out it's all about power lines (which have zero carbon emissions) and not really about power plants.--DrDean 02:30, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
As far as thermal energy goes, larger power stations are more efficient because they produce more useful work (= electricity) from each unit of fuel. That's a simple consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As the availability of fuel goes down and its cost goes up, new power stations should be bigger not smaller. (This doesn't apply to non-thermal power generation, e.g. hydroelectrical, tidal, wave and wind power.) KhalidM 15:21, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
We should just build a nuclear reactor on every block. That way, when a storm comes and floods everything and knocks down powerlines and trees, overwhelming the utility companies who are doing their best, there will still be plenty of power. TerryB 16:15, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
Or learn to live with electricity for a short time. Saving lives is more important than restoring power to private houses. KhalidM 18:10, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
"Learn to live without Electricity". Easier said then done in the Modern western world...--SeanS 18:12, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
The rationing and control of energy prevents power companies from improving their technologies as, for example, computer companies have. Redundancy is common in the computer world, but power companies have fallen nearly a century behind, due to liberal controls.--Andy Schlafly 18:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
So you mean have above ground and below ground wires for redundancy? MaxFletcher 18:23, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
How much are you prepared to spend to maintain power supplies? You can have multiply-redundant power lines and pylons capable of resisting hurricane-force winds if you like, but the money you choose to spend on them could be used to buy something more important to you. Your decision on whether to spend that money depends partly on how common hurricanes are where you live. This is straightforward economics, not conservative-versus-liberal stuff. KhalidM 18:24, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
I want the free market to provide the same advances in the energy sector that it has in computer technology. It's not so much a matter of spending more, but allowing more competition without liberal controls.--Andy Schlafly 18:42, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
The fact that "big is better" for thermal power stations creates a conflict between efficiency and resilience. It's extremely expensive to create redundancy by having more big, efficient, thermal power stations than are usually needed. Small, non-thermal generators running on tidal, wind or wave power are much better at providing both efficiency and resilience. How much is the USA investing in these technologies? My understanding is that they're not popular with lobby groups which are funded by "Big Oil" and "Big Coal". (Apologies if you know this stuff already, Andy - weren't you an electricial engineer before you became a lawyer? - but it may inform other readers.) KhalidM 18:51, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Headline typo

The headline that talks about Lagarde mentions that she "wants taxpayers, many of whom have too much debt, to put bail out European banks." Should the word "put" be removed from this? Thank you! KevinDavis Talk 20:19, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Typo in the comic

Greetings. There is a typo in the (hilarious) comic. "Carrys" should read "carries". Thank you and godspeed, keep up the good work! JamesQ 12:56, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Feds to Trucking Company: You Cannot Fire Alcoholic Drivers

The federal government has sued a major trucking company for its refusal to hire as drivers individuals with admitted alcohol abuse problems. Alcoholism is classified as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the suit maintains, and therefore emploees cannot be prohibited even from driving 18 wheelers due to their histories of abuse. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed the suit against the Old Dominion Freight Line trucking company on August 16, noted that while “an employer’s concern regarding safety on our highways is a legitimate issue, an employer can both ensure safety and comply with the ADA. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/30/feds-to-trucking-company-you-cannot-fire-alcoholic-drivers/

Alcoholism is classified as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act!!!Daniel1212 21:07, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Really?

Really? Seriously? --CamilleT 22:54, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

I have no clue what point is being made there either TonyB 22:55, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
It's giving people an idea about what kind of candidates we have running for president. RSnelik 22:59, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
I fail to see the relevance of what they were like at 22. Especially on a physical level.--Jab512 23:03, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
Think of it this way: Would you rather have a brave, patriotic 22 year old who's willing to fight for his country eventually run for president or a typical, disengaged 22 year old? It's not just a "physical" level, it's revealing what they were like: Perry's a brave fighter pilot and Obama's disengaged. It's a way of showing what these two 22 year olds will grow up to be. We already know what they've both become but this comparison is a new way of looking at it and drives home an important point. RSnelik 23:29, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
Not really. Perry had connections. Perry is also a moron. The guy prayed for rain... and it didn't work (of course). Sorry, but I trust Obama more than Perry. TerryB 00:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
George W. Bush was a drunk at 22. I also fail to see the relevance. MaxFletcher 23:57, 30 August 2011 (EDT)
And do you have proof to back up such accusations? RSnelik 00:04, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
How about Bush himself? MaxFletcher 00:14, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
It came up in his book. Before he became a full out Christian he was well... Not the most upstanding of people.--SeanS 00:07, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

Bush, who clearly affirmed Islam and denied it promoted religious violence, and bowed in a Shinto temple, and ran up debts, etc., was not a "full out Christian" by a long stretch (and i come some short), but then again, atheists contend that Hitler was a Christian, yet atheism had nothing to with Mao's atrocities.

As for the lack of rain after Perry's prayer (it did rain in some places[6] [7], but overall record drought continues), God answers specific prayers every day for things truly in "Jesus name" (not simply appending that to a prayer), and we who depend on Him to do so know that, but the call must first be to repentance. Daniel1212 07:30, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

I can't see the news piece being removed now, but honestly, I don't vote based on how physically fit a candidate is or what they were like many years ago. I vote based on their leadership qualities and their abilities, as well as their policies. There are many good reasons that people wouldn't want to vote for Obama and the fact that Obama looks wimpy in a photo taken when he was 22 isn't one of them. TonyB 11:47, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps there is a bit of "fight fire with fire" going on. The liberal media favors the Democrats.

As long as we don't actually cross the line into bias, I see no real problem with occasional digs at non-Conservatives. But I hope we can focus our journalistic talents on writing articles. --Ed Poor Talk 12:21, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

It only crosses the line into bias if conservatives don't get the same treatment. Now everyone else please play nice.--DrDean 12:33, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

So which is it?

In a recent front page post, (the one about the CERN scientists) this site seemed to be supporting the idea that global warming is happening, however it isn't caused by humans. I have seen this site suggest this before, however i have also seen this site support the idea that global warming is not happening what-so-ever. I have seen this inconsistency in many global warming skeptics. It seems that they change their minds to whichever they think will put down those who believe in climate change. Either human-caused climate change (or human-helped climate change) is happening, or it is happening due to natural processes, or it isnt happening at all. Look at the evidence and decide which you believe, but stop changing your minds just to "prove the other side wrong"--Jab512 23:00, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

The environmental movement for bigger government is nothing new. But with bad data, constant naturally changing climate conditions, and the occasional enlightened realization that the sun has a more important role in the Earths temperature than it's given -- it's no surprise you'll encounter mixed information. I think that's why they call it a theory. DerekE 03:12, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
You're confusing facts with slogans: the slogan "global warming is happening" has more ambiguity in it than the supposed "inconsistency" you claim to see in skeptics.
  1. The atmosphere is certainly a full degree centigrade (2 degrees F) higher than it was in 1850. That's not the issue.
  2. Is the Anthropogenic global warming theory true or not? That's the question
The science says that temperature drives CO2, which in turn slightly increases temperature (a bit of positive feedback). The politics tempts people to look at it simplistically, as in your 3 part either-or account. (Was it a grammar error, or did you really mean that human-caused climate change could be happening due to natural processes? ;-)
That was a grammatical error.--Jab512 23:36, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
I look forward to improving the science coverage of this issue, which has been heavily politicized by liberals. --Ed Poor Talk 12:36, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
It has been heavily politicized by both sides.--Jab512 23:36, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
I just did a Google news search of global warming and it seems like a mix between global warming advocates and global warming skeptics in the top results. But here is something more interesting and significant: "The problem is CNN just fired their science team. Why didn't they fire their economics team or their sports team? Why don't they send their general assignment reporters out to cover the Super Bowl?" Schneider said."[8] Given internet competition for news, I don't think the mainstream media is going to start covering the global warming debate any better due to the laying off of staff if this story is any indication. Conservative 13:00, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

Possible News Story

Scientists declare there's no Higgs boson so their quest to discover how the universe was created has stalled. Hey scientists, if you want to know where the Universe came from, read the Bible! It's all in there! --StevenG 13:07, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

Bear in mind that "science news" is a bit of a misnomer. It takes months or years for other scientists to check out a scientific announcement. The way science works is that one person (or team) announces their findings. Then others try to replicate the results. Nothing is settled until everyone else agrees that the findings check out.
Reporters need to remind readers of what stage any "discovery" is in. Is this just one experiment or paper? Or have others had time to check it out? What other work has been done on the same problem? How much agreement or debate is there at this point?
Without answering these questions, it's easy for bias to creep in. --Ed Poor Talk 13:20, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
The article states that the scientists are 95% certain that the Higgs boson doesn't exist; 95% is all that is required in science. The LHC needs to be shut down and the money returned to the tax payers. If that money was used to buy even one Bible, it would be better used than on this monument to man's hubris. --StevenG 22:02, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works, as others have expressed. First, the experiment is not over and even after it is, it will be retested by other individuals in the attempt to reproduce the results. I get the impression you're excited if we don't find it, which is interesting cause I am curious too, it would be more interesting if we don't find it than if we do.. even the article says "since March 31, 2010, the LHC has been amassing petabytes of data that are being analyzed by a grid of interlinked computers worldwide in search of the missing boson" I don't know how familiar you are with units of digital data but that is a massive amount of hard data to dig through, analyze. It is interesting that our skills and experience as humans have developed so well that we can test these types of things then have others who understand the information, challenge the results in an effort to see the same outcomes. Having said that, if you do not understand the experiment, doesn't mean it is irrelevant and counter-productive. Anything is difficult before you understand it. --Sciencedominates 11:14, 1 September 2011 (EDT)


To correct StevenG. The title StevenG has given "Scientists declare there's no Higgs boson" is misleading as it implies there is conclusively no Higgs boson, allow me to provide some facts.. the article states
CERN scientists declared that over the entire range of energy the Collider had explored—from 145 to 466 billion electron volts—the Higgs boson is excluded as a possibility with a 95% probability.
...
They state that, with a 95% probability, the Higgs does not exist within the range of energies the LHC has so far explored, between 145 and 466 billion electron volts. The probability of nonexistence is not overwhelming—there is still a 5% chance that the Higgs is hiding somewhere within this energy range. And, more importantly, the lower energy range from 114 to just under 145 billion electron volts, a region of energy that Fermilab has determined, through earlier experiments, may harbor the Higgs, has not been ruled out.
Clearly the 114-145 GeV region remains unexplored by LHC, so I'm not entirely sure how you missed that essential bit.
As for your comment about finding out where the Universe came from through the use of the Bible, Galileo was quoted as saying "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go." Lastly, I find it interesting you mention the whole thing about... if humans want to know where the universe came from, the origin, even top religious figures openly discourage from questioning that sort of thing.--Sciencedominates 11:14, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

Look what what the global warming alarmists, who we pay with OUR tax dollars, are doing with their time

[[9]]

Page move needed

Oyango Obama should be moved to Onyango Obama. It's mispelled in the source, but a google search (or even the caption on the image in the source) will confirm the correct spelling. Thanks.--MorrisF 15:43, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

The Obama administration takes a step in the direction of communist propaganda

Think of us as family! the feds say now. Just more excuses for them to make decisions for us. --DrDean 18:24, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

I'm missing...

... the traditional monthly announcement of a new record of individual visitors to this site over the last month! According to Special:Statistics, the number of edits was above 16,000 and the number of view over 17,000,000 - quite impressive!

So, is there a new record? The best August since 2008?

Even better (ceterum censeo...) would be the number of individual editors over the last months: this way, everyone could see how much interest there is in this site - even in month without any record. So, Aschlafly, could you please show us the data?

AugustO 09:48, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

August, thank you, you've done excellent work at summarizing the data as made publicly available. August was indeed another strong month for traffic here.--Andy Schlafly 11:08, 2 September 2011 (EDT)
August, why don't you write an article on web traffic. You might learn of various ways an outside observer can approximate web traffic to a website. Conservative
August, you could also write an article on web analytics. Conservative 14:15, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

This place gets better and better every day. --<3 Sally 01:38, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

@Aschlafly: Would you have appreciated this kind of answer from Prof. Lenski when you asked him to show us your data?

@Conservative: Surely we can agree that a direct method of gathering data is preferable to any indirect method in this case?

AugustO 10:01, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

August, data supposedly observed in support of scientific claims, published in peer-reviewed journals, should be made publicly available. There are obvious reasons for that. Do I need to elaborate on them?--Andy Schlafly 10:42, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
I agree completely. Whenever I get a reasonable request for data, I grant it without much further ado - that's the reply I'd like to see from scientists like Prof Lenski (and from webmasters like you, too)! I don't care that much about the legal obligations, it's about a mutual interest in the free exchange of information as far it is not critical in any way.
And my request seems to be reasonable: you announced record-breaking numbers over a couple of months. Without the actual numbers, it is impossible to judge the significance of these records. Surely, a trustworthy encyclopedia prefers hard numbers over sensationalist announcements?
You said: This site has always provided an enormous amount of statistics on usage. Where? I've seen nothing but the usual (and therefore hardly enormous) amount of statistics provided by the MediaWiki-software.
AugustO 10:32, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Jobs Headline

In the headline, it says that the private sector shedded 17,000 jobs, but in the article linked, and in all reports citing this month's dismal job report, it says that the private sector added 17,000 jobs, but the public sector shedded 17,000, resulting in zero job creation. Typo perhaps? --MarkN85 11:34, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

Well at least they're private sector jobs. Obama must be crying as the socialist job market shrinks and the private sector, as it is inclined to do, grows to fill the gap. --<3 Sally 01:40, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Both comments are good ones. I've trimmed the headline.--Andy Schlafly 01:53, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Golf

I don't understand why Rick Perry has a hang-up about Obama playing golf. Surely conservatives believe that less government is better government, so the more time a President or Prime Minister plays golf, the less time he or she has to interfere in the country's affairs. In any case, leading a country is a responsible job, so the guy's got to relax sometime; what does it matter if he does it by sailing a boat, writing poetry or playing golf? Surely there are bigger things to worry about - it makes Rick Perry seem very small-minded. KhalidM 18:34, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

I agree. (But i think the part about more golf = smaller gov't is kind of a stretch)--Jab512 18:38, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
Our candidates will be vetted unlike liberals.--Jpatt 20:39, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
I agree, the Obamanation is the worst thing that ever happened to that country, but Golf is actually a very conservative sport. I think he just plays it because he wants to fit in with Real America. George Bush and most other presidents played golf and I bet Perry does too. I don't think we should be giving borderline RINOs like Perry free publicity for their stunts like this. We should be giving Palin more support! --CraigF 21:25, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
Actually, I doubt Perry plays much golf - he had much-publicized back surgery recently. Moreover, the golf theme is simply a symbol for a lack of hard work and involvement in the problems facing the nation. Indeed, I recall one website saying that Obama's best chance at reelection is to distance himself from the nation's problems, and maybe that's what he's trying to do with his golfing images. I doubt he even likes golf much; I don't think he played much of it growing up.--Andy Schlafly 21:39, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
It also builds resentment against Obama. While people see their jobs and companies vaporize, reminders that Obama is enjoying himself on the golf course are not very helpful to Obama. It strengthens the perception that Obama is a liberal elitist and Rick Perry is a good ole boy in Texas who goes to picnics, has driven around on a John Deere and knows the value of hard work. Conservative 00:26, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Guardasil

HPV has long been implicated in oral, penile, and rectal cancers in men (thankfully these cancers tend to respond more readily to treatment than other cancers). Not contracting HPV does as much for young men as it does for young women. Additionally it's young men that young women are catching it from. It would be really nice if we could stop children from having sex, but I don't forsee us being able to do that with out the government grossly overstepping its bounds. --DrDean 01:34, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

The effects of the Welsh revival

The effects of the Welsh Revival: "The effects of the revival were awesome. There was a dramatic decline in drunkenness and bars were deserted each night while the churches were packed with worshippers. Dance halls, theaters and football games also saw a dramatic decline in attendance as a result of the revival meetings. The courts and jails were deserted and many policemen found themselves without work.

The sale of Bibles increased so dramatically that shopkeepers were not able to keep them on their shelves. The printers were not able to print Bibles fast enough to keep up with the sales!"[10]

"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." - Matthew 19:26 Conservative 08:27, 4 September 2011 (EDT)


A challenge to user Conservative

Dear Conservative, you seem to be issuing challenges and claim that others are hiding away from challenges to debate. I challenge you to debate me or anyone on the subject of atheism or evolution. I hope you don't shy away from this challenge. Thank you and regards--Orsay 12:14, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

User Conservative undoubtedly has better things to do than to get in arguments with random liberal trolls visiting this site. However, to indulge you, I would be willing to do a little debate with you. Lets start by narrowing the topic down to atheism, and I'll let you begin by answering the question: what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true and correct? --JKeeting 12:55, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
That's a pretty poor start to a debate. First, if you agree to debate you have explain your position before you start laying into the other guy. Opening with a question may be "debate" on a lamestream media talk show but it isn't in the real world. Second, you're asking him to prove a negative. Disingenuous to say the least. Third, you're putting words in the guy's mouth. Not even Dawkins says atheism is true.
Its possible to wipe the floor with atheists honestly. Dishonest debating may please your friends but it does nothing for our cause. Rafael
what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true and correct? It sounds like a question but doesn't make any sense. Atheism is lack of belief in god so the question becomes What proof and evidence do you have that lack of belief in god is true and correct? to which the proof is the respondents lack of belief. MaxFletcher 17:33, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, take from atheism article: "Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.[3][4][5]" I also suggest reading: Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism. Usually, it is unscholarly village atheists who try to water down the definition of atheism. Given that a number of Conservapedia atheists have difficulty spelling the words atheism, atheist, and atheists this is not entirely surprising. Also, the fact that there are many low performing public schools who unwittingly promote atheistic evolution, that certainly is a problem as well. Conservative 20:09, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
So thew question becomes What proof and evidence do you have that the denial of the existence of God is god is true and correct? Which still doesn't make sense. I think what you should be asking is "What evidence can you provide that there is no god" but, that as well, isn't a question because you can't prove a negative. MaxFletcher 21:35, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, I wouldn't worry about it. The explosive growth of biblical Christianity globally, the Question evolution! campaign and continual shrinking of global atheism is making atheism even more inconsequential than it already was. Plus, given the cowardice of Western atheism in the Anglosphere, mostly effette liberal men in the Anglosphere wants to be atheists, although sometimes they choose to be Wiccans also. :) Conservative 21:53, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Orsay, I wrote at: Conservapedia's challenge to atheist Penn Jillette

"3. Consider reading Conservapedia's atheism article and the Conservepedia Christian apologetics article to better prepare you for the debate. You may find you want to change sides and debate on the Christian side of the aisle given the abundant evidence for Christianity and the lack of proof and evidence for atheism. In addition, please consider reading Creation Ministries International's atheism article which can be found here which is written by Ken Ammi as it offers quite a bit of information concerning atheism which you may be asked to address.

4. Please consider losing some weight. I certainly don't want you to claim you could have done better in the debate if your body and mental acumen had been operating at "full atheist power". I am giving you 150 days to shed your flabby physique and replace it with a "mean, lean, atheism debating machine". Given the "superior atheist intellect" which you no doubt possess, I am sure if you put your mind to it that you will be able to lose the weight. However, if you need more time, I can certainly accommodate you. I have put some helpful resources below which offers some of the best information from medical science, exercise science and nutritional science as I know that many atheists purport to love science. Plus, according to medical science, there are a number of health risks associated with being overweight which are cited in Conservapedia's Atheism and Mental and Physical Health article.

5. Although you might want Richard Dawkins to be a debate partner, please consider this information:

In a letter to fellow atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins which was subsequently quoted by The Daily Telegraph, fellow atheist Dr. Daniel Came wrote concerning Dawkins' refusal to debate the Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig:

"The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."[4]

I would encourage you to ask Richard Dawkins to be a debate partner, but please do not be disappointed if he declines as he often is reluctant to leave his "intellectual bunny hole".

Sincerely,

User:Conservative

Questions for Penn Jillette and fellow atheists

Has the outspoken atheist Penn Jillette ever publicly debated a Bible believing Christian before concerning the existence of God before? If not, why not? Surely, a very outspoken atheist with a good case against the existence of God would have publicly debated such a Christian by now about this matter.

If Penn Jillette did publicly debate a Bible believing Christian concerning the existence of God, did he seek out the toughest debate opponent who would agree to debate him or did he seek out the easiest opponent he could find?

If Penn Jillete decides to dodge this debate offer, Conservapedia is giving Penn Jillette 150 days from 6/23/11 to publicly debate the toughest Bible believing Christian debate opponent he can find concerning the existence of God. By November 20, 2011, we will see if Penn Jillette believes he can defend atheism against biblical Christianity. And please Penn Jillette, try to be more logical than you were HERE."

With the above in mind: Now given that Penn Jillette has a "superior atheist intellect" and that he purportedly loves science (which includes nutritional science, exercise science and medical science), perhaps Penn Jillette is merely waiting until he is operating at "full atheist power" before he accepts my debate. I did offer plenty of evidence that I am a Christian to Jillette and his fans so lack of evidence that I am a Christian can't be reason why he refuses to accept my debate offer despite his recent protestations. Now in the interest of demonstrating Christian charity, I am still giving Jillette until November 20, 2011 to achieve "full atheist power" despite the fact that it is not particularly challenging to refute atheism in a debate (Please see: Matt Dillahunty and another atheist adult lose a debate exchange to a 15 year old).

Lastly, given the: absurdity of atheism; the the deceitfulness of the atheist community; the fact that each day there are about 80,000 new Christians every and 300 fewer atheists every day[11]; the fact that atheism is but a squeak in many societies, and that the atheism article I largely wrote continues to have a healthy audience, I would prefer to debate a more prominent "King Cobra atheist snake" rather than an obscure "garden variety atheist snake" such as yourself - especially since you apparently cannot provide proof and evidence that atheism is true and the fact that there is a host of Christian websites offering an abundance of evidence for Christianity. Plus, I have responded already to a number of atheists at the talk page of Conservapedia's atheism article. Conservative

What was the point in posting that challenge to Penn Jillete here? It isn't even an argument. Just a bunch of Ad Hominem attacks at atheism and Penn Jillette. And I see people on this site posting that "Christian Apologetics" page as if inside there is actually any evidence that there is a God. Click it and all you get is three or four (arguably flawed) Philosophical arguments and a bunch of resources for converting to Christianity. No actual evidence.--Jab512 22:32, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
Jeb, no need to rant and fret. The Question evolution! campaign will cut atheism off at the knees and make atheism more inconsequential than it already is. Atheism is a dying religion and each day there are about 300 less atheists in the world. I am sure the last remaining members of the Baal worshippers were upset at first, but then they resigned themselves to defeat. Conservative 03:49, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
Ok, so again, you hide behind logical fallacies, rather than actually argue your case. The population of atheists is irrelevant to the discussion, and using it to support your argument is a logical fallacy known as Ad Populum. Quit being so smug if you can't back it up with anything.--Jab512 13:13, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
Presenting relevant information to the public on various issues is not a struggle to me. Given your sour disposition here, I think you are struggling with obscurity. Perhaps you are confusing the right to be heard with the being payed attention to and should focus more on presenting relevant information. I suggest dropping the foolish religion of atheism and becoming a Christian. Conservative 13:34, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
I apologize if i appeared sour. Let's start over. Can you please provide evidence that there is a God? (Please let's keep this civil. Don't mock me for my beliefs and I won't mock you for yours)--Jab512 14:18, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
Look out your window. Plus, you are on the information superhighway. You don't need my assistance. Conservative 17:10, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
Dodging the question? You're always calling atheists cowards, yet I'm trying to debate you now and you keep trying to avoid it--Jab512 22:33, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
A challenge by an atheist - that is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. :) Conservative 08:51, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
Please, just answer the question and end all this trash talking. I'll repeat it for you. "Can you provide any evidence that there is a God?"--Jab512 10:21, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Does any of this have anything to do with the main page?--DrDean 23:56, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

There have been a number of news stories lately relating to cowardly atheists. Conservative 00:29, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, you can't call atheists cowards until you answer my question above. Given your arrogance on the topic, surely you wont have any trouble at all setting me straight.--Jab512 23:20, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Dear conservative, you say "I would prefer to debate a more prominent "King Cobra atheist snake" rather than an obscure "garden variety atheist snake" such as yourself ". You are not much of a King Cobra or even cobra.. are you? I think it is appropriate for a "garden variety rat snake christian" to debate with "garden variety atheist snake". Don't you think?

The Bible says on the witness of two or three witnesses let every fact be confirmed. Much to the chagrin of many atheists, I seem to have at least three witnesses as far as the atheism article I largely wrote having an abundance of relevant information on atheism. :) [12][13][14] Plus, men with doctorates in relevant fields have linked to the atheism article plus one the largest Christian organizations in the world (Perhaps, if you search the internet long enough and hard enough, you may find some of them).  :) Conservative 15:01, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Can you please clarify those links? I can see 3 major search engines with no search results related to you. So what about the debate conservative? any plans to come out of the intellectual bunny hole you accuse others of hiding in?--Orsay 15:41, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I have no doubt that others would be able to answer my question. I want to know if you can. You keep talking as if you are absolutely right, and people who disagree with you are below you. I want to know what information you base this arrogance on. It seems to me rather unfounded. I have never seen you actually debate someone without resorting to attacking others that share the beliefs of the person you are debating. Are atheists generally fat? Maybe, but i know that i am probably skinnier than you and i cannot do anything about the eating habits of others. Are atheists cowards? It seems to me that you are the coward here. Please just answer this one question. What evidence is there that there is a God?--Jab512 15:50, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Jab, consider spending less time trying to show I am arrogant and more time trying to point out a single factual error in the Conservapedia atheism article (By the way, it doesn't take an intellectual giant to show atheism to be false and Christianity to be true and even a 15 year old boy can best adult atheists in a debate exchange.[15]). In short, the term atheist challenge is still an oxymoron. Conservative 16:30, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
I'll do that. In the mean-time, since a 15-year-old boy can easily best an atheist in an argument, how about you actually debate me and answer my question. I'll get back to you on that atheism article.--Jab512 17:10, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
The notion of debating an obscure member of a dying and foolish religion has no appeal to me. Bring me a "King Cobra" with an attractive offer even though admittedly the "King Cobras" of atheism have no fangs which is why Richard Dawkins will not debate Dr. William Lane Craig. Conservative 18:18, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
How poetic. Prove to me that you are a King Cobra of Christianity and answer the question above. Where are your fangs? Surely they could tear right through such an obscure member of a foolish "religion"--Jab512 18:28, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Money being wasted

the border patrol in washington, is getting more funding that even the workers there call a waste!--SeanS 11:24, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Is it possible to lose your right to free speech?

Something I have been thinking about: In the American society/legal system, when someone denies someone else's right to life (a murderer) they forfeit their own right to life. When someone denies someone else's right to freedom (a kidnapper) they lose their own right to freedom. Is it possible that equally someone who denies someone else's right to free speech (many liberals) they should lose their own right to free speech? I am not sure about this one, my inclination would be to say that they shouldn't, but I struggle with justifying why. Maybe they should-GrahamB 12:08, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

No. Also, unless the government is involved, the right to free speech isnt guaranteed, generally. --SeanS 12:13, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Our legal system isn't as "eye-for-an-eye" as you seem to think--Jab512 13:17, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

It wasn't a legal question. I am fully aware that liberals who prevent others from having free speech still have the legal right to free speech. It is a moral/philosophical question.--GrahamB 13:23, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
It would make you as bad as them for denying your freedom of speech. You don't fight a dictator by being one yourself, that gets nobody nowhere--SeanS 14:54, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
It's pretty difficult to curtail someones freedom of speech. You can only really punish them after they say something you don't like. If you are an employer you can fire them, and that is you right. The 1st amendment only really says that a government cannot punish you for what you say. So if the government does lock someone up for what they say then you can get worried about it. --DrDean 15:01, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
That's true. Democratic governments rarely lock people up for what they say. Although, in my original point, this would also be illegimately taking their freedom from them, which would mean they forfeit their right to freedom as well. I guess I would be looking at something a little simpler. For example, if a media outlet censored the conservative viewpoint, should they then be censored themselves? If an academic conference denied someone the ability to present simply because they were conservative, should they forfeit the right to hold a conference, thus losing their own ability to present? I do take the point that it is a bit eye-for-an-eye though, and it is not really intended to be an advocation for an actual law to be put in place, more of just a musing. I started with the question in my mind "Should liberals (who are notorious for being against free speech) have the right to free speech?" I came to the same conclusion, that they should, but I was interested in the counterarguments I came up with as well.--GrahamB 18:00, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Labor Day In the News suggestion

Friday in a waiting room I read a letter to the Arizona Republic which I have retrieved online here. While I don't necessarily agree with its contents, perhaps it would be a fitting conservative inclusion to In the News?--CamilleT 14:00, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

An open apology to Conservative and Aschlafly

I was User:WalterS and made an inappropriate comment several months ago. Then two days ago I signed up again under the name JefferyA and tried to make some contributions to the Conservative dictionary. I was banned by User:Karajou for my actions as WalterS and told that I could come back if I apologized. I am therefore offering my apologies to User:Aschlafly and User:Conservative. I am sorry. It was wrong to vandalize your site. I know I don't deserve to stay, but if you can find it within you to allow me to, I would very much appreciate it. God be with you. --JefferyA 09:22, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Jimmy Hoffa???

Jimmy Hoffa has been missing since 1975, perhaps the headline should add the Jr. to his name so it doesn't look like you all think that Jimmy Hoffa has come out of hiding or back from the dead to menace the Tea Party. --JonnS 16:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

main page error and inconsistency

The Question Evolution! mini-gun story contains an inconsistency - firstly it says The 15 questions that evolutionists cannot answer when in fact the questions have been answered on this very site and then it carries on to say 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer which implies gthat they have been answered rendering the first line inconsistent with the rest of the story. This isn't the first time I have pointed this out and can't understand why user:Conservative keeps making the same errors on the front page. Why can't we get this sorted once and for all? MaxFletcher 17:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Headlines are often shorthand for what follows. Isn't that standard?--Andy Schlafly 17:22, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
The questions have either been answered or the haven't been answered. This says both. MaxFletcher 17:27, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
Pat non-answers are still not real answers. You can keep trying to pretend that the evolutionary paradigm doesn't have significant problems, but the many quotes from evolutionists in this article show otherwise. Conservative 17:56, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
You completely miss the point again Conservative - regardless of whether you like the answers or not the headline says they haven't been answered then goes on to say they have been answered. Which is it? MaxFletcher 18:03, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, your handwaving will be disregarded. If you think that mere handwaving will insure the continuation of the evolutionary paradigm and/or stop the campaign, you are kidding yourself. Conservative 18:10, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
What on earth are you talking about? I don't care about stopping the campaign nor do I care about campaign at all. What hand-waving? The headline reads like saying "A hurricane missed Florida" followed by "But the Hurricane hit Florida". Its inconsistent and your stubborn, off-topic responses are completely perplexing when the only that needs changing is a single word!!!! MaxFletcher 18:12, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
You do not care about the campaign, yet you have commented on the campaign more than once now. Very odd behavior and quite telling. Conservative 18:16, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
I care about consistent grammar and sentence structure on the mainpage. MaxFletcher 18:31, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
I really don't understand what the issue is? Either the questions have been answered or not but the posts says both - they have been answered and they haven't been answered. It has nothing to do with the topic and only to do with basic grammar and syntax. MaxFletcher 18:39, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

So no one will change this?

I am not criticizing the campaign, only the grammar! It reads the same as someone writing "Obama had no answer to the question when asked" then writing "Obama's answer to the question was incorrect". It looks very strange for a front page headline. MaxFletcher 00:16, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Perry "ducking" the debate.

Interesting choice of terminology, as the headline implies that Perry is trying to avoid something. Given the facts in the story, I might have chosen to craft a headline that draws attention to the fact that Perry might miss the debate because his responsibilities as governor are dictating that he stay in Austin, given the situation in Texas right now. "Wildfires may force Perry to miss the debate," maybe. Which to me would be a sign that he is a better bet for the nomination, as he is showing that his responsibilities in office are more important to him than a fairly unimportant debate (being still early in the process of choosing a nominee). BrentH 21:29, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

I think Perry has been in only one political debate in the last 9 years, and I can't recall a single interview of him on the national stage.
Like most conservatives, I agree with many of Perry's positions and wish him well as governor. But it's difficult to see a candidate winning the nomination by avoiding debates and interviews on a national level. Liberals can get away with that because the media will cover up for them (for example, Obama reads to reporters from a teleprompter); a conservative candidate cannot.--Andy Schlafly 21:48, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
Correction to my post above: Perry may have been in a few more political debates than one in the last decade. But not many more.--Andy Schlafly 00:28, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

No good atheists?

How do you define a good atheist because I know plenty! MaxFletcher 00:13, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

No one is arguing that all atheists are somehow bad people. The better inquiry is whether an ideology makes someone a better person than he would be otherwise.--Andy Schlafly 00:29, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Well, the main-page is pretty blanket in its assertion! Well, I do know atheist in my family that have argued that their atheism helps them focus on their fellow man themselves as opposed to prayer but I don't really know enough about it apart from they are very good people! MaxFletcher 00:33, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
The real issue is how people do under atheism over many years, and with respect to large numbers of adherents. The former East Germany, one of the most atheist nations in history, was not a pleasant place to live and was very much an underachiever compared with its western counterpart.--Andy Schlafly 01:03, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
interesting - I suppose something could be said in a societal sense but this is about the individual. My mother is a life long atheist and one of the sweetest, kindest, most honest person you could image. Perhaps, like a single person can make a rational choices in an emergency but a group of people tend to panic, a single atheist can be a fine, upstanding member of society but in groups their irrationality is increased? An interesting proposal...MaxFletcher 01:08, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
The other question would be, which Mr. Schlafly addressed above is does atheism make someone a worse person, ceteris paribus? An atheist might be a good person, but maybe if they became religious, they would be an even better person. Similarly, a religious person might not be good, but if they lost their faith, they might become worse. Therefore, if a society starts to lose it's faith as a whole, the average goodness goes down, and severe consequences might ensue.--GrahamB 13:12, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Jesus said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone". Jesus also said, "If you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father give the Holy Spirit who asks Him". Jeremiah said, "The heart is deceitfully wicked above all things. Who can understand it?". Isaiah said, "All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him." Romans 3:12 says,"ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." Isaiah 64: 6 says, "For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away". The Bible says men are evil and need to repent. Jesus said, " You must be born again". Without the righteousness of Jesus covering and washing away a person's sins, God sees people as evil because they are evil in his sight without Christ. The Bible teaches that men are hard hearted and that they need to have new heart through spiritual regeneration which only God can accomplish through Christ and the working of the Holy Spirit.

Andy, the evangelist Ray Comfort (who I cited on the main page), myself, and more importantly Jesus/Bible says that all non-Christians, which includes atheists, are evil/bad people. The idea that men are basically good is a modern notion and unbiblical. That is why Jesus said, "If you being EVIL know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him". I showed multiple Bible versus showing the Bible says that the unsaved are evil, but nobody can show me a Bible verse showing that men are basically good. That is why it is not surprising that Jesus said that the gate to destruction is wide and the gate to life is narrow and that most people will go to hell. God is just and God does not send good men to hell. In short, I am arguing that all atheists are bad people and this is a very biblical position to take. Conservative 11:25, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

I am arguing that all atheists are bad people I think that is a very sad position to take and a minority opinion among Christians. I will pray for Conservative, you seem so blinded by hate. MaxFletcher 16:54, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
All real Christians believe in the sinfulness and depravity of man. Jesus died for the unjust and not the just. As far as your unsupported appeal to what most Christians believe, let God be true and every man a liar. By the way, I do find it telling you can't refute what I wrote via Scripture. Conservative 17:01, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
I think it is sad to have such hate for a section of society and to believe that all atheists are bad. As I said, my mother is a life long atheist and goodness flows from her like nothing I have ever encountered. MaxFletcher 17:05, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
When mothers die they don't stand before their son's judgement seats and God has made matters very clear in the Bible which is why you can't refute me via Scripture. 17:29, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
I think we need to make a distinction between a Good person morally and a good person spiritually. Atheists can have great morals, but will always fall flat on the spiritual side of things.--SeanS 17:30, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Pride before the fall, Conservative. Humble yourself. MaxFletcher 17:34, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Sean's God's moral perfection is the standard and no atheist can be considered to have good morals when compared to God. No atheist has good morals to God, plus creation testifies to God's existence, but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness according to Paul in the first chapter of Romans. Plus, read what the Bible says about atheists/fools/wickedness below. Conservative 17:55, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
When i said morals, i meant not every atheist is going around doing absolutely terrible things like stealing stuff or murdering people. --SeanS 17:57, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
We are all sinners Conservative, even you. And atheists have the chance to be saved, all they need do is repent - if they can be saved, they cannot be evil. MaxFletcher 18:00, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
You are still not citing Scripture to support your views which is not surprising given their unbiblical nature. Conservative 18:40, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
I will pray for you - your sneering pride is also unbiblical. MaxFletcher 18:42, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, wait, is the unbibilical doctrine you say max has the we are all sinners one, or one i haven't noticed?--SeanS 18:43, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
I was mainly replying to notion that atheists cannot be evil which I am sure Stalin historians would find interesting. However, there is some interesting material relating to whether Christians are saints or sinners: http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Important_Issues/are_christians_sinners_or_saints.htm and http://www.ligonier.org/blog/be-ye-perfect/ plus Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary on 1 John 1:8 which is here http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=7&contentID=3086&commInfo=6&topic=1%20John&ar=1Jo_1_10 which Ligonier did not address, but should have. Conservative 20:15, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Jeffery Dahmer was one of the most vile, evil, series killers in history but he recanted his atheism and was saved. Meaning that no one can be completely evil as they can always ask for, and receive, forgiveness. MaxFletcher 20:28, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
The doctrine of the depravity of man which both non-Calvinist and Calvinist have agreed on (John Wesley and John Calvin for example), does not teach that every man exhibits evil to the highest degree he possibly can. With that being said, I have no interest in discussing the Bible with you at this season as you seem hostile to its teaching and not open to its message at this time. Conservative 20:44, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
The Bible is where I find my salvation. I am always open to its message...just not open to your message. MaxFletcher 21:32, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Are all atheists sinners?

Would you assert that all atheists are sinners ? I know atheists who have christian values and therefore do not indulge in sin.--ARamis 00:44, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

There are healthy people who have terrible diets. But good diets do promote good health. Christianity raises ordinary people to extraordinary improvements and achievements.--Andy Schlafly 01:03, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
I believe you are missing my point here. If there are healthy people who have terrible diet, you cannot say that ALL people who have terrible diet are unhealthy. Do you see my point now? You may say that atheists are often sinners but you cannot say that they are ALL sinners.--ARamis 01:08, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Hmmm, I don't think the bible says atheism is a sin anywehere - foolish maybe, but not sinful. if an atheists leaves a blameless honest life do they still go to hell? MaxFletcher 01:09, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
I thought the whole point of Christianity was that EVERYONE is a sinner, but could find forgiveness and redemption through Jesus Christ. BrentH 08:00, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, Rejection of god = the entire frigging reason everything past genesis 2 exists. Yes, they are sinners and yes, they go to hell. So did Gandhi and every other non-christian. --SeanS 08:10, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Brent H is right. All atheists are sinners, and so are all Christians. That is why Jesus's sacrifice was necessary.--CPalmer 08:42, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Sean, I would have thought that someone so invested in Christian theology would at least know that "God," "Genesis," "Christian" and "Hell" take the upper case. BrentH 10:44, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Personally, I don't believe any of us know for sure who goes to Hell and who doesn't. But it seems Mr. Fletcher's question gets into faith vs. good works. There is much theological debate about this, and perhaps you should read some of it. My personal opinion is neither faith nor good works are sufficient absent the other, but I acknowledge that this is an opinion, and I do not insist on it being more accurate than someone elses. Also, most believe that sinners do get into heaven, if they repent.--GrahamB 13:17, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Graham, the Apostle Paul said in Ephesians that men are saved by faith and not by works lest any man should boast. The Book of James says faith without works is dead and true faith will cause good works. Lastly, I realize that atheistic postmodernism says there is no absolute truth and trains people to say "that is only my opinion", but that is a false ideology. The Bible is very clear that it is by faith only that a man is saved and that true faith will have good works. Men may want to work their way into heaven or make a profession of faith and then become lazy, but the Bible isn't going to defer to their pride or slothfulness. Conservative 14:41, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

@Brent, the proper capitalization is irrelevant to what I said, and honestly, I couldn't care less at 7 in the morning if I Capitalize the words Heaven or Genesis.--SeanS 15:44, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

The Bible says that atheists are fools and that fools are evil

The Bible asserts that "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Psalms 14:1 (KJV)). The biblical fool is said to be lacking in sound judgment and the biblical fool is also associated with moral depravity. For example, the biblical book of Proverbs states: "A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless. A quick-tempered man acts foolishly, And a man of evil devices is hated. The naive inherit foolishness, But the sensible are crowned with knowledge."(Proverbs 14:16-18 (NASB)). The book of Proverbs also has strong words regarding the depravity of biblical fools: "The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but [it is] abomination to fools to depart from evil." (Proverbs 13:9 (KJV)). Regarding the deceitfulness of fools Proverbs states: "The wisdom of the sensible is to understand his way, But the foolishness of fools is deceit." (Proverbs 14:8 (KJV)). Noted Bible commentator and clergyman Matthew Henry wrote regarding atheism: "A man that is endued with the powers of reason, by which he is capable of knowing, serving, glorifying, and enjoying his Maker, and yet lives without God in the world, is certainly the most despicable and the most miserable animal under the sun."[238] Conservative 11:34, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Sean & Conservative: Do you believe that a pre-columbian native american who would have no clue about Jesus or the Bible but who would have had a good life by christian standards would have gone to Hell ? That seems a bit unfair to me !--ARamis 16:32, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Yes. Do I like it? No. Inside all true Christians they wish universalism could be true, hell, god apparently does as well. But it isn't, and non-christians go to hell. --SeanS 16:35, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
According to biblical standards, no one can live a good life apart from God and unregenerate men are evil (see above and section above}. Jesus said the road to heaven is narrow and the gate to hell is wide. Please show me in the Bible that one can live a good life apart from God. You can't do it. Jesus said, "I am the vine and you are the branches, apart from me you can do nothing." As far as it seeming unfair to you, the Bible says, "There is a way which seems right to a man, but in the end leads to death". You may want to see yourself as good, but the prophet Isaiah disagrees with you. "Isaiah 64: 6 says, "For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away". Conservative 16:46, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
And I thought God was fair... How very sad. Perhaps I should turn to Hinduism where there is more hope --ARamis 16:48, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Ramis, who are you to question what god does? --SeanS 16:52, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
God is fair, but your sinful heart refuses to recognize it due to pride. Read the ten commandments and read the Sermon on the Mount and repent of your wickedness. You don't measure up to a holy God. Conservative 16:55, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Hey, I was just joking! I am not trying to question God's will. I am just trying to understand. And I believe understanding is not a sin, is it ?--ARamis 17:37, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
ARamis does touch on a fairly interesting discussion point; one of which I would like to hear Conservapedia's editors views on. If non-Christians cannot live a good life, by virtue of them having not accepted God into their lives, then where does that leave the many ethnicities that had no knowledge of Christianity until it was eventually introduced? Does this mean that millions of North and South Americans have been condemned to hell, during the 1500 years it took for Europeans to introduce the religion? And if that is the case, why would God and Jesus allow so many people to inescapably face damnation, by localising the entire origins of Christianity in the middle-East in the first place? I remember CS Lewis tried to explain it by suggesting that any genuine display of faith to any God was acceptable to God; that "those who worship unto him, worship unto Me." (as said by Aslan in "The Last Battle"). DO you think this is the case?--Maninahat 19:00, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Any statement that contradicts the position of jesus as the only way to god is false. Yes, they went to hell. And no, it isn't unfair, because they still fell short of god's glory. God is love, but he is just.--SeanS 18:07, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
This view of all people who do not believe in God and take time to worship him is exactly why I am an agnostic who doesn't care if there is a God or not. I would rather suffer an eternity in hell than waste my limited time on earth worshiping a God so I can avoid hell. If god exists and chooses to punish me for not taking time away from trying to make this world a better place, I would prefer to have nothing to do with him anyways. --JonnS 18:30, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
I fail to see why you come here jonn if you disagree with one of the foundational concepts of the site.--SeanS 18:39, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Sean, while it is true that I disagree with most of the foundational concepts of the site, I hope that I can find people here willing to listen to facts. I also think that at our cores, all of us are "good" people, and that what our country needs now more than ever is unity, so we can come together and overcome our differences for the good of the nation.--JonnS 18:44, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Jesus never reveals Himself to people before they're ready to be saved. If the Native Americans had been ready before 1492, He would have sent Christopher Columbus to discover them sooner. --JefferyA 21:30, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
JonS, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. JonnS, have you ever taken time out of your busy schedule of doing good and told a lie? Second, you have the wrong attitude. You don't worship God merely to avoid hell, you do it because it is right to worship the holy creator of the universe who can soften your hard heart. Lastly, if agnostics are so good, then why does the U.S. population of agnostics give less to charity than the U.S. Christian population per capita as can be seen HERE. Conservative 13:56, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Link to America/American (minor detail)

The last "In the News" item on Ronald Reagan links to [[America]]ns (a page categorized as a "Disambiguation Page") instead of to [[American]]s (for "residents of the United States") or to [[United States of America|Americans]] (the country). I can't edit the page myself; I can only "view its source." --Ty 16:21, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Ron Paul

I don't understand this news item. Is it saying the Ron Paul "killed the deal" by supporting air conditioning for the troops in Iraq and an armed border patrol? If so I don't think this is a conservative position at all. Conservatives should support a strong national defense, including relative comfort for troops in combat zones, to enhance their combat effectiveness. As for the border patrol, it is part of our national defense. If you don't think the BP should be armed you just don't understand the situation. Literally thousands of illegals are pouring across the border many of them armed and willing to kill. The border patrol valiantly tries to stem the tied of what amounts to a Mexican invasion and if you don't think they should be armed... well I just don't know what to say. I don't know who put this up there, but I think it should be removed and maybe that person should have to suggest their items here on the talk page before they go up to see. I'm worried this sites conservative credentials were harmed. If some of my friends in the Minutemen heard about this they would be very angry. --CraigF 11:27, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Rugby World Cup

Maybe on the mainpage we could mention that the biggest Rugby Tournament in the world, The Rugby World Cup, is kicking of in 12 hours in New Zealand? It is a huge event in NZ and for many countries around the world with the All Blacks as clear favorites to win on their home soil. MaxFletcher 17:00, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Look at the logo to your left. That's not a New Zealand flag. --JefferyA 21:27, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Believe it or not but the U.S. does have a rugby team that is in this tournament. TonyB 21:28, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Its a huge, world participated tournament. MaxFletcher 21:44, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Floods?

I don't understand the mainpage flood headline? Floods, flood and flooding are mentioned several times in the linked article..? MaxFletcher 17:05, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

The story only used flood/floods/flooding 21 times, but was over 1000 words long. That works out to about 2% of the prose being dedicated to the biblical idea of the Flood. Two percent is not very much at all, and is an obvious case of obfuscation. BrentH 17:15, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
I'm sorry? How many times is the word supposed to be mentioned? Your answer is specious. MaxFletcher 17:21, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
I'm sorry, it's really the best I could do. Aschlafly obviously read the article, saw the number of times the term was used, and took issue with it. I can see no other reason why he would have brought the matter up unless it was because the word was not used often enough. BrentH 17:27, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
The word "flood" or "floods" is not used once as a standalone term in the entire article!--Andy Schlafly 17:28, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Can you give me an example of how it should be used so I understand? MaxFletcher 17:30, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

It is so: "The Susquehanna River broke a flood record...." ""It's just unknowable at this point as to whether or not those flood walls in the city of Binghamton will hold." "6 feet above what is consider major flood stage." "Flood watches and warnings were in effect from Virginia to New England." "... as flood waters carried debris downriver." "A flood watch was in effect through Thursday afternoon" BrentH 17:34, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Ummm, what do you mean? Those sentences appear in the article. MaxFletcher 17:38, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
That's why I transcribed them here. BrentH 17:38, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
So, the terms floods/floods is used in the article. MaxFletcher 17:40, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
But not very often, and not in a "standalone" way, I guess. BrentH 17:43, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
So what is a "standalone" way and how many times should the term be used? This is all very confusing. MaxFletcher 17:46, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Standalone way: "There was a flood." It should be used in at least 50% of the sentences, or maybe repeated several times in a row after each paragraph. BrentH 17:48, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
The post above just made my day.--Jab512 13:16, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
So, for example - "There was a flood in New York. People were fleeing because there was a flood and, due to flooding, New York will be evacuated". That doesn't make any sense! MaxFletcher 17:53, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Well of course they don't use the Biblical term 'flood'. We know from the Bible that there will never be another flood on a Biblical scale. Genesis 9:11. --QPR 17:42, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

When there it is dangerously cold, does a newspaper say "it's cold in Pennsylvania," or "it's cooling in Pennsylvania"? The former, of course. Similarly, the article should say "Floods ravage Pennsylvania," rather than trying to avoid that term.--Andy Schlafly 18:00, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Many news outlets are doing just that though. MaxFletcher 18:04, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Not a great example Andy. 'Cooling' in the context you use it is a present participle. 'Flooding' in the article is a noun. They're not comparable terms. --QPR 18:06, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, in your list of links I did not see an American newspaper using the term "flood" as a standalone noun. QPR, no problem, how about "cooling hits Pennsylvania" - a headline no one would expect to see. Yet newspapers use that syntax to avoid using the noun "flood".--Andy Schlafly 19:39, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Can you give me an example of a headline you think should be used? I am still confused. MaxFletcher 19:44, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
I already did: "Floods ravage Pennsylvania," rather than trying to avoid that standalone term "flood".--Andy Schlafly 19:53, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Sorry, you did. I apologise. So "Pennsylvania experiencing severe flooding" or "Flooding continues in Pennsylvania" are not adequate? MaxFletcher 19:56, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
I tend to agree with User:QPR. I would hesitate to call the current situation in Pennsylvania a "flood" because, bad as it is, it is certainly not comparable to the biblical flood (obviously this is not the reason why the lamestream media don't use the term). Maybe one should spell the latter with a capital "F", then everybody could use the word "flood" for ordinary floods without problems. --FrederickT3 20:07, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
You don't understand. This is a problem with liberals in general, but the lamestream media seems to take special pleasure in it. What they're doing by avoiding the word "flood" is trying to turn people away from Christ. Liberals and the lamestream media are pawns of Satan. I thank God that Conservapedia hasn't been corrupted yet, and I commend Andy for his vigilance. Constant vigilance is the only way to keep from being taken by evil. Liberals and the lamestream media are pawns of Satan. --JefferyA 21:25, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
I agree. 21 times in a 1000 word article is nowhere near enough. The article should have read something like" "Floods leading to flooding in flood-ravaged Pennsylvania, which is experiencing floods because of the rain which is causing floods to flood out part of the flood-ravaged state. Flood flood floody-flood flood. Flooding." That way, people would be reminded of the religious stakes of the story. BrentH 21:29, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
You're being sarcastic, but the truth is that the lamestream media tries to draw people away from Christ, or do you deny that? --JefferyA 21:36, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Iwas actually being serious. Flood. BrentH 21:38, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Do you deny that the lamestream media actively tries to draw people away from Christ? --JefferyA 21:40, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
No.BrentH 21:45, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Then you, Andy and I are in agreement. --JefferyA 22:00, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Come on, you can't all be serious, I suspect some of you to be parodist here... Liberals are pawns of Satan, really ? I think they are just stupid people following even stupider leaders! And what about the number of records of 'flood' in the article? You can't seriously expect an article to be like that: "Flood in Pennsylvania. blah blah. This is a flood. blah blah. There is a flood" ? Even in the conservapedia article on Jesus there is only 212 occurence of Jesus in 12 327 words which means only 1.7% !--ARamis 22:12, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Maybe the account of Noah in Genesis 6 – 9 should be the standard by which all flood articles are to be judged. The word ‘flood’ or a variation thereof; floodwaters, floodgates, flooded, occurs only twelve times in a story that consists of 2059 words, King James version, for a rate of .58%. Hence the USA Today article should meet the criteria as it mentions ‘flood’ at a rate that is three times higher. --JamesBJohnson 10:35, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

(EC) Aschlafly, why are you arguing for the use of the Biblical word flood in newspapers, but against the Biblical word groan in a Bible translation? This seems to be inconsistent! Would it help if we translated mabbul as flooding in the CBT? AugustO 10:41, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

I think many of you are missing Mr. Schlafly's point. The way I understand him is, the sense one gets when one reads the article is the author is trying to downplay any religious significance of floods. By using terms like floodwaters and flooding, which do not neccesarily have the same significance, the author secularizes the word and deemphasizes the importance of the word for Christians. I hope I am interpreting Mr. Schlafly correctly, and apologize to him if I am not.--GrahamB 18:44, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
So what is the religious significance of these floods? --QPR 15:08, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
I really don't understand why you guys are saying that we are avoiding the word flood because there happens to be a flood in the Bible. The following is a quote discussing the origins of the word flood; "Flood goes back to a prehistoric Germanic *flōthuz, which also produced German flut, Dutch vloed, and Swedish flod ‘flood’. It was derived ultimately from Indo-European *plō-, a variant of *pleu- ‘flow, float’ which also produced English fleet, float, fly, fledge, and fowl."[16] I'm agnostic, but i see no reason to avoid using the term, and it seems to me like Andy's just looking for something to be mad about.--Jab512 19:26, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Minor Grammar Fix

There's a main page item with a tiny little error that keeps catching my eye: "Barack Obama's is probably too stubborn to learn from Canada which has largely defied the global recession by cutting government spending." -- shouldn't be an apostrophe on Obama. Not to be picky, just keep noticing it :) much love --RLorain 14:31, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

Proposed New Article

I'd like to propose Christian In Name Only. We already have RINO and PLINO to describe hypocrites who take the Republican and Pro-life labels, but none (that I could find) for those who falsely claim to be Christian. There are arguably far more XINOs than there are of the previous two combined. What do you all think? --JefferyA 13:08, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

We already have atleast 4 articles dedicated to Liberal Christianity: Liberal Christianity, Cafeteria Christianity (With a subset in Cafeteria Catholic), and Fast Food Christianity, and just need to use the Liberal Christian tag to put people following the creeds of LC in.--SeanS 14:09, 11 September 2011 (EDT)
We do, but to me XINOs go a bit farther and either don't believe in any part of Christianity, but call themselves that anyway (such as Hussein Obama), holds a belief that's a "deal-breaker," like abortion or special rights for homosexuals, again such as Obama or someone who professes Christianity but commits an act contrary to Christianity, such as Anders Brevik. --JefferyA 17:40, 11 September 2011 (EDT)
XINO's are liberal Christians. We already have a name for them. We don't need two. --SeanS 17:51, 11 September 2011 (EDT)
That's exactly my point. There's no such thing as a liberal Christian. They're just liberal. Some liberals might call themselves Christians, but they're that in name only. --JefferyA 01:28, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
Feel free to create the new entry. Permission is not needed and perhaps the entry will produce some new insights.--Andy Schlafly 01:38, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
Thanks! I created the article. Hopefully you're right and it'll produce some good insights! --JefferyA 02:19, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

I think being a Christian is about believing in God. I think you have to be careful about "deal-breakers" because you could quickly turn this into a debate about theology. There have been wars fought over "deal-breakers", and that is going to start hear if people are not careful. --PeterNant 09:37, 12 September 2011 (EDT)


I strongly object to the abbreviation XINO. X is used by liberals to deny Christ - they use Xmas to secularize the festival. So can we please find something more fitting, more Christian, more Conservative than XINO? Rafael 14:49, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

No, it really doesn't actually. Xmas is shorthand for Christmas, the X being greek character pronounced Kai or Chi, part of the greek word for christ. It's shorthand, not liberal hiding, atleast as long as people know greek--SeanS 17:33, 12 September 2011 (EDT).

"Evolutionist vs Atheist vs Christian

I think these some of these articles are going overboard with trying to imply there is a Christian/Evolutionist dichotomy. The churches representing most Christians endorse or tolerate evolution. They teach evolution in Catholic schools. Many of the "Evolutionists" are/were Christians - starting with Darwin himself. Certainly many rabid atheists have entered the debate, but only because its an easy point of attack. You cannot prove God does not exist, but its easy to show that many Young Earth Creationists hold scientific views far outside the mainstream. --PeterNant 09:25, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

Is true science a voting booth? Hint: Galileo. Does the evolutionary paradigm taught in schools employ naturalism in terms of origins and was Darwin an atheist? Did the early Jews, who certainly understood Hebrew, teach a earth and universe that was millions/billions of year old or did they teach a earth which was about 6,000 years old? Lastly, please demonstrate using the principle of using all the relevant historical evidence available (and not cherry picking) that Charles Darwin was a Christian at the time he published his evolutionary work and not an atheist. Conservative 14:11, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
How can anyone prove anything using ALL the relevant historical evidence? Scholars always "cherry pick". The difference between a true scholar and a quote miner is that the true scholar can contextualize and justify their use of evidence. Manya rticles on this site are proof of that. Again, its easy enough to wipe the floor with atheism without resorting to such dishonest reasoning.Rafael 14:42, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
I would suggest looking up the word "relevant". Conservative 14:49, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

Also, Cherry-Picking the Evidence. This is another name for the Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Conservative 14:59, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

Please don't take a snarky tone with me. I have written to you assertively but respectfully, as a Conservative should, and I expect the same in return. The body of relevant historical evidence for any and every aspect of Darwin's life, work and thought is huge. His own personal writings alone are a rich and immense source of evidence, one that will keep PhD students burning the midnight oil for years. The secondary sources are more than one person can study in a lifetime. Are you really suggesting that Peter Nant should spend the next few decades studying and considering Darwin's faith to answer your question. Are you debating from the same, incredibly well informed position you expect him to take? No, you are taking a tactical "debating" position.

I'm a strong believer in "Know thine enemy" - its the only way to really win a debate - and this is an interesting online resource for people who want successfully attack Darwinism.[17] Rafael 17:51, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

That is a great resource. Perhaps Conservative might want to try searching for references to church and God after 1959. Christian or not, he attended church and was interested in church affairs. --PeterNant 21:31, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

First, why did Darwin write in a private diary he was a materialist? A materialist is a type of atheist. Second, the grassroots Question evolution! campaign will squash evolutionism like a bug on a windshield and if you think I am going to wrangle with unreasonable members of a discredited ideology, you are sadly mistaken. Conservative 04:14, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
No offence, but the net impact of the Question Evolution! campaign is going to be exactly zero. It'll make a few people feel better in churches in Texas, but evolutionists are ignoring it and will continue to do so. The reason for this is that within the scientific framework they use they CAN answer the questions and in fact have done so many times. --SamCoulter 01:20, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
If we want to convince people who already agree with us, we can use websites that cite other websites that cite secondary sources instead of primary sources; we can be a snarky as we like, although I think its undignified in a serious discussion; we can misunderstand or even misrepresent our opponents ideas and people will agree wholeheartedly with us. However, if we want to take the Truth to people who deny it, we need to be rigorous, we have to convince them using the errors and contradictions in their own sources. We cannot say "my friend told me to ask you when did you stop beating your wife, poopiehead" and expect them to leap out of their bunnyholes, convinced of their error.
At the moment, a lot of debate between creationists and evolutionists starts with the creationist asking flawed questions. The evolutionist says he has no case to answer and, if we're lucky, explains to the creationist where he has misunderstood the evolutionist position. The creationist will ask some more flawed questions. The evolutionist, unwilling to defend something he has never said, let alone believes in, walks away. The creationist then claims the evolutionist cannot answer his questions therefore he has won and the evolutionist has lost. The next time someone challenges an evolutionist or atheist to a debate, they turn down the challenge because, after all, they will only be asked to explain something they never said in the first place.
The Question evolution! campaign by Creation Ministries International is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.[1] It is not just a Texas campaign. The 15 questions which are stumping the worldwide evolutionist community can be found HERE
How does this help bring people to the Truth?Rafael 13:05, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
A very good point, Rafael. I once listened to that idiot Hovind "debating" with Massimo Pigliucci and I was cringing after about a minute: Pigliucci just took him apart, mainly by pointing out that Hovind is completely ignorant of what evolutionists actually believe. We have enough GOOD arguments against evolution, so why do some of us insist on harming our case by using ridiculous ones? --SamCoulter 01:26, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
SamCoulter, your wrote: "No offence, but the net impact of the Question Evolution! campaign is going to be exactly zero." Sam, how many history books have read? How many sociology books have you read? How many books/works have you read dealing with public opinion and how it can change? How many works have you read as far as the history of science? How many works have you read on how culture affects science? The reason I ask is that I wanted to know you expertise as far as your prediction. Lastly, the campaign is a worldwide campaign and not just a Texas campaign. Conservative 04:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
I have read a fair amount in all of these categories, especially history. The fact is that the Question Evolution! campaign is fundamentally flawed in that the questions it asks can be answered within the scientific framework, and already HAVE been answered within that framework. As for it being a worldwide campaign, in Europe it's invisible. The only place I have heard anything at all about its UK activities is here. Its penetration into mainstream UK media is zero. --SamCoulter 12:44, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative: How many of those books have you read ? I will tell you I have not read a lot of history or sociology, but I have read more science books than I can count (and have a degree). I also know, in the end, good science always wins. I also know that the scientific community is for the most part honest and non-political. Many are Christians or of other faiths. The ideas behind "Question Evolution" have been shot down by the scientific community, the courts and many religious leaders (outside of the Evangelical community). Thinking that a list of sometimes dishonest questions is going to "wipe evolution of the face of the earth" is false.
I have read enough history to know that God always wins. By the way, you can do all the disparaging and whining that you want about the Question evolution! campaign and can even throw a hissy fit or two, but I think that Shockofgod and the Question evolution! campaign are moving forward full throttle. :) Conservative 04:02, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Proposed news item: Chirac

The former French president has long been facing accusations of corruption. For Conservapedia, on the one hand this is the man that refused to assist the States in the Iraq war, but on the other he is a conservative who has pushed against immigration to France and sought to deregulate business (though he hasn't been nearly as successful as Sarkozy, who abolished the six hour work day).--CamilleT 12:31, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

Would you condemn an American conservative who refused to help France in a war? Personally I despise Chirac, but his refusal to get involved in the Iraq war isn't a valid reason for that. --SamCoulter 01:15, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
They say that Chirac was so crooked that he slept on a spiral stair case. --DrDean 22:18, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

Solyndra scandal

Bloomberg (News that is) is tearing Obama a new one. Apparently, Obama and his aides pushed a $500 million loan to a so called green energy company, in spite of warnings on its fiscal health by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and which later declared bankruptcy. The FBI since has raided the CEO's office. Red State calls this "Obama's Watergate". I will start an article on the Solyndra scandal. HP 20:47, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

Bob Turner

His victory was more of a defeat for same-sex marriage. --Ed Poor Talk 22:47, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

Eh. While it was certainly a factor (after all, Weprin was in the legislature) it was far less of a motivating factor than other issues, namely Obama's terrible handling of the economic crisis and his views on Israel. The Orthodox Jews opposed same sex marriage from the start, they were just more heavily motivated to come out and vote than most other blocs. Overall, the district's stance on Same sex marriage is unfortunately probably still pretty positive.--MorrisF 00:59, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Tim Pawlenty endorsed Mitt Romney

Perhaps he was a stalking horse candidate?--CamilleT 17:18, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Here's a citation--CamilleT 00:32, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Halal

Halal is seriously vandalized, can't figure out how to fix it. BrentH 18:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Fixed...with a little bit of trickery! MaxFletcher 18:33, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
When a page gets hit like that, you have to get to it's history and undo from there, atleast that's how i do it--SeanS 19:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

A new geological era

Really ? What does geology have to do with it ? I am refering to the top left article: A new creation vs. evolution era is dawning.--ARamis 20:13, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Did you read the last paragraph HERE?  :) Conservative 04:03, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
The last paragraph you linked to is factually incorrect: this is NOT a new geological era. A new era perhaps, but not a new geological one and it's not helping our credibility to say it is. --SamCoulter 09:33, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
I have to agree with the rest, a "Geological" Era is not the right word for this situation.--SeanS 10:06, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Dinosaurs and feathers

I just read this article and have a question. I know the position here is one of young earth but I am curious about the feathered dinosaurs claim. Were dino's feathered? I can't see any reason why they couldn't have been. MaxFletcher 22:54, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

The idea is if some dinosaurs from later periods have feathers and similar species from earlier periods don't then that suggests a transition/i.e. evolution. This would support the theory popular among the scientific community that birds evolved from dinosaurs.--CamilleT 00:47, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
Actually the theory that's universally accepted among the scientific community is that birds ARE dinosaurs. That's not actually an issue for Young Earth creationism; my opinion is that dinosaurs are just weird extinct birds. --SamCoulter 01:13, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
Universally? How are you going to show this? For example, in 2007, "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution." Plus, unless you can show you are a mind reader, given the Suppression of alternatives to evolution you face a very difficult task. Plus, why are creation scientists with PhDs in relevant fields, not part of the scientific community? Also, an you show that methodical naturalism is logically feasible when it comes to the physical sciences and the social science of history? For example, can you make a convincing case that Jesus did not rise from the dead that prevails over the evidence that is given that he did? If not, why not? Conservative 23:58, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
700 scientists have expressed scepticism about evolution? Yes, I know. So what? Does the statement they signed say that those scientists don't ACCEPT evolution? No it doesn't, it just says they're sceptical of it. Guess what? Scientists are SUPPOSED to be sceptical of things, even theories they actually accept. Certainly many of those 700 scientists (80% of whom are not biologists - I AM a biologist) reject evolutionary theory, but we don't know HOW many because THAT ISN'T WHAT THE STATEMENT SAYS. In any case the statement they signed says nothing about birds and dinosaurs so it isn't relevant. The fact is, the scientific concensus says birds are dinosaurs. Not that they evolved from dinosaurs: that they ARE dinosaurs. therapods to be exact.
As for asking me to give a convincing case that Jesus didn't rise from the grave, what are you playing at? I am a CHRISTIAN and a YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST. What I am trying to do here is develop CP as a resource that will educate other people and encourage them to move towards Christianity and Young Earth creationism; I just don't happen to think this is best achieved by ad hominem attacks and the propagation of strawman arguments that any evolutionist can effortlessly counter. --SamCoulter 00:18, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Well, there are a lot more than 700 scientists out there. Try Project Steve.--CamilleT 00:31, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sam, I notice you still did not show its universally accepted, that creation scientists with PhDs are not part of the scientific community and that you are a mind reader. That's 3 strikes. You're out. Conservative 03:53, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Is it a coincidence that "strike" and "strawman" start with the same letters? I can dismiss two of your "strikes" quite simply: I never claimed to be a mind reader - I'm not - and I never claimed that Creation scientists with PhDs aren't part of the scientific community - they are. Your third I can dismiss with a brief explanation. It is universally accepted by scientists that birds are therapod dinosaurs - they are in the clade dinosauria, sub-clade therapoda. Similarly it is universally accepted that the Earth is not flat. Now, you can point to the Flat Earth Society and tell me I'm wrong, but I'm not wrong and here's why: the Flat Earth Society are CRAZY PEOPLE and their delusions don't count. Similarly, if there are any scientists who believe that birds aren't dinosaurs they are also CRAZY PEOPLE and their delusions don't count either. As QPR pointed out I'm not saying anything about evolution; I am talking about taxonomy. Birds are dinosaurs because that's the clade they're in, just as the USA is an American nation because "America" is the name we give to the continent it's on. --SamCoulter 13:01, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, you seem to be missing Sam's original point. He wasn't saying anything about evolution, he was simply pointing out that in terms of biological classification, birds are dinosaurs. That neither confirms nor denies the theory of evolution. Do you accept that dolphins are mammals, or do you worry that that designation also has an impact for the debate between evolution and creationism? --QPR 12:39, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
And where is the proof of evolution beyond their say-so? They found feathers trapped in amber and said they belonged to dinos; what consisted of the testing to establish their "fact"? They, as well as you, stress that birds are dinos; where is the direct proof of that "fact"? Where is it? As to the dolphins, yes they are mammals, and they were created on the Fifth day of Creation along with every other critter found in the sea. Karajou 12:57, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
If they were pigeon feathers they'd belong to dinosaurs, because pigeons are dinosaurs. It really doesn't have anything to do with evolution; living birds and extinct dinosaurs are in the same clade because they are as closely related as we are to dolphins. As I said earlier, dinos are just weird extinct birds. I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that extinct dinos were initially classified as lizards; enough has been learned that we know know they weren't. The relation between extinct dinos and birds is the same as that between extinct giant ground sloths and living sloths; one group survived the conditions after the Flood and the other didn't. As a biologist I have no issue whatsoever with the idea that T-Rex had feathers and Iguanadon had more in common with a chicken than an iguana, because that's what all the evidence shows. The problem comes in when people start trying to use these similarities as evidence of evolution, which I reject for a whle lot of good scientific reasons. --SamCoulter 13:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
I'd be genuinely fascinated to understand what you mean by 'related' there Sam, in terms of dolphins and humans. --QPR 13:18, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Homology mainly. Extinct and living therapods share a lot of common structures and, going by the evidence we have, a lot of common systems. Similarly humans and dolphins share common structures and systems; that's why we're both classed as mammals. Taxonomy still works if you don't accept evolution; it's still the best way to categorise living things according to the similarities between them. --SamCoulter 14:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
@Karajou: I believe that even before feathers scientists posited links between birds and dinosaurs based on bone structures. Don't quote me on it, though. It's been a while since I've last been to the museum--CamilleT 13:29, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
@Sam...the problem I and many others have with that explanation is that they stand there and say - and I used the word SAY strongly here - that birds evolved from dinos, meaning that there was change from one species to another over time. They have not proved it. There's a big difference between saying and proving, and I cannot nor will not take someone's say-so that it happened without seeing direct proof that it did happen. if you or anyone else cares to check on the matter - using critical thinking - you will find out that they have said birds evolved from dinos only during the past forty years, and only based on a theropod ancestry, and only by "eyeballing" the fossil remains; no other detailed testing was ever done (for some strange reason, they never "eyeballed" the hip bones when making that determination). No DNA was pulled from these fossils, and no visual record was made showing that these animals had ever changed from one to the other. The feathers found in the amber are feathers, but there is no one that can sit there and tell me that they came from a dinosaur, and I really want to know exactly what species they came from. Serious testing is needed and demanded. Karajou 14:00, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
That's exactly the problem I have too. As I've said already, I DON'T believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs; I believe that dinosaurs were created, just like mammals, on the fifth and sixth days. I also believe that, just like mammals, some of them have survived to the present day and some haven't. As far as birds being therapods goes, I don't see the hip bones as being much of an issue compared to the similarities in bone composition, brain shape etc etc etc; it's pretty clear that birds ARE therapods, that happen to have survived when the other therapods went extinct. The idea that birds are extant dinosaurs was actually first proposed by TH Huxley in the 19th century, but it was rejected until 1973 when it became clear that Huxley was right about something for once. I doubt anybody will ever be able to tell you the exact species the feathers in amber came from unless a fossil is found that has imprints of identical feathers, but whatever species it came from was a dinosaur because dinosaurs are the only living things on this Earth that have ever had feathers. Of course that in itself doesn't help evolutionary theory, because given the number of similarities between bats and birds you'd expect bats to have evolved feathers too. --SamCoulter 14:28, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Sam, you're compounding the problem and avoiding my question. God created whales (mammals) on the fifth day and man (a mammal) on the sixth day. What does it mean that both creations are mammals? What do you mean when you claim that humans and dolphins (or whales) are 'related'? --QPR 16:45, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Sorry, I explained it briefly above but maybe you missed it. When I say that humans and dolphins are related I mean that they're both mammals and both designed as variations of the same basic plan. I don't think this is too controversial given how many similarities we have with other mammals; four-chambered hearts, unnucleated red blood cells, gross brain structure etc etc. God created us in His image, but he's immaterial and He wanted us to live on Earth as material beings. Therefore He obviously had to create a body for us to live in, and He picked the most suitable of the basic designs He had, which was the mammal design. --SamCoulter 09:25, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Sounds to me, Sam, like you're a closet evolutionist. The Lord made man based on his 'mammal' design, but let's fill in (some of) the gaps: He based primates on mammals, He based apes on primates and He based humans on apes. No! God created whales and humans separately. The Bible clearly says so. God is not an evolutionist. --QPR 10:44, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
No, he based humans and primates on the SAME design, just like he based humans and dolphins, crocodiles and plesiosaurs and velociraptors and chickens on the same designs. --SamCoulter 10:52, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
And mammals and reptiles are based on the same vertebrate design. And vertebrates come from the chordate design and chordates from the animal design. You believe in 'goo to you', but in God's mind rather than on Earth.--QPR 11:08, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
I don't think any sane person is going to dispute that living things can be divided into kingdoms, orders etc, and equally I don't think any sane person is going to dispute that humans are mammals and created to the same basic design as all other mammals. None of this means that I support evolution. I'm not really sure what your point is, to be honest. --SamCoulter 12:10, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Golly! I didn't mean to start such a debate! But it has sort of intrigued me now - feathered dinos shouldn't have any impact on the creationary model I would have thought. MaxFletcher 16:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
I'm sorry QPR, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that humans and dolphins aren't mammals?--Nosaj 20:08, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

"50% of the country not paying any income tax"?

I'm confused by the Main Page news item 'Stuck on Stupid'. When you say "Obama, how about we start with the 50% of the country not contributing any income tax", I don't have any idea what you're referring to? Are you referring to the 'Buffett' wealthy? Because they don't make up 50% of the tax base. Or the unemployed? They're not 50% of the country either. What portion of the population are you referring to? JanW 13:22, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

The part of the population that contributes nothing to the taxes. Working Americans already sacrifice for non-working Americans. How much more will Obama punish those with jobs? [18] [19] [20] --Jpatt 13:32, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
However they make up the workforce that made the rich rich in the first place. --CamilleT 13:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Thanks Jpatt for those links. Yes, I certainly agree with raising taxes on the billionaires, and we absolutely need more jobs to reduce the number of people on welfare and raise the number of people paying taxes. America desperately needs to find a way to increase the tax base, that's for sure - 50% not paying taxes is way too low for a sustainable society. JanW 13:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
50% not paying taxes while they demand others pay into their welfare checks...what part of "THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS" don't they understand? Karajou 14:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
I seriously doubt all of them are christian--SeanS 14:45, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Or that all of them are on welfare--CamilleT 14:48, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
If a husband works and a wife does not and they do not file jointly then she does not pay income taxes. If no one in the household works or the combined household makes less than 20K they do not pay income taxes. If a single person makes less than 10K they do not pay income taxes. Everyone who works still pays payroll taxes. --DrDean 18:27, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Spend money saved from reducing the size of government. No tax whatsoever. "I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible."- Milton Friedman No more class warfare bullhockey. No more the rich is $250,000 a year. No more IRS. No more late paying Democrats. It is time for a flat tax. There is no better system.--Jpatt 20:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Are you saying $250,000 a year isn't rich?!!! To me that sounds like a serious, huge, vast heck of a lot of money! But I don't know, maybe you're a very rich man Jpatt (or woman - I hope I wasn't being presumptuous??) and to you that might not be much , so I guess it's all relative. If you are, good luck to you - but I hope you pay whatever you think is fair into the system! JanW 01:43, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
According to a Congressmember (A republican, interestingly enough), 200k a year isn't livable, so no, apparently 250k isn't a rich mans salary. --SeanS 10:27, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Interesting aside to this whole debate - now Mark Cuban, another hugely wealthy man, is saying "in paying your taxes you are helping to support millions of Americans that are not as fortunate as you", and "Pay your taxes - it's the most patriotic thing you can do". It's wonderful to hear all these people offering to help our great country, and very re-affirming for those of us who aren't as fortunate as them. JanW 14:56, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

NPR reporter compares Obama to Jesus

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/09/15/npr-blogger-obama-jesus-call-pass-bill Daniel1212 15:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

And? He said there was a similarity between what the two said. He didnt call Obama good or bad, perfect or damned, just that something obam,a said was similar to a call jesus made--SeanS 15:53, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Atheism a mental disorder

take a look --DrDean 13:42, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Vox Day speculates this might be the case too, but I think it is merely boorish militant atheism mimicing some of the symptoms. Autism within males can be detected by brain scans with fairly high probability and I would need to see this confirmed via brain scans. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/aug/10/autism-brain-scan Conservative 15:17, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Personal tools