Talk:Main Page/Archive index/114

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

New main page complete

Hey everyone,

I've finished my redesign of the main page at User:GregG/New Main Page, so you are more than welcome to check it out and leave comments at User talk:GregG/New Main Page. I hope that this redesign will improve Conservapedia's image to visitors and better highlight our featured articles and content. Thanks, GregG 17:26, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

News Conservapedia isn't fully covering?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/06/11/Supreme-Court-rejects-birthers-appeal/UPI-81031339433097/?spt=hs&or=tn Can we move on now? -mikeswann

It depends on whether the American people think this should be an issue.--Andy Schlafly 21:39, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
Well there are at least five birther stories on the main page news feed, which would seem to imply that Conservapedia thinks this should be an issue. --Esseph 09:00, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
They only fill in the gaps that aren't covered. For example, if you only read Conservapedia you'd think unemployment was still rising too ScottE 10:05, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

Andy, one in four don't believe the President was born in the United States. (2011) Is that few enough? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056061-503544.html -mikeswann

So we should continue to waste money and court time because 25% of Americans are incapable of overcoming their well-crafted delusions about the president? -Willingham

Tebow Comment

You have taken the comment that Bruschi made out of context. He stated that he wanted the team to put the starting QB out for questions and not the backup. It is nothing to do with Right vs. Left. I would also not likely say he was "pressed" for a response. He was asked and he answered. This is making a something out of nothing. In reality.. this is an article in the "mainstream media" about Tim Tebow. Isn't that exactly what you want?! --DanJG 20:04, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

I respectfully disagree. The ESPN analyst's comment about Tebow is outrageously negative -- more than what would be said about most other athletes. Tebow was indeed pressed for a response to an offensive comment, but he handled it with remarkable skill, without giving up any ground.--Andy Schlafly 21:36, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
The reporter made a comment to match the situation. Right now, Tebow is a media circus and what Bruschi was saying is that he shouldn't be using the media circus to focus on him, the back-up QB. That's hardly outrageously negative. Was he a bit harsh? Sure, but honestly, the media circus surrounding the Jet's starting QB is probably not healthy for the team. A little competition is one thing, but can you honestly think of any other back-up QB that has gotten this much press and air time? DavidVilla 01:22, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

Please Clarify The Main Page

The statement about the Second Law of Thermodynamics on the Main Page could be misleading. It is true that overall the universe becomes more disordered over time, but individual objects/materials/subsystems within the universe can see local increases of order and decreases of entropy. Please see also my comments on Talk:Second_law_of_thermodynamics. --Randall7 21:12, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

I concur. The second law of thermodynamics states only that entropy (disorder, as you put it) increases in spontaneous reactions. With the addition of energy, entropy can and does decrease in reactions that are not spontaneous. Examples of this abound in nature; for instance, photosynthesis, the reaction yields a net decrease in entropy because energy is input from an outside source. Furthermore, to apply this law, which governs individual chemical reactions, to evolution is disingenuous because it is a gross oversimplification of the trillions of biochemical processes involved. --JHunter 22:27, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

New ATF Scandal

From Seattle: http://www.examiner.com/article/atf-agents-allege-a-new-scandal

"Rumors are swirling today among some agents within the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) who allege that a new scandal has rocked the Seattle Field Division." DerekE 22:30, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

Polyamory

This is hardly atheist only behavior. It's social behavior and one which even Christians engage in. A quick Google search on "Christian Polyamory" brings up the following search results promoting or discussing polyamory among the Christian population....and this is only on the first page:

http://www.christianpolygamy.info/polyamory/ http://www.libchrist.com/bible/polygamy.html http://www.lovemore.com/blog/?p=52 http://tse.sagepub.com/content/11/1/52.short?rss=1&ssource=mfr http://www.polyamoryonline.org/spirituality.html http://www.polyamoryonline.org/articles/keeping_the_faith_071606.html http://www.christianforums.com/t7388456/

Willingham 0901, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

Setting aside the issue of whether they are faux Christians or real Christians, what Bible believing Christian leaders did you allegedly find? The reason I ask is that the Bible declares that a Christian leader is to be the husband of one wife. By the way, when are the atheists going to draw up a code of conduct at their next global atheist convention which includes atheist leaders not engaging in polyamory and not chickening out of debates with Dr. William Lane Craig or prominent creationists? We are still waiting! Conservative 10:17, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

Atheists can only have one wife, same as everyone in America. As for Christian leaders in immoral relationships, I can think of a few. Humans sin, not just atheists, not just Christians. Placing blame on other groups only focuses us away from our own failings in God's eyes. EricAlstrom 10:33, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

So you are telling me is that at the next global atheist convention that no rule of conduct is going to be set up as far as their leaders not engaging in polyamory. Thank you for the clarification. Conservative 10:35, 15 June 2012 (EDT)
Conservative, even if I knew the inner workings of the Global Atheist Convention (which I do not so how am I supposed to respond?)I doubt that polyamory is an important enough issue to warrant including it in their Code of Conduct and even if it were somehow approached I doubt it would be considered "immoral". It seems to be a private concern among willing adults, not something that needs to be addressed in a convention's Code of Conduct.
Conservative The Christians have had two thousand years to decide what defines their religion, yet some still insist on calling other GOOD Christians a "faux Christian" ScottE 10:41, 15 June 2012 (EDT)
We should set aside the issue of whether or not you think they are faux Christians because you have no authority to determine that. I never said I found Christian leaders that promote polyamory, you are creating a straw man. Not to mention that the term "leader" is a bit arbitrary, what makes someone a "leader" in your eyes? I think we can safely assume that if there are Christians practicing Polyamory and Christian groups promoting the practice, that some form of "Christian leadership" exists. Plus...polyamory is not a type of marriage, it's dating behavior, so the insistence that Christian Leaders have only one wife is perfectly intact. "By the way, when are the atheists going to draw up a code of conduct at their next global atheist convention which includes atheist leaders not engaging in polyamory" How am I supposed to reply to this completely hypothetical question and these very odd assumptions?? Why do you constantly end up at this silly debate thing?....this post is about polyamory and you turn it into the typical "prove atheism is true" challenge (which is an illogical challenge). Public debates are not scientific in any sense so why do you think it matters? William Craig could win every debate he ever participates in, and he is a very skilled debater, but it won't prove or disprove anything...ever. Willingham 10:45, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

Atheists, I know your upset by my super sleuth investigative journalism in the matter, but I think you just have to take your lumps here like men and admit to defeat. :) You lost on the polyamory front and Christianity rings up another victory in a long series of victories over atheism. By the way, by the end of today there will be 800 less atheists and 83,000 more people calling themselves Christians.[1] You might as well face it: Jesus is the winnamon. The winnamon all the time! Conservative 18:25, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

I do hope you are being factious, Conservative, and don't really think hearsay about anonymous friends of an anonymous friend counts as investigative journalism. By the way, a couple Buddhist friends of mine were telling me about how they eat puppies. I look forward to The Dalai Lama and Puppy Eating. EricAlstrom 21:58, 16 June 2012 (EDT)
Eric, I think you meant to say "facetious". I think you should consider using the service Word Dynamo.[2]  :) I heard there were some theists who scored over 50,000 points on the Word Dynamo test. :) [3][4] Conservative 11:29, 17 June 2012 (EDT)
Conservative, what does the bible say about throwing stones? You correct Eric's spelling (without addressing his content, as usual) and and in the very entry before his, you don't even know the difference between "your" and "you're?" Of course, you don't know the difference between reality and fiction either so I don't expect much. - mikeswann
Mike, atheists commonly fail to understand how to weigh historical evidence. That is why so many of them deny that Jesus existed and promote the pseudoscience of evolution. You may not like an embarrassing and candid admission from the opposition being used, but that is not sufficient reason for it not to be used. Lastly, this 51 page atheism article thoroughly addresses foolish worldview of atheism and much to their dismay atheists are unable to find a single factual error in the article! Conservative 14:57, 17 June 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, has anyone ever told you that you act like a child? SpencerP 15:09, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

There is a web community of atheists whose website is so childish in character that it doesn't merit a Wikipedia entry who commonly claim that as they are thin skinned and don't appreciate my Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution, but other than that, I would say that people don't tell me that. In my defense, I have shown this material which employs humor to a number of people and they all loved it. In fact, a large Christian YouTube channel definitely wants to a do a weekly series in the future which will feature all my comedies and satires of atheism/evolution when the series is finished. :)

John Updike wrote: "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic uninterestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity (in the Harvard sense) of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?" There are boring, uncreative, obsessive, atheist nerds who find atheism, talking about the definition of atheism for hours, and evolutionary dogma which has no evidential support to be interesting, but most people find these topics to be a big snooze. [5] [6] While it may be necessary for Christendom to confront these false ideologies, they are not interesting in any way. So it is not surprising that atheism has nothing as good as the Chronicles of Narnia written by C.S. Lewis.

Next, while the Bible does not endorse immaturity (1 Corinthians 13:11), there are certain positive characteristics commonly associated with children such as creativity/imagination that many people allow to be squelched by society. As an aside, it is ironic that many societies squelch creativity in children, yet pay big dollars for creative adults who implement their good ideas.

Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." It is easier for child to enter into the kingdom of heaven than an abrasive, egotistical, colossal bore such as Richard Dawkins. I know many other people in the UK and global community share my sentiments in this matter.[7] :)

By the way, did you know that it is so obvious that the world surrounding us is designed that children from a diverse set of cultures recognize see this matter.[8] Even in the largely non-theistic culture of Japan.[9] Also, right now Japan is seeing a significant growth in Christianity - especially among young people. [10] Conservative 11:59, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

One last thing, is it possible that atheists who are obsessed with me are uncreative bores who have drab and dreary lives? Something to think about it, isn't it? You might want to think about that yourself! Conservative 12:18, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

"I would say that people don't tell me that. In my defense, I have shown this material which employs humor to a number of people and they all loved it." This reminds me of a Simpsons quote:
Springfield Shopper editor: ...And to protect Mother Earth, each copy contains a certain percentage of recycled paper.
Lisa Simpson: And what percent is that?
Springfield Shopper editor: Zero...Zero's a percent.
I'm presuming User:Conservative is not being disingenuous like the Springfield Shopper editor, but I am curious as to a specific number of persons who have expressed that they love your pieces that you call satires. It could be three people, or dozens, or hundreds, or even thousands. I simply don't know, and neither do our readers, so if you could go into more detail about exactly how many people enjoy your work, it would be appreciated. Thanks, GregG 16:32, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

I have done exceedingly little to promote the comedy/satires of atheism/evolution page outside of CP. Yet, the page has over 57,000 page views. Imagine what would happen if I promoted it or asked others to plug it. You know people really enjoy laughing at atheism and it is such a foolish worldview that it is easy to poke fun of. That is why the handful of people I showed them too in 100% of the cases liked them. I showed one lady this comedy/satire and she said her stomach hurt from laughing so hard. Also, a YouTube channel with a lot of subscribers said he wants to do a video on that comedy/satire. In fact, down the pike he wants to do a whole series of videos on the entire collection of comedies/satires with one occurring each week. I am sure the videos will be a lot of fun and people will enjoy them.

By the way Greg, what worldview do you hold? Is it atheism? Conservative 22:25, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

First, as a point of comparison, Talk:Main Page has 281,157 views as of this writing, and Conservapedia (featured prominently on the main page) has 90,788 views, and I don't think any of those page are promoted outside of Conservapedia. Second, it's quite possible that a significant portion of those views are by readers who think that the works are low quality, and, to the extent they are laughing, are doing so at you, not with you. (Again, though, I don't know for sure exactly how readers react, since I've never asked. I, personally, though, think that the only parody value that those works have [that I've noticed] is self-parody of User:Conservative's writing style, which can have a place, even if it's limited to an in-joke among Conservapedia readers.) Thirdly, I find it intriguing that you neither name the YouTube channel (my guess, though, would be SoG) nor state who runs it. For all we know, it could be you plugging your works on your own channel (or one run by an acquaintance of yours).
Although, I don't see how it's relevant, I do appreciate your inquiry into my faith. I left the Episcopal Church in 2004. On April 3, 2010, I was confirmed into the Catholic Church and received Eucharist there for the first time at the Easter Vigil. GregG 22:43, 19 June 2012 (EDT)
I see. I am guessing you are an evolutionist. Am I correct? Also, do you think the Bible has errors (such as historical errors, contradictions, etc.) or do you hold to the position of Bible inerrancy? Conservative 07:29, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
Actually, I think that creation (in the sense that God is the Creator of all things) and evolution are both true. Creation is the "why"; evolution is the "how". Scientific evidence points to Earth being more than 10,000 years old, and for that reason, I believe the current scientific consensus with regards to the age of the Earth. The Bible is inerrant on matters of faith, but we have to take into account the genre of each book and its intended audience to determine what is meant. Because Genesis is not intended to be a science textbook (in fact, I don't know how people living in a world before the development of science would have ever been able to make sense of modern scientific works), it should not be taken to be literally true on matters of science. It must, though, be taken to be true on matters of faith, such as that God created the Universe (as opposed to the Universe's always existing). GregG 13:15, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Does this mean that you do not believe in a worldwide flood during the time of Noah? Conservative 16:45, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

I believe that there was indeed a flood that really happened, evidence for which includes the Bible and the beliefs of nearly every other belief system and mythology. However, the details of how and where it happened and its extent are beyond my understanding, and it appears to me that those are appropriate for scientists to investigate [11] [12]. GregG 17:26, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:" - 2 Peter 3:3-6

"The apostle Peter believed in a worldwide hydraulic cataclysm. "Whereby the world [Greek, kosmos] that then was, being overflowed [Greek, katakluzo] with water, perished" (II Peter 3:6). The "world" was defined in the previous verse as "the heavens . . . and the earth." Peter also said that "God . . . spared not the old world, but saved Noah . . . bringing in the flood [Greek, kataklusmos] upon the world of the ungodly" (II Peter 2:5). Note also that these words katakluzo and kataklusmos (from which we derive our English word "cataclysm") are applied exclusively in the New Testament to the great Flood of Noah's day."[13] Conservative 04:11, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

Open-mindedness test

Hello. I’ve been glancing through your site for a while, and found the claims that liberal don’t pass an open-mindedness test intriguing. I thought I’d take it and see how you think I do. Feedback would be appeciated. 1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?

I’m not exactly sure what conservative and liberal approaches to education are, and if the rest of this site is any indication I’d suspect your definition of “liberal education” will be a combination of rather cherry-picked examples of the worst elements along with some strawmen. Besides that, I don’t know how I can resist admitting some ill-defined terms, but if the overall question is “is it possible that a conservative approach to education is better than a liberal one” I’d answer, possibly, sure, depending on the definitions.
OK, one point of credit given.

2. If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?

No.
Good. One more point.

3. Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?

I think everyone ‘’resists’’ changing their long held views. We wouldn’t hold them very strongly if we didn’t. Few people turn on a dime on things they’ve thought for years. If I were convinced about it, after studying the evidence, I would accept that the belief in question is false.
Half-point credit, in light of the equivocation.
I stand by my statement here; I think anyone “resists” admitting they’ve been wrong for 10 years. As an example, Mr. Schlafly, if I were to present you with statistics indicating that gun control reduces crime (and I could; there are countless conflicting reports on this issue) you’d dismiss it, you’d painstakingly peruse it for any potential flaw, and, basically, resist all attempts to convince you that this is true. And that’s fine; it’s basically as it should be. We should be skeptical of assertions that our strongly held beliefs are untrue, and skepticism is a healthy thing. If the question is “Do you refuse to admit that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?” well, that’s a different question entirely, and one I would give an unequivocal “no” to. If my score here were important to me I’d press for full credit here, but it isn’t terribly significant.

4. Do you resist the possibility that Hollywood values result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?

“Hollywood values” isn’t exactly well-defined either. If you’re going to define Hollywood by its worst aspects, such as drug use (which exists in every city in the country), then sure. We all know drugs can be quite harmful. Does that make watching a typical Hollywood blockbuster harmful? No. Although most are basically crummy movies these days, but that’s subjective and irrelevant.
No credit here. Hollywood values is worse in many ways than what is typical in many cities.
The problem here is that by defining Hollywood Values on your own terms we’re handed a very loaded question. And if I agree that the Conservapedia definition of Hollywood Values is harmful I’m condemning an entire city and industry wholesale, though I admit many aspects of the entertainment industry are loathsome. The truth is, you can find similar vices all over the place, the difference is, as celebrities, the Hollywood crowd makes news with every little thing they do. A scandal involving a famous actor caught up in sex and drugs makes the news; a wall street broker doing the same thing does not. It’s classic selection bias.

5. Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?

It’s possible, and I believe there have been studies that have shown some evidence for this. There’s also evidence against it, if you look at foreign countries with less gun ownership and less crime. If I had to guess I’d say widespread gun ownership might lead to a modest decrease in things like muggings and robberies, but a modest increase in murder and accidental firearm deaths.
Credit is given because you say it is possible. Note that the rate of accidential firearm deaths is very small.

6. When President Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down? (Or for those who were not born/not old enough to have an opinion - Do you think it is impossible that North Korea and South Korea will reunite into a single country, without being the result of one invading the other?)

The wall was made of steel and cement, of course it could be torn down. No sane person could think otherwise. At some point in the future its demise was inevitable. Did Reagan cause the wall to be torn down? I’ve seen no evidence for it. Certainly not directly, anyway.
Zero credit because the point of the question is whether it would be politically possible, not physically possible.
Sorry if I was unclear here. It was clearly possible both physically and politically. Was the wall going to come down a within a week of Reagan’s speech? No, that was not feasible (though technically possible) nor is that how it played out. There was always the political possibility for the wall to come down. I was in elementary school at the time, and wasn’t aware of the speech at the time it happened, so I’m considering this more in hindsight here, but it’s pretty clear that the possibility always existed. As it turned out, it came down sooner than many expected, but I’m not sure what Reagan’s speech had to do with that. In light of my expanded response I’d like to think I deserve full credit here.

7. Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is impossible?

Again, there’s very little that is impossible. SDI was theoretically possible. Was it practical though? From what I know of it, probably not. It was never implemented for a reason.
Zero credit. Lots of things are impossible. The question is not limited to what is "theoretically possible."
I said it wasn’t impossible which is what was asked, so I fail to see why no credit was awarded. SDI was possible, but the technology was questionable, at least, and the expense potentially prohibitive. Its potential effectiveness was also uncertain. One could argue the feasibility of it all day, but that’s not what was asked.

8. Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?

Possible, but very unlikely.
This is supposed to be a question about how open minded I am about my beliefs, not what my beliefs are. I don’t think the Shroud of Turin is authentic, as is the case with many religious artifacts over the centuries. I admitted I could be wrong, which is what open mindedness is about, I fail to see why I should be punished for what my initial belief is. If I had said “it is certainly authentic, no doubt in my mind” I would be giving a less open minded response, but one which would certainly yield full credit.
Half credit due to the "very unlikely" statement.

9. Do you think that there must be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?

I think it is by far the most likely scenario.
Half credit.
This is much like the response above. I admit I believe in a “material based” explanation, but admit it is not the only possibility. It seems I am getting deducted half a point because my opinion on the matter does not agree with yours.


10. Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?

My understanding of the laws of physics seems to indicate this is more or less impossible. It’s possible the laws are wrong, I suppose, and there seems to be zero evidence that this is the case. But, no, I guess it falls a bit short of impossible.
Full credit.

11. Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?

It would be very difficult to in any real accurate and specific way. This test is quite biased. I think it can measured in a vague way.
Half credit - "measured in a vague way"?? Either it can be measured, or it can't.
my point here was that there are ways to measure such things, but to try to give them objective scores or the like is not going to yield meaningful results. Sure, someone who steadfastly says “these are my beliefs and nothing anyone says could every change them” is going to be less open minded than someone who looks at evidence and alters their opinions accordingly on a regular basis. But trying to say person A has an open mindedness score of 7.35 on some scale, and person B has a score of 7.26, therefore person A is objectively the more open minded individual, well, I’m going to call you on that. This test, for instance, has its biases, and is scored somewhat arbitrarily by a single individual. To pretend it can give statistically significant results is erroneous.

12. Do you think that evolution must have occurred?

All evidence points to it, so I’d say it has occurred, but it’s not impossible it didn’t.
Full credit because you say it is "not impossible."

13. Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?

I have to admit I know nothing about this, and there is very little in the universe that is 100% impossible, so sure, it’s possible.
Full credit.

14. Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?

No. I realize my teachers didn’t always get everything right. They’re human, like the rest of us.
Zero credit. The question asks about teaching known falsehoods. That's not an issue of being "human, like the rest of us."
Here the question assumes that I was purposefully taught untrue things in school, without any evidence that this is the case. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, and assume when I was taught false things it was in error, not done knowingly. For instance, you clearly believe evolution is a lie, but I’m quite confident that my teachers on the subject did not think so, therefore on the off chance that you’re right, and evolution is a hoax, they were not knowlngly teaching me falsehoods. If you insist otherwise you’d need to provide evidence, which you clearly can’t do, as you don’t know who my teachers are or what they taught me specifically. If the question were “do you think it’s impossible that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?” Then the answer would be different, because, yes, it is possible, but unless someone can point out specific examples I can’t say that this is certainly the case. Nor can anyone else.

15. Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the theory of evolution, may actually impede the progress of science?

I’d like to see evidence that they do before condemning them. Overall I’d say they do more good than harm, if that’s the question.
Zero credit.
Perhaps I should have been more specific here. They ‘’may’’ impede the progress of science, as in it is not impossible, but I cannot condemn them on such vague terms without any examples of how this is the case.

16. Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?

I fail to see how they could. Given some evidence for this hypothesis I could conceivably change my mind, but there seems very little relation between the two subjects, so I can’t envision how one would measurably affect the other.
Zero credit.
This is another assertion given without examples, which I need to agree with outright in order to be given credit. If the question were whether it was impossible I guess I’d have to say no, it isn’t. Nevertheless, I am given two unrelated issues and condemned if I refuse to accept the assertion that they are co-related, given absolutely no evidence that they are. One might as well ask “do you deny that the dearth of accordions in a nation could harm its competitiveness international rock/paper/scissors competitions?” (this gives me an idea) and then being penalized for failing to see the connection. Being open minded and willing to explore certain unlikely connections is not the same as blindly accepting assertions made without evidence.

17. Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the best of the public may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?

Oh not at all. Experts don’t always get everything right. They can’t, as different experts often have different views on the same subject, and they can’t both be right. A legitimate expert, however, will be in a better position to have the answer on a relevant subject than a non-expert. The best of the public is an intriguing idea that has merit, but deciding who “the best” of the public is is no easy task. I haven’t yet observed them on this site.
Full credit.

18. Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?

This seems more of a semantic argument than anything else. Are only people who’ve read the Bible cover to cover (including all the boring lists of laws and who begat whoms) able to really say they’ve read the Bible? The reason to read it regularly is if you want to, or you want a better knowledge of what it says. Those who want to have a reason to read it, those who don’t, don’t.
Zero credit.
I’m still unclear about what this has to do with open mindedness. Yes, if you want a very technical and strict definition, I guess you can only say you’ve read the Bible if you’ve read every single word, though the editor below makes a good point with his newspaper comparison. This seems irrelevant, and unrelated to open mindedness. The other part might be more relevant, but I’m not exactly sure what the point is. Certainly having read something in one’s childhood doesn’t mean it useless to read it later in life. This holds true for any book. I just reread Huckleberry Finn for the first time since high school. Was it a waste of time because technically I had already read it? Not at all; 20 years later I had a quite different perspective on it. I’m sure this holds true even more so for the Bible.

19. Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?

I don’t think the universe issues guarantees. I believe the laws of physics do indicate the relatively stable orbit, though not necessarily unchanging.
Zero credit. Earth's orbit is unstable.
This also seems a somewhat semantic argument. There’s a difference between stable and static. The Earth’s orbit is stable, as in it’s not about to go spinning out of the solar system like a released bola, nor into the sun like a tether ball. The editor below makes a good point in that eventually the sun will become a red giant and consume the Earth, but I assumed we’re talking about before this. You say in no uncertain terms that the Earth’s orbit is unstable. Do you think it’s impossible that this is not true?

Do I get a passing mark? As you can probably tell, I trend more liberal than conservative, but eschew labels in general. JerryD 12:27, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

I counted a total of 9 points. Better than most liberals, but below the 50% mark.--Andy Schlafly 15:18, 17 June 2012 (EDT)
I did my own scoring, and give him an 11/12 (out of 12 because for 7 questions he either seems to have missed the point (or maybe I have), or he justifies stating that it's too difficult to answer without a definition for one of the important terms in the question). As this isn't the place for a detailed response, I'll post my response on Talk:Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness - JamesCA 10:08, 19 June 2012 (EDT)
Thank you Mr. Schalfly, I have responded to the questions above in which I think I may have been denied credit for open-mindedness I think I deserve. Now that I have answered your questions, I’d be curious if you’d answer mine. They’re generally sort of the inverse of some you ask, and a few are identical, so I can be pretty sure of how you’d answer them, but would like it confirmed. Open mindedness is not about “agreeing with what I believe” but being open to questioning your beliefs. It’s a two way street.
1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a liberal approach to education is far more effective for students than a conservative one?
2. If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
3. Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
4. Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership increases the rate of crime?
5. When the Berlin wall fell, do you think it’s impossible that Reagan had nothing to do with it?
6. Do you think that it’s possible that the Strategic Defense Initiative was a wasteful project of questionable merit?
7. Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is inauthentic?
8. Do you think that there might be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?
9. Do you think that it is impossible that the speed of light has always been constant?
10. Do you think that evolution ‘’could’’ have occurred?
11. Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the theory of evolution, may have made valuable contributions to science?
12. Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could have no affect on its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
13. Do you deny that the dearth of accordions in a nation could harm its competitiveness international rock/paper/scissors competitions?
14. Do you think it’s possible that your strongly held beliefs (such as Christianity) could be wrong?
15. Do you think it’s possible that God does not exist?

Thank you, and I hope you will reply. JerryD 11:09, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Would an open-minded person really interpret the results of a made-up test so narrow-mindedly? --MatthewQ 14:39, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

A question

Does anyone else get tired of how, on this page, whenever someone tries to discuss something with Conservative about something they disagree with him on, he quickly asks them if they are an atheist, and ignores the (sometimes many repeated) attempts to get him to stay on topic? As this is a question concerning the conduct on this page, this seems the appropriate page to post this on. (And to pre-empt the objection, using "him", etc., as using the neutral/plural form "them" sounds awkward. And, from my understanding, the neutral form of words originally followed the masculine form instead of the plural form). - JamesCA 11:07, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

"As for the PZ Myers Memorial Debate, we are still in search of an atheist to champion the argument that the logic and evidence for the nonexistence of gods is stronger than the logic and evidence for the existence of gods. It is certainly informative to see how many atheists do not appear to believe they are able to effectively make this case; in light of this, many Christians may find this to be a useful tactical approach when confronted by aggressive atheists in the future. This tends to confirm my previous observations that while atheists like to challenge the beliefs of others, they are very ill-prepared, and in many cases downright unwilling, to defend their own. So, if you want to shut them up, simply go on the attack. They'll run away with alacrity." - Vox Day
"If you know your enemy, the strategic challenge is to use that knowledge to force him to fight on your terms... Strategy is always about applying one's own strength to an opponent's weakness." - Austin Bay, author of Ataturk: Lessons in Leadership from the Greatest General of the Ottoman Empire
知彼知己,百戰不殆;不知彼而知己,一勝一負;不知彼,不知己,每戰必殆 :) Conservative 12:56, 19 June 2012 (EDT)
Wow, just wow. Way to prove his point. --JHunter 13:08, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, I realize you are upset that you have no proof and evidence that agnosticism is valid. Unlike Christianity, which has an abundance of proof and evidence from a diverse set of fields, agnosticism has no proof and evidence it is valid.

"Complete agnosticism is self-defeating; it reduces to the self-destructing assertion that "one knows enough about reality in order to affirm that nothing can be known about reality." This statement provides within itself all that is necessary to falsify itself. For if one knows something about reality, then he surely cannot affirm in the same breath that all of reality is unknowable. And of course if one knows nothing whatsoever about reality, then he has no basis whatsoever for making a statement about reality. It will not suffice to say that his knowledge about reality is purely and completely negative, that is, a knowledge of what one cannot meaningfully affirm that something is not – that it follows that total agnosticism is self-defeating because it assumes some knowledge about reality in order to deny any knowledge of reality (Norman Geisler, Apologetics, p. 20).

JHunter, do you have any proof and evidence that agnosticism is valid? Conservative 13:42, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

That's where Agnosticism gets you. If you can't prove that God exists, and you can't prove that he doesn't exist, then that supports Agnosticism. That being said, I've always found the concept a bit weird in general, since it doesn't take faith to believe in God if you prove he exists. It takes faith to believe in him if you CAN'T prove He exists. And it takes no faith for atheists to believe God doesn't exist, when they've supposedly "proved" it. But if they have no proof either way, to believe one thing is faith. Gregkochuconn 22:55, 19 June 2012 (EDT)
If memory serves and it may not, I believe I asked JHunter the question "Do you have any proof and evidence that agnosticism is valid?" and received no answer. If he doesn't answer this simple question, I am going to come to the conclusion that it is pride/sin that is preventing him from being a Christian. Given the abundance of proof and evidence from a diverse set of fields that indicates that Christianity is true and the lack of proof and evidence that agnosticism is valid, the matter of proof and evidence certainly cannot be the issue. Conservative 07:35, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
I believe the Bible (at least the Old Testament - I'm Jewish) is true, but I also believe in logic, which says that the Bible cannot be used as a source to prove that the Bible is truth. That's a tautological argument. After all, Darwin wrote a book saying that Darwinism was correct. Would you therefore accept Darwin's word that he is correct as proof of that fact? Judging by the fact that you are a creationist, I'm assuming no. Tautological arguments may be used for faith (and are by the faithful), but they cannot be used for proof.

That being said, I'll admit I was somewhat over-literal with the definition of agnosticism, which would classify everyone who believes in God purely on faith an Agnostic. Conservative, I believe that you exist. However, it takes no faith for me to believe that, because I have proof that you exist. The existence of your Conservapedia account proves that you are real. Things that don't exist don't edit Conservapedia. That being said, it takes no faith for me to believe you exist, because I have proof. When you say you have faith in God, you are by definition implying that you believe God exists despite the fact that you don't "know" he exists. I've never seen, heard, or in any other way sensed God (at least by a purely biological definition of "sensed"). But I do believe He exists, because I have faith. By definition, having faith means the burden of proof has NOT been met, but you believe in something anyway. By an overly-literal definition of agnostic, virtually everyone (with the exception of those Biblical figures who have actually spoken with God) is agnostic. They may not have the hard proof that God exists, but they (or some of them, I guess) believe in Him. So, using a very literal definition of agnostic, the absence of hard proof for or against God's existence implies that agnosticism is correct (at least until that proof is found). Using a "common sense" definition of the term, you would probably eliminate the faithful (theists) and those who do not rule out the existence of God solely on the grounds that nothing is impossible, but otherwise deny God's existence (atheists), and call everyone else agnostics. Under that circumstance, agnostics would need to provide proof that they are correct, and they have not. So it depends on how literally you want to define agnostic, I guess. Gregkochuconn 17:26, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Okay, against my better judgement, I'll bite. I am thinking that you don't understand what agnosticism means. It means that I am skeptical of any person who claims to understand the fundamental nature of the universe. Given the current state of scientific understanding, that is a very valid position (truthfully, as even Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers would agree, it is the only valid position). Skepticism is the foundation of the scientific process; I am a scientist, I know this. I am skeptical of any hypothesis until I am presented with conclusive empirical evidence that supports it, I am supposed to be. Finally, my personal religious views are not on trial here, they never were. That you continue to bring them up is both irrelevent to any discussion we have had and irrelevent to any discussion of evidence on any topic in general. --JHunter 17:26, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
Note: JHunter and I cross-posted. In spite of the fact that he is below me, he posted first according to the edit history. Gregkochuconn 17:28, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, I see you have no proof and evidence that agnosticism is valid and reject the abundant evidence that the Bible/Christianity is true. By not simply answering the question, "I have no proof and evidence that agnosticism is valid", you have let me know that pride/sin is the issue and you are confirming that you are behaving irrationally. Agnosticism and evolutionism lack convincing evidence and are irrational positions and it not surprising that you subscribe to them both. Conservative 23:14, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, by the way, you wrote "I am skeptical of any hypothesis until I am presented with conclusive empirical evidence that supports it". I hope you are not saying that you only believe in scientific truths. There are a lot of truths that are not scientific truths. There are mathematical, logical, metaphysical truths (the external world is real) and other truths as well. In addition, the statement "We should only believe what is scientifically proven" is self-refuting since that statement cannot be scientifically proven. I suggest watching the video William Lane Craig on Scientific Naturalism (I don't believe in the Big Bang theory). Furthermore, I think your supposed skepticism is selective at best and/or you are being dishonest or you would not be a Darwinist. I certainly know that you cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists. Conservative 23:37, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Why was User:Jbo12 blocked? Violating the 90/10 rule was the reason given, when he'd made only 2 edits. The 90/10 rule is used to block users who don't make any useful contributions to Conservapedia, whilst doing an excess of talking. Having only made two edits, it cannot be concluded that User:Jbo12 violates either idea behind the 90/10 rule. On a different note, is there a way I can contribute during the American night-time? Due to my vastly different time-zone, editing is rarely an option when I look at Conservapedia. - JamesCA 10:32, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

It certainly appears as if he made no useful contributions. Oh well, his loss. He cannot edit Conservapedia for a year. I hope he reflects for 12 months on how he can improve his editing. Contact the owner of the website about these matter if you don't like how the 90/rule is applied currently. Also, at this time, only the owner of the website can give you night editing privileges. Conservative 13:49, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
Having made two edits, is it really fair to assume he (assuming Jbo12 is male), won't make useful contributions? The 90/10 rule should encourage users to edit articles, rather than silence users before they have much of a chance to edit articles. - JamesCA 21:54, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

Accusation of being an abrasive, colossal bore that the UK and the world is tiring of

You can find anonymous accusation[s] of being an abrasive, colossal bore for almost every public figure. That's hardly news. AugustO 16:10, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

August, why are you only addressing half the issue. Is there any evidence of many in the UK and the world tiring of Richard Dawkins? This is a classic case of a Darwinist using the fallacy of exclusion. Don't think I am not wise to your evolutionist tricks! :) Feel free to say it if you want: "Curses! Foiled again!" Conservative 16:24, 18 June 2012 (EDT)
It's nice that you start to interact with other editors again! Your help could have been needed a couple of hours ago (when I blocked you :-) ...
That said: your comment doesn't make sense, I'm afraid - at least not to me: you have shown evidence that a few anonymous dislike Dawkins, not that there are many.
I - for example - don't like his disregard for Christians (or any religious people): he seems to think that being Christian prevents you from having rational thoughts, an idea which I resent, of course! AugustO 16:34, 18 June 2012 (EDT)
What are your thoughts about the information relating to the events surrounding the David Allen Green incident, his treatment of those two women, the various graphs offered and the various videos? See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/evidently-uk-citizens-find-richard.html Conservative 19:02, 18 June 2012 (EDT)
That's very interesting. I took a look at the graphs, and, as a math and economics major who has taken two classes in econometrics, I must say that it's honestly hard to see any statistically significant trend in the graph that was probably not the result of random chance or other confounding factors (such as seasonal usage of the internet, newsworthiness, etc.). If I have the numerical data, I can run an analysis to see whether there is a statistically significant relationship between popularity and time. GregG 12:08, 19 June 2012 (EDT)
I wanted to update this to report on my results. If you use all of the Google trends data, or all of the data including and after the first nonzero entry, then you actually get a positive slope for the regression line. I therefore arbitrarily chose to cut off all the data points before January 1, 2009. The result is that I get a regression equation of Popularity=−1.208e−04 * date + 6.105, with an R-squared value of 0.0287 and a p-value of 0.02262, indicating that there is a statistically significant correlation between date and popularity at the 0.05 confidence level. GregG 12:37, 19 June 2012 (EDT) Retracted, see below. GregG 14:57, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative is not bored :) WilcoxD 19:13, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

I do think Dawkomania has subsided somewhat, but it's rare for any celebrity to hold the public's imagination for, say, six years, which is how long it's been since the God Delusion was published. There's not much question that he is abrasive, though - but his supporters tend to see that as a plus.--CPalmer 05:42, 19 June 2012 (EDT)
He is still a saint among the atheist crowd. The New Atheists basically treat him like a saint, treasuring his writings and his quotes like they were Holy Scripture. Isn't it funny that the Christian savior said "Love thy neighbor," but the atheist savior writes a book called "The Selfish Gene?" JeffBron 14:11, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Greg, as of late, I think Team Dawkins may be trying to reverse the big drop in web traffic for richarddawkins.net, over the last 2 years. I don't think it is going to work unless a significant amount of money is spent. They may get a few spurts upward, but when it comes to internet atheism, the thrill is gone! Plus, even if it does work, New Atheism wasn't effective at gaining new converts as can be seen by this USA Today article: http://johnibii.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/religion-not-dead-in-america/ Conservative 14:28, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

You're right, it's gotten more and more obvious how much of the "New Atheist" movement is made up of attention-seekers and self-promoters. It must be easy to recruit for a cult when you don't believe in anything and your "god" is a chubby guy with a beard eating cookies and ranting about Christians! It's sad that even if you pray for these people, they will actively block and tear down any attempt to help them. JeffBron 14:50, 19 June 2012 (EDT)
Actually, based on the regression, the drop from January 1, 2009 to today (June 19, 2012) is about 0.15. My computations actually remind me that I forgot to exclude the 0 row for this week. Stand by while I recompute the data... GregG 14:52, 19 June 2012 (EDT)
After excluding the 0 row for this week (which is an artifact of the data set), the equation for the regression is Popularity = 4.505 − 8.106 × 10−5. According to the regression, the predicted drop from January 1, 2009 to today (June 19, 2012) would be 0.1026. The p value is 0.1091, indicating that the correlation is not significant at the 0.05 level. My apologies for the erroneous computation earlier. GregG 14:57, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

"big profits for the 10 Richest Colleges in America"

I think all of the institutions on that list are actually non-profits. JeffreyB 19:45, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Also, wouldn't the big profit-earning schools be making so much money because their graduates went on to become successful? If anything, FALLING college profits are more indicative of liberal failings. The only thing this article shows is how successful college grads from these schools become, since they can afford to donate millions to their Alma Mater. Whoever posted that article doesn't seem to understand what an "endowment" is. SamirP 23:05, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

"The mainstream media upset over Tiger Woods' loss"

Do you have any evidence to this other than, "it would make sense that the media would be upset since they like him"? This isn't exactly a claim that requires extensive evidence, but it seems like this site makes a lot of similar statements. Do you really think there is a group of people behind the media that promotes Tiger Woods out of some sense of liberalism, then is upset when he loses? You're allowed to gloat about an outspoken Christian winning something without trying to paint the picture that some force behind the media is upset.--Jbo12 23:02, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

An alpha male wouldn't launch a "beta" website.

Is this intended as a pun? The equivocation just shows an ignorance of common terms in computing and biology... AugustO 11:16, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

A note to User:Conservative: here's a quick lesson on betas in reference to computers. Hint - it has nothing to do with societal hierarchy. You really should reconsider the main page edit about Dawkins. --SharonW 11:27, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

It was a pun plus clearing up misconception about beta tests

The front page post was a pun (the prior post have a few puns as well), but I will clear up some misconceptions.

Consider this:

"Most people think beta tests serve one very specific purpose—ensuring product quality before you ship. Fixing bugs is important, but if your beta is designed with only that goal in mind, you’re missing out on opportunities to significantly improve the marketing of your product. We’re here to help, though, with four tips to generate valuable marketing data through your beta test...

Beta testers may be drawn to your test for a variety of reasons. They might be loyal and enthusiastic customers, or perhaps they’re your competitors’ customers interested in making a switch. Either way, you can use your beta test as an opportunity to see how you stack up against the competition. You can find out why customers favored your last product over someone else’s or vice versa. If you are trying to close a feature gap or make a major leap, you can focus on how your new product compares to what is currently available. Whatever the situation, you can use your beta testers to gather valuable competitive data."[14]

Also, consider this:

"So just what is Product Marketing? When you tell people who are unfamiliar with the industry (even many who are familiar with the industry) that you are in marketing, they invariably say, "Oh, so do you do advertising or sales?"...

Discontinuance - A part of the job many product managers would just as soon ignore is product discontinuance. But regular discontinuance of products is vital to keep a company healthy. Many companies have failed because they needed all their resources to sustain existing products couldn't perform new product research and development to remain competitive. Product discontinuance includes deciding when a product should be discontinued, writing a discontinuance plan, and notifications."[15]

Also, consider this:

Here is an article from the Harvard Business Review: Why most product launches fail

Summation:

Part of beta testing when it comes to websites is to see how receptive the market is to your new website. Often things do not pan out as expected. Beta testing can be a way to test the market so you don't pile a lot of resources into a loser product which the market does not want.

Anyways it was mostly a pun. Conservative 12:31, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

I will add a few words of clarification to main page post. Conservative 12:47, 20 June 2012 (EDT)


Which misconception is cleared up by the quotes above? The problem with your "pun" is that the alpha version is generally worse than the beta version in software development- and that's not mentioned in your quotes... AugustO 12:49, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, don't many beta websites involve beta marketing tests? Also, one of the functions of beta marketing tests is to see if the market sufficiently wants your product at all, is it not? If not, why not? Isn't it true that some products cannot be modified to meet customer demand and they need to be discontinued? If not, please explain why not. Conservative 13:04, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, isn't a pun which is needing that much of clarification often quite lame? AugustO 13:14, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, the difference between alpha and beta testing. I cited re: beta testing "You have a good idea of what your customer thinks about the product and what s/he is likely to experience when they purchase it." [16] Now if the participants of the beta test are very unhappy with the product, a product manager can make the decision to pull the plug. Conservative 13:25, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, perhaps the pun is not lame and it is merely you that are lame! I cannot help it if you are not sophisticated enough to appreciate my highbrow puns! :) Conservative 13:25, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
See Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility, which includes Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks. Thanks. AugustO 13:35, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
I suggest you take matters up with the owner of the website. My guess is that he will think you are being thin skinned in this matter. Conservative 13:45, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

See Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility, which includes Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks. is a direct quote from User:Ed Poor on my talk-page, it seems that he takes a dim view on incivilities. I hope he holds us all to the same high standard... AugustO 13:57, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Please move Conservative Bible Project to top of Front Page again

I'm now making this appeal for the third time. Probably the most valuable project Conservapedia has ever embarked upon, the Conservative Bible Project, lounges at the very bottom of the Front Page. Is there a good reason why it should not be at the very top of the Front Page? JanW 13:09, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

I'm pretty astonished that there seems to be absolutely zero interest in this project. Why did we (not I, I was a learner and not a contributor - I have no language skills) even bother to create this worthwhile project if it's just going to be tossed into the bin of history, permanently forgotten? We can't make this encyclopedia BETTER if we just let all the good ideas wither and die on the vine? It's a shame no one seems to care, not even the creator of the project. JanW 01:41, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

NHS

Do you have anything for your sweeping claim besides the words of one doctor in a newspaper famed for its sensationalism? The Daily Mail is known far and wide for its lack of journalistic standards and it would help if you had other evidence supporting your claim. DanielGerrard 13:41, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

We know that Brit liberals hate the Daily Mail so we understand your chance to knock them down. Journalist standards are such a crapshoot nowadays, I doubt you can find someone in disagreement with that. I am sure the Brit press is feverishly hunting down another doctor to pour cold water on the claims made. The other evidence will be posted as soon as the NHS has a hissy fit to these unfounded claims. Oh, no death panels in socialized medicine so the real figure is likely zero and not 130000. --Jpatt 14:27, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
I doubt most of the Brit press will bother trying to engage with the Daily Mail. It's reputation these days is more about the celebrity items and pictures of scantily clad women on its website[17] than crusading journalism.Rafael 14:44, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
So you are saying it's true! Because a good story that digs at the govt is worth keeping quit about, hoping it will go away. A possibility, but the stark angry leftists will be sure to punish the doc, bringing more publicity. Again with the Daily Mail jabs, "celebrity items and pictures of scantily clad women" not real news. Good try but we get that all the time here in America. The DM leans right but is no way conservative by American standards. The fraud and fluff in journalism is not confined to rightwing news organizations. --Jpatt 14:54, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
The daily mail is the most visited UK 'news' website for a good reason. It purveys half-truths, tittle-tattle and pictures of semi-naked celebrities, including very intrusive semi-pornographic shots up ladies skirts. It employs columnists who's sole reason is to cause upset and controversy, to bring in additional hits. When a quality paper such as the Daily Telegraph or The Independent takes up this story adn reports it I will give some creedence, until then I will treat it in the same way as most other 'stories' on the mail site, read it, laugh at it and then, in common with most UK residents who know the 'paper' better than our US cousins - ignore it. Davidspencer 14:59, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
Leave Brittany Spears alone! I get it, yes, I really do. Make sure not to use the Daily Mail for news or we'll lose credibility. Because everyone is in agreement with the prevailing thoughts about what the Daily Mail actually stands for. Si? Actually, as I watch the popularity of Fox grow, I see the natural trend for more fluff and booty stories. Blazing a path set by the Daily Mail.--Jpatt 15:07, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
Not exactly. But the mail has a well deserved reputation for publishing a story one day and then a contradictory story the next. Cancer stories are the ones they do this most with, with a story stating 'X' causes cancer one day followed by a story the next, or even sometimes the same, day saying 'X' can help prevent cancer. It really is no longer a news paper in any real sense of the word, think National Enquirer and you would be nearer the truth of the thing. Davidspencer 15:19, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
I live in the USA, but most of my extended family still lives in the UK, and most of my aunts, uncles, and parents-in-law are now in their 80s and almost all of them owe their lives and their health to the competent and timely care of the NHS. And when an elderly in-law of mine was diagnosed with terminal cancer, they still offered him multiple treatment options to extend his quality-of-life by up to a year. When they consulted privately for a second opinion (yeah, it is still an option in the UK, despite what many Americans believe) they were told that the NHS was already doing everything that could be done. This man was 85 years old and yet was still offered an expensive treatment plan to help stave off his terminal condition for as long as possible. So much for death panels.
No system is perfect, and it can be a frustrating process getting care on the NHS at times (especially since the current government started making deep cuts in the budget), but the caricature of "death panels" and "five year waiting lists" I've heard spouted so many times in the last few years here in America is simply not true.MarkJW 19:53, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
Mark said death panels are not true. Yet it's a common accusation that has already been debunked back in 2010. As far as your family story, I have one as well. I am from the USA and I had a co-worker from the U.K. He lives here permanently but his family is still back in the UK. His sister was diagnosed with cancer by the NHS. The length of time between diagnosis and the time the NHS got to treating her, it was too late and she died. He blames her death on the NHS and their slow response in the UK health model.
We all know that those who use the free health system swear by how great it is. I have noticed a zealous pride factor, defended like no other. It's a fantasy that works on paper only. That in the long run, will not work when it bankrupts the state. Clearly, America's system blows away any socialist health model.--Jpatt 18:51, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
A fantasy that's been working in the UK for the last 60 years, and has been successfully implemented (in one form or another) in every single modern industrial nation on the planet with the sole exception of the USA. As for expense, the burden of healthcare on the American taxpayer (when you add together taxes, insurance premiums, and fees) is far higher than in nations with national healthcare, and as costs continue to spiral out of control, the gap is only getting wider. Private health insurance is only working as well as it does because (a) they have routinely refused to cover those with pre-existing conditions (i.e. anyone who is high risk) and (b) the most expensive part of healthcare in America has already been nationalized -- i.e. Medicare and Medicaid. If you want to see real death panels, just try slashing the Medicare budget by 50%, and sit back and wait.
I have experienced both systems, and I will freely admit that if you can afford good health insurance, there is no place better than America to get treatment. However, if you don't have a gold-plated insurance plan or a few 100k stashed away to cover the bills, then the runaround you get from insurance companies can rival anything the NHS will do to you, as many Americans will attest. And, of course, if you cannot afford to buy any insurance at all, then it can be a total nightmare getting anything other than emergency-room care.
I'm sorry about your friend's sister, but delayed diagnoses happen in America too, all the time, especially if you can't afford the tests you need in the first place. Even if it is true that the NHS was to blame, I've heard enough hair-raising stories from friends here in the US to know that it happens here too.
Life expectancy in the UK is actually higher than in the USA, and even if there are other factors at play (which no doubt there are), it's clear that the NHS is not failing the British public. And, yes, it's true, the vast majority of Brits would not be without the NHS, warts and all. They like never having to file for bankruptcy because of medical bills (as 100,000 Americans do every year). They also like being able to change jobs, or leave to start their own businesses without having to worry one second about the impact to the health of their family (some of my American friends are stuck in dead-end jobs because they cannot afford to lose the healthcare coverage it provides, others have had to leave jobs they love because the coverage was not enough). And they also like not being saddled with massive medical bills while they're still recovering from a serious illness.
I'm actually a fan of private medicine. I've used it both in the UK (my employer provided BUPA) and the USA, and I believe it should always be an option to those who want to pay for it. However, I am also aware of its limitations (the profit motive simply fails when it comes to the elderly and chronically ill), especially when it's the only game in town. Healthcare for all only works when you spread the cost across the greatest number of people. Every other nation on the planet has come to understand this. America will do too, one day.MarkJW 20:37, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
"A fantasy that has been working for 60 years," but, but, but it's improving daily. I guess you haven't been following the privatization efforts underway or people pulling their own teeth out because the NHS dentists are too busy. The fantasy is that free really isn't free. The money comes from somewhere, like oppressive taxation of the population. Their financial crisis is coming and I seriously doubt that the NHS will be free 60 years from now.--Jpatt 20:55, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
Two points
1) The privatization efforts that are being pushed through by the government have nothing to do with the way the NHS is funded -- i.e. through taxation. Nobody is going to be required to pay for services on delivery once the reforms are complete. As it is, the reforms, which are intended to open up the provision of more NHS services to private companies have been roundly condemned by the public and doctors alike as unnecessary and expensive, adding hundreds of millions to the budget at a time when cutbacks are being made.
2) NHS dentists are too busy because most British dentists went private years ago that there aren't that many NHS dentists left. However, the situation isn't any better here in the US. When I looked into buying personal dental insurance five years ago, the best deal I could find was $40/month for a maximum annual $1000 coverage. So I'm forced to pay nearly half the maximum the insurance company is willing to pay out (even after a large deductible). Either way, whether it's private insurance, or government funded, there is no good solution for reducing the risk of large dental bills (except for good dental hygiene, of course). Millions of Americans, just like millions of Brits settle for paying out of pocket for their dental care. What do Americans do when they have severe toothache but cannot afford to see a dentist? MarkJW 15:58, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

What...

... is herokuapp.com? And how does it relate to Richard Dawkins's new web-site? User:Conservative, could you give some information? AugustO 15:36, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

It's the URL of his new website. Conservative 15:52, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
*LOL*
You don't know much about the internet, do you? A hint: a web-site with a daily reach of 1% is very impressive - that should be a hint that you have done something wrong... AugustO 15:59, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
User:conservative, are you sure you've got the right URL? Here's the alexa link for 'herokuapp.com' http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/herokuapp.com#. Incidentally these are the alexa ratings for http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/richarddawkins.net# (ranked 52,813) and http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/questionevolution.blogspot.com# (ranked 1,786,622) EJamesW 16:04, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, could you please take the following entry down:
By the way, why did Dawkins pick herokuapp.com as the web address of his newest website? It is not exactly memorable. I guess we will never understand the sublime workings of a great evolutionist mind. It is far, far above us - Not!
It makes Conservpadia look ignorant. AugustO 16:14, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Your question about the URL

Thanks for your question. I added this to main page: "By the way, why did Dawkins pick herokuapp.com as the web address of his newest website? It is not exactly memorable. I guess we will never understand the sublime workings of a great evolutionist mind. It is far, far above us - Not!"

Lastly, Rome did not fall in a day. Let's keep an eye on the web traffic and see if it keeps declining and/or if it can be sustained. Hang on to your seats. There could be a lot of creationist fun coming up!

I almost feel sorry for Richard Dawkins.

Dialgoue from the film The Enemy Below:

Submarine crew member: "I don't think our psychology is working, captain."

Captain: No, it's working all right, Mr. Wier. I almost wish it wasn't. All ahead full. Maybe we can rip him open during a waltz.

(Depth charge explodes above the heads of the pro-evolution German U-boat - Adolf Hitler was an evolutionary racist who gave speeches about the Master German race).

See: Enemy Below sing song

Sing it Heine! Conservative 16:17, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Please, inform yourself about heroku.com, the platform Richard Dawkins uses to host his beta-version. The comment above doesn't show any insight into the basics of the internet. AugustO 16:21, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
You should be a volunteer web marketer for Richarddawkins.net. Judging from the past two years, they need all the help they can get![18] :) Conservative Conservative 16:34, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, I've found the correct address - it's http://rdfrs.com/. Maybe user:conservative will correct this mistake. Hopefully he's making one of his jokes by adhering to Godwin's law, EJamesW 16:36, 20 June 2012 (EDT)


  • You should be a volunteer web marketer for Richarddawkins.net. I'm no friend of Richard Dawkins. But I get the impression that this could be more rewarding than trying to teach the basics of the workings of the internet.
  • Perhaps you could divert some of your time from transcribing youtube-videos and inform yourself about the facts?
  • heroku.com is a cloud platform which provides various services. It hosts the web-sites of Richard Dawkins.They boast about it here
  • herokuapp.com belongs to heroku.com. Isn't it clever how they took heroku and app and made a new address?
  • some of the traffic at herokuapp.com belongs to Richard Dawkins. Most doesn't.

AugustO 16:43, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Chart

I am afraid the chart on the main page is a bit misleading.

You can see it on Alexa here if you select "trailing 1 month". But if you select "trailing 3 months", you will see the site had a very sharp spike in May-June, and the spike has ended. The chart shows only the fall of the spike. The average popularity has not changed, in fact if you go to trailing 6 months or longer periods, the data show that traffic increases on average. Cipe 16:37, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

I'm afraid that is secondary: herokuapp.com is in the top 3,000 web-sites, that would be quite an achievement for Richard Dawkins. But this is only the address of a part of the platform which hosts the new beta-site... AugustO 16:55, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
I got about a few hours less sleep than I like to get and missed the fact that the website seems to be on a sub-domain of another domain. I missed the fact that the website's address is http://rdfnet.herokuapp.com/ and not http://herokuapp.com/ Perhaps, during the beta stage, they are using a sub domain of another domain. It looks like I should have taken a 2 hour nap after I first awoke this morning.  :) By the way, an alpha male would never launch a beta website on a sub-domain! :) Conservative 18:10, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

An alpha male certainly has no need for excuses, he just takes the responsibility for his actions. On the other hand it's nice to see that many of the previous comments can be explained by sleep deprivation.

As for the comment an alpha male would never launch a beta website on a sub-domain - that's a sensible thing to do. Perhaps you research it when you are wide awake. AugustO 18:14, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

The domain name having nothing to do with atheism should have tipped me off about the matter. I also should have been on the alert as far making a mistake due to receiving a few hours less sleep or gotten some additional rest after waking up earlier than I would have liked to. I just read that Nikola Tesla only need 2-3 hours sleep a night. That must have been great. Here is some interesting information on the sleep habits of some notable people: http://amolife.com/personality/great-people-sleep-less.html Conservative 18:53, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Sorry

Sorry, User:Conservative, my comments above haven't been as understanding as they should have been for a man in your situation. A reason for this is that I get rather thin-skinned in conversations with you:

  • at the moment, you explain your errors with a personal, an individual problem. How long will it take to present yourself again as a mysterious conglomerate of a number of persons of unknown sex? I'm getting tired of this charade.
  • it is so difficult to contact you, even when you are on an editing spree. I even tried to do so via block-comment, but I just happened to hit the single one hour break of yours in a period of otherwise minute by minute postings. How odd. Having to use Aschlafly's talk-page to contact certain administrators is cumbersome.
  • sleepy or awake, you seemingly cannot stay on topic. This section started with a simple question - and a hint to the inconsistency of the data. But instead of looking into the problem, you took your time to provide us with humorous quips and the usual unnecessary youtube videos.

For our future collaboration, I'd ask you

  1. drop the multiple persons act.
  2. create a channel for contact: Ideally you would change the protection level of your talk-page to [edit=autoconfirmed]
  3. stay on topic

Thanks, AugustO 00:15, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

re: sorry

1. You can contact me/us here http://conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/mail if you need to contact me/us.

2. I/we are never going to cooperate with you in lifting the cloud of inscrutableness.

3. For inane or picayune complaints, I/we am never going to "stay on topic". In his book The Foundations of Strategy, Captain Johnstone warned: "The initiative, once handed over to the enemy, is hard to regain ; ward off blows for a week and your hands are full of defensive details, you begin to be apprehensive of the unseen work of the enemy, and you abandon your plan on small provocation." Sun Tzu wrote: "Invincibility lies in the defense; the possibility of victory in the attack." Conservative 10:49, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

  1. Why not use User talk:Conservative? This way you would be informed when someone tries to contact you? Most of us (including User:Aschlafly) use this way - why not you?
  2. Face it, it's gone. Trying to keep it up doesn't make you look good.
  3. I now know how to react to these random quotations and links: User:Conservative, please get a good night of sleep.
AugustO 11:52, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

"We respect users' control over their own talk pages as much as possible."[19] "Conservatives respect a man's home as his castle. Ditto for one's own talk page." - Aschlafly You need to stop trying gaining control the my/our talk page. It is never going to happen. If I/we want an architect/contractor to redesign my/our castle, I/we will let you know. Don't call me/us, I/we will call you. Conservative 12:14, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

I don't want to control your castle. But when does a talk-page seize to be a talk-page? AugustO 12:19, 21 June 2012 (EDT)
Also, I think having a perpetually locked talk page is incongruent with the duties of an administrator. For this, I am glad that you, User:Conservative, have at least offered some means to communicate with you regarding administrative actions. GregG 23:29, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

Miami Heat crowned NBA champions!!!!

Awesome comeback--four straight wins after a first-game defeat, LeBron James showing why he's the dominant player of his time. I hope to see some props for a great team winning a great victory on the front page....

Um, Michael Jordan didn't have to leave town to gain all his championships. I equate LeBron's success with that of Hillary Clinton moving to New York just to win a Senate seat. --Jpatt 17:03, 22 June 2012 (EDT)

Bad News

That Moody's downgrades 15 major global banks. and The United States dollar slips in global trade. are bad news in general, and not only for President Obama's reelection chances. User:Conservative, perhaps you shouldn't try to construct a causal relationship between these news and the success of your pet project, otherwise one could read this as:

The United States dollar slips in global trade [..] it is almost needless to say, it is going to be glorious times for conservatism, global Christianity, and the Question evolution! campaign

AugustO 04:55, 22 June 2012 (EDT)

I see you already split the news item. Good. AugustO 04:56, 22 June 2012 (EDT)

re: bad economic news

Rightly or wrongly, bad economic news is generally bad for incumbents.

Plus, I have a lot of respect for the famed and very successful investor Jim Rogers and free market economics (with some reasonable regulation such as Glass-Steagle) and Rogers thinks Obamanomics and Ben Bernanke's policies are going to make things worse and have not been successful.[20] I think I will be investing in food and agriculture stocks because people still have to eat, money printing is good for food commodity prices and likely biotech and ag innovations to increase food production. Rogers is bullish on ag commodities for investing.

I know liberals criticize me for not "staying on topic", but I don't see liberals having bona fide arguments but often badly reasoned fluff that they often don't believe deep down (such as prominent atheists, agnostics and evolutionists who often are chicken to debate. See: Atheism and cowardice and Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates).

In short, in recent times, I have lost all respect for liberals. I generally only follow conservative news and moderate news sources and largely ignore liberal news outlets except for searches related to Google News and Yahoo News. Conservative 06:17, 22 June 2012 (EDT)

Indeed, bad economic news is generally bad for incumbents. I just wanted to avoid the impression that we revel in bad news because because they are bad for the other side. And by splitting the news-item, you succeeded here.
I know liberals criticize me for not "staying on topic" I don't know about this. I only see many editors here at Conservapedia who criticize you for not staying on topic.
AugustO 06:59, 22 June 2012 (EDT)
Quick note: Tough economic times and the resulting necessary changes which are made creates dangers and opportunities. There are still a lot of economic opportunities which are available. Changing times create winners and losers and if you are opportunity focused, you optimize the odds of getting through tough economic times in the best manner possible. In America, there were people who became millionaires during the Great Depression. Conservative 07:54, 22 June 2012 (EDT)
That's true, but the number of new millionaires in hard times is far lower than in times of economic prosperity, given the basic fact that, during a depression, people in general are spending far less money. No amount of hard work and innovation will help if there is just not enough money going around.MarkJW 16:07, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

KAL 007 petition for News Section

Can the following be posted in the news section-

"There is now a petition drive, supported by Senator Scott Brown, to be presented to President Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehener, to reopen the investigation into the Soviet shooting down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 and reports of the survival of Congressman Larry McDonald [21]."

OK, doing it now. Conservative 22:39, 22 June 2012 (EDT)

Anniversaries on the Main Page

As a history buff, I enjoyed the Theodore Roosevelt item on the top left and it got me thinking. This year sees the 70th anniversary of the turning points of World War II, from the Pacific to North Africa to Russia. Every day we have fewer and fewer veterans of that war, fewer living memories of that terrible, amazing time and there will be a lot fewer for the 75th anniversaries. Can Conservapedia commemorate their sacrifice, and help to keep their memory alive by reminding young people that this is not ancient history, by noting the anniversary of key dates between now and August 2015> Rafael 11:10, 23 June 2012 (EDT)

The British are rationing drugs

From the first line of the cited article "Patients’ lives are being put at risk by a nationwide shortage of critical medicines because pharmaceutical companies are rationing drugs, NHS leaders have warned. ". So it is not the British that are rationing anything, it is the multi-national pharmaceutical companies that are stopping the British buying the drugs as the British were using the free market system to buy stuff in the UK and sell it elsewhere to make a profit. The headline on the article is misleading. Davidspencer 07:53, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

But isn't it British socialism -- price controls -- that is causing the rationing? If a nation insisted that gasoline be sold for no more than $1 a gallon, and oil companies started rationing, then it would be the government policy that is really at fault.--Andy Schlafly 14:42, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
No, anything but. The third paragraph of the article EXPLICITLY states that Pharmaceutical companies began rationing drugs to the NHS four years ago after British wholesalers and pharmacies started selling them abroad to take advantage of favourable exchange rates. So in fact the UK was taking advantage of the free market in order to make a profit by arbitraging exchange rates. The multinational drug companies did not like British companies using the market to undercut their profit margins in other markets and so started to penalise British entrepreneurship by restricting supply to the market. This is nothing to do with price control, in fact the price the UK pays for drugs has nothing to do with the price that is charged. The price of prescriptions is regulated within the UK, not the price the NHS pays to purchase the drugs. It is, in fact, everything to do with a monopoly supplier using that monopoly to restrict and control the market. Davidspencer 15:03, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
In order to make the news item short and precise, I changed it to: "British healthcare system faces drug shortages" in the introduction. Conservative 15:49, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
Thank you Conservative. I must admit as a Brit I am slightly defensive about the UK, just as you and others here are about the US. Attack the Uk for valid reasons, and there are many I would agree with, but this is not one imho. Davidspencer 16:11, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

We need an article on UK prescription drug prices. I feel like I'm reading an attack on the profit motive of the drug companies, along with some confusion about whether (or how much) drug prices are artificially kept down in the UK by government policy. I don't see how that implies a "monopoly supplier". --Ed Poor Talk 09:39, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

This is not the fault of the UK's nationalized healthcare system. Many drugs, notably those for which demand exceeds production capacity, are rationed in the United States as well. In the United States, the rationing is generally done either at the production and distribution level according to market forces, or at the level of providers by patient need (essentially pharmaceutical triage) or (in more instances than we'd like to admit) by the ability of the individual patients to pay for them. --JHunter 00:49, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

Message for Ed Poor

Your talk page seems to be locked against editing. Should we go ahead and tag every article on every city in the world to have it merged into the article on the relevant country, or is this just a plan for the Netherlands? JeffreyB 23:38, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

Image of blind woman

As someone with Stargardt's Disease, a form of macular degeneration which leads to blindness, can I ask what the purpose of the use of the image of a blind woman is? My initial reaction to the image was to be offended, but I may be over-reacting. If the idea is to call atheists and agnostics "blind" to the truth of Christianity, can we use a different image? It would be much appreciated. Thanks. Jpope14 13:27, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

Wow, that was fast! Thanks to whoever made the change.Jpope14 13:42, 26 June 2012 (EDT)


Ermm, a question

Why is user:conservative editing an archived talk version of this talk page that is over 12 months old? If the comments need to be seen then surely he/she/them should be posting them here and not on the archived page? Davidspencer 15:59, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

I agree with your concerns. I left a message with User:Conservative and User:Aschlafly about this. GregG 16:25, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative's amendments to his archived comments

I will be posting the entire section available at Talk:Main Page/archive96#My challenge to evolutionists and atheists without editing or commentary. This includes User:Conservative's changes.

To be clear, the "many positive comments" are a likely result of shockofgod's disabling ratings and screening comments. That is all.--CamilleT 18:26, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

CamilleT, how does disabling ratings and comments cause there to be many positive comments? I hope you are not denying the fact that there were many positive comments that were made. He has over 16,000 YouTube subscribers. conservative 18:39, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
Which says nothing about why people subscribe: I keep up with his videos because I like to laugh at the foolish, not because I agree with him at all. ReneH 18:48, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
My point is, conservative, that there may have been a flood of negative comments largely overwhelming the positive ones had shockofgod not decided to screen them. I'm not saying no one liked the video; I'm saying that characterizing it as successful based solely on positive comments is not a rational evaluation.--CamilleT 18:53, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
I am not going to quibble with you as far as what constitutes a successful video. I stand by my statement that there were many positive comments that were made. One last thing, shockofgod said "I want to go full throttle! with the Question evolution! campaign". :) conservative 18:59, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
By the way, I loved the way he used the dog toy as a prop to emphasize the fact that atheists are but a squeak in American society. The ARIS data was good to use, but the dog toy prop was the icing on the cake. :) conservative 19:18, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
Shockofgod now has over 20,000 subscribers.[22] :)

Feel free to leave additional commentary and discussion below. GregG 19:55, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

I will make a small confession in this matter. I was going to point out that Shockofgod merely said "I want to go full throttle! with the Question evolution! campaign". Notice he did not say when this would occur! Shockofgod, ever the master strategist and tactician (he did devise a question which continues to stop militant atheists in their tracks!), likes to keep the opposition guessing! As a result, when atheists think Shockofgod is near, he is far away. And when he is far away, atheists wonder if he is near! Recently, I saw an atheists run for his life merely because he heard the sound of a motorcycle behind him and he was terrified that Shockofgod was going to ask him the question. :) See: The question atheists fear. I hope this clears this mystery up. :) Conservative 15:44, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
"As a result, when atheists think Shockofgod is near, he is far away. And when he is far away, atheists wonder if he is near!" This is redundant.--MRend 20:02, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

"Marvelously designed biological robots"

I think this phrase on MPR should be rewritten. The term robot generally refers to machines, devices, or computer programs (although, in the last context, they are often abbreviated to "bots"). I have never heard a biological pathway or molecule referred to as a robot before. It could certainly be robot-like, but a biological pathway or molecule is not generally considered to be a robot. GregG 23:59, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

GregG, I agree with you. Part of the definition of a robot is that it is programmable and can be programmed to accomplish multiple tasks. There are various types of kinesin proteins which perform specific tasks, but an individual kinesin molecule is not programmable. Therefore, the use of the word "robots" to describe kinesin molecules, or really any biomolecule, is incorrect. --JHunter 08:04, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
Apropos, there is quite a bit known about the evolution of kinesins. Because of their ubiquitous nature, the molecular phylogeny of kinesin genes has been studied extensively. Researchers have even determined the most likely evolutionary origin of the kinesin protein family. --JHunter 08:28, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
[Ad Hominem remark removed]
GregG and JHunter, would you like to debate Shockofgod and his chat moderator VivaRamones (I think that is how you spell it) on the 15 questions for evolutionists of the Question evolution! campaign. I believe Vivaromones has done study beyond a high school biology class as far as the field of biology. Question 6 of this Creation Ministries International deals with these issues: Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? and Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? You can bring up the "biological robots" issue during the debate and/or series of debates.
Shockofgod's free chat room is here http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 If you two are amenable to such a debate or series of debates (and do not evolve into chickens and back out of a agreed upon debate like the evolutionist DonExodus2 did), I think there is a reasonable chance that such debate could occur. Please let me know if you two are amenable to such a debate or debate series. Also, if debate is scheduled, let me know the time or times so I can make mention of the scheduled debate(s) on the main page. Conservative 09:51, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
Greg, if you say it is robot-like, you are using a simile. If you say it is a biological robot, you are using a metaphor. It's perfectly clear that the language in this case is metaphorical, and that nobody's saying they are an actual robot like WALL-E or something. I don't see why there should be any problem with using metaphorical language in a news item, though others may disagree.--CPalmer 10:03, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
I must admit that I have no interest in a debate on this topic. As an aside, why doesn't Conservapedia have an IRC chat channel? It would be useful for the sorts of chatty yet helpful communications that currently occur on User talk:Aschlafly and Talk:Main Page. GregG 13:32, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
EDIT I didn't realize Conservapedia already has an IRC channel on freenode. I will be sure to check it out. Also, I'm sure that if one of us here at Conservapedia wants to take up your debate offer, SoG will be able to participate on the #conservapedia channel at freenode. GregG 13:34, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

GregG, since you are not willing to debate the 15 questions for evolutionists with a Christian creationist (and his chat room moderator VivaRamones in a team debate) who has a 20,000 YouTube subscriber base and would make the debate widely available, please do not be surprised if I don't take your evolutionist complaints seriously. Conservative 14:09, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

GregG, did I miss something? When did you say you were an evolutionist? Rafael 14:15, 27 June 2012 (EDT)
Since I'm not a mind reader, I can only guess what User:Conservative was referring to; nevertheless, my guess would be this comment, where I say that I believe in both creationism and evolution. Also, the fact that I'm not interested in debating the issue at this time doesn't mean that my beliefs are weak. I'm sure there are many Christians who simply do not have the interest or expertise of effectively debating against atheists, but their willingness to believe in the Faith despite not knowing of all the evidence supporting Christianity is to be commended, not condemned. Further, I understand that SoG has his own chat room, but I would certainly have qualms with debating in a forum controlled by one of the debating parties. I would, of course, expect that SoG and his moderators would not abuse their position of power to influence the debate, but there is nothing to suggest that a neutral forum (like an IRC channel) would prevent SoG from promoting the debate and making videos about it.
If SoG is reading this webpage, I would suggest having him contact Kenneth R. Miller (Kenneth_Miller@Brown.edu) and asking him for a debate. I have read his book Finding Darwin's God, and I agree with his position on this matter. He has accepted numerous debate offers throughout his career, so I'm sure you and him can work something out. GregG 14:51, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

If advocates for illegal immigration are defending ...

... actually I'm not sure exactly which part of the ordeal you say they are specifically defending, but let's assume it's that the illegal person was simply in the country. Anyway, I digress. If these advocates are defending that person's being there, then wouldn't advocates who are against socialised services be defending the fact that the mother of the victim should have to pay to clean up the mess? Rightfully, she should also have had to pay the funeral, medical and counselling expenses as well, as the state's victim fund is built out of socialist ideas. WilcoxD 00:03, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

Average age of visitors

"The average age of our visitors is probably about 25 years old, while the average age of viewers of the O'Reilly Factor is about 70 years old." Can you please cite the evidence that has convinced you this is true? EJamesW 17:46, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Click audience: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com Plus, wiki dwellers are often younger as wikis are a newer development plus they appeal to younger generations who are more into collaborative online efforts. Of course, Conservapedia is not going to allow atheists and evolutionist to edit the atheism and evolution articles. :) See: SCOCD. Conservatives are more into private property and gated communities whereas liberals are more into living in communes and communism! :) We will never let atheist commies edit our atheism article! :) Needless to say, Fidel is furious about this matter. :) Conservative 17:55, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
Thanks user:conseravtive. Had a look at the data. Very interesting, this site seems to attract at lot of poorly educated boys! Also your comment 'conservatives are into private property and gated communities' seems contradictory with the message of the Christian religion - I may be a liberal, athiest but I'm sure Jesus preached a different message about personal wealth. Matthew 19:24 ;) EJamesW 18:14, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
I don't think it is wise to base your decision about who visits CP merely on Alexa. Plus, a pre-college graduation young crowd is going to not largely have been college educated yet by definition. That is why I included information about wiki dwellers in general. Also, there are plenty of informed people who never went to college and colleges have deteriorated over time (grade inflation, political correctness, fluff courses, etc.). Perhaps Andy will chose to use some free or paid service which more directly measures who is visiting a website down the pike.
Second, my comments about private property/communes/communism/Fidel were tongue and cheek and were clearly delineated as such.
Lastly, liberal Western atheists have a poor track record when it comes to Bible exegesis and often do not understand it can be multidisciplinary endeavor as it is an ancient text from another culture. [23] Understanding Ancient Near East culture helps with Bible exegesis and many atheists/liberals and others often fail to appreciate this matter. Conservative 20:32, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
Personal tools