Talk:Main Page/Archive index/126

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Global Warming

Why is Conservapedia citing a study looks back to 5000 years before the Creation? Surely any such science is bogus.--DHouser 13:54, 3 April 2013 (EDT) Guess what. There's a Nobel prize winning scientist hired by the Koch brothers in order disprove Global warming. Once this libral hoax was proved by the nobel prize winner, the Koch brothers haven't spoken publicly since.

Questions for creationists (or advocates of intelligent design) and user:conservative in particular

What is the scientific theory of creation (or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific method?

Any testable scientific theory of creation should be able to provide answers to several questions:

(1) how did life begin,

(2) how did the current diversity of life appear, and

(3) what mechanisms were used in these processes and where can we see these mechanisms today.

Your answers should be robust, detailed and convincing to sceptics iZzzf you are going to maintain any sort of legitimacy on this site EJamesW 16:17, 3 April 2013 (EDT)

EJamesW, please read THIS and THIS. Are you willing to debate Shockofgod on the 15 questions for evolutionists under the debate conditions offered HERE or HERE? If not, Personal remark removed! Conservative 22:32, 3 April 2013 (EDT)
Conservative could you please answer the questions I have posted on your talk page regarding your recent edits ? It seems a bit disingenuous and unchristian-like when you run away from criticism whilst challenging others to debate other people (why can't they debate you my friend) Dvergne 23:10, 3 April 2013 (EDT)
What did you expect? WilcoxD 23:14, 3 April 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, why not challenge someone to debate yourself. For example, I would debate you/a representative of the group that are a part of User:Conservative. However, I have attempted to debate Shockofgod in the past in a fair arena and have been turned down. His chatroom is biased and no fair debate can be held there.AdeH 00:03, 4 April 2013 (EDT)
Dvergne, not into debating obscure evolutionists who are afraid to debate Shockofgod. Get Penn Jillette out of his intellectual bunny hole to debate me.[1] Jillette created two videos on web material of mine he has supposedly never read. I think he read the material! Richard Dawkins is having a hard time garnering a significant web audience and has lost a lot of his supporters, ask him to debate me. Dawkins' influence is getting smaller and smaller relative to world creationism. Global creationism is expanding rapidly even in various Western countries so evolutionists have to meet our debate terms and not vice versa!Conservative 00:04, 4 April 2013 (EDT)
Cons. Have you ever thought that popularity has nothing to do with what is actually correct? Also, Dawkins wouldn't debate you because you're small fry. I personally challenge you to a debate centred around the 15 questions, via textual form on this website. In fact if Shockofgod could join the project then I would challenge him. And yes, you would be debating me, a 16 year old male from Australia. Or are you a coward? AdeH 00:57, 4 April 2013 (EDT)
Conservative your answers bear no relation at all to the question I asked you. For example what does the irrelevant comedian Penn Jillete have to do with you not having a talk page like every normal user, you protecting pages so others can not improve them and your removal of questions similar to this one using oversight. What would the people at the church which you attend think of you if they knew you engaged in such anti-social behavior Dvergne 01:31, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

Adeh, Darwinism is contrary to the evidence and lacks evidential support (see: Evolution). Once sufficient voters yank it out of school systems, it will collapse through lack of indoctrination. Also, Dawkins is a has been whose influence relative to creationism and God Almighty grows less and less each day! Conservative 19:51, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

Conservative why must you keep on dodging my questions ? Are you scared too answer them ? That doesn't sound very manly to me. If I was you I would have already answered all the questions. How are evolutionists meant to answer the 15 questions when you won't even answer a few simple ones from me ? Dvergne 17:24, 5 April 2013 (EDT)
Dvergne, your petty attention seeking behavior is very lame. Second, quote from: Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia: "We respect users' control over their own talk pages as much as possible. Wikipedia treats users' own talk pages like government or public property, and it becomes a place for Wikipedia editors to bully users."[2] Conservative 17:57, 5 April 2013 (EDT)
Re your comment Conservative on our user page policy, I'm glad you now understand Conservapedia's policy on user pages (to the extent it has been enunciated). GregG 19:12, 5 April 2013 (EDT)

GregG, those pages were not user talk pages. Those pages were just wiki nerd obsessiveness caused pages. I cured you though and someday you will thank me. 19:41, 5 April 2013 (EDT)

Cons, excuse my ignorance but that response to GregG makes no sense to me Dvergne 21:55, 5 April 2013 (EDT)
A person's talk pages are his main talk page and archived copies of past talk pages. GregG was whining about a separate matter. Conservative 06:37, 6 April 2013 (EDT)
From our guidelines:
Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will. However you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions. Users are free to remove comments from their own user talk pages.
GregG 09:21, 7 April 2013 (EDT)

Forgive me if I'm out of place here but Conservative, I would be quite offended by your refusal to debate anyone but celebrities if I were Shockofgod. You're essentially saying (at least to my reading of your statements) that your time is too valuable to waste on debating "normal people" and they should go and "waste Shockofgod's time instead." Please correct me I've misread your intentions here. Thanks, Fnarrow 11:21, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

Oh dear user:conservative, you/your collective failed answer any of the questions I asked. I'm not surprised - they were quite complicated. Maybe you/your collective could answer this one instead?

Name one experiment that clearly disproves evolution or that demonstrates creationism.

Robust answers this time user:C - don't link to some obscure blog or challenge me to a debate with a weird youtube non-entity. Here's your/your collectives's chance to prove there is real intelligence and knowledge in your 'group'. Good luck. EJamesW 17:25, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

EJamesW, don't think I didn't notice that you ran into your intellectual bunny hole because you are afraid to debate Shockofgod on the 15 questions for evolutionists. I did notice.
Second, Shockofgod very much enjoys putting atheism/agnosticism and atheists/agnostics down on the debating mat. He loves it so much that I hate to deprive him of this pleasure.
My articles which begin with an A and E, collectively give tens of thousands of "head shots" to secular religions each month through their content and viewership. And no atheists can point out a single factual error in those articles! And a certain article which features prominent atheists (prominent in girth) gives tens of thousands devastating shots to the soft underbelly of atheism though their content and annual viewership! :)
But I cannot have all of the fun. I have to let Shockofgod have some fun too! :) He loves seeing atheists/agnostics back down from these debate offers and cower in their intellectual bunny holes. :) Conservative 23:42, 6 April 2013 (EDT)
I guess people know about Shock obtaining peoples youtube accounts by deception? But he is still being paraded as a figure of truth and authority. There are many good and honest YEC's out there. Perhaps the YEC argument would be better perceived if the colours were nailed to their masts.--Patmac 18:55, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

"In the Blogs"

Perhaps MPR should be re-named? WilcoxD 21:39, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

Please explain further. The MPR has lots of important news ignored by the lamestream media.--Andy Schlafly 00:27, 5 April 2013 (EDT)
I don't want to speak for Wilcox, but I think he's referring to the prevalence of links to http://questionevolution.blogspot.com, http://conservativenewsandviews.com, and http://republicomment.blogspot.com. GregG 08:50, 5 April 2013 (EDT)
Likewise, he may also be referring to the repetitiveness,sheer triviality and sometimes petty nastiness, of some of the blogs. Wouldn't it be better to link to the important news itself instead of a blog reporting on another blog that has drawn an inference about someting unimportant? Rafael 09:46, 6 April 2013 (EDT)
The MPR does have lots of important news and is a very good starting point when looking for conservative opinions. GregG and Rafael are both right, however, in saying that there is a lot of repetitive and trivial news items from a handful of certain blog sites. I'm sure you know which ones they are, Andy, as you occasionally trim them yourself. I think I posted this at a time where more than half of the top news articles were either QE or CNAV items.
Another suggestion I once made which may have been overlooked was to move main page headlines (eg. the current one is "Conservative Rand Paul leads again, and 12 senators sign onto his filibuster for the Second Amendment") to the top of MPR when they are done with, rather than just having them disappear when they are replaced by the next one. WilcoxD 23:46, 7 April 2013 (EDT)

Again, four out of the top five news articles are links to blogs. The student stabbing article looks interesting - good thing I saw it before it was buried under a mountain of QE propaganda. WilcoxD 00:04, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

Make that five of the top six now. WilcoxD 00:08, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

I tend to check the "recent changes" page almost immediately every time I come to Conservapedia so I can see what is new and have noticed a very strong trend in exactly this area. If there are edits to MPR by User:Aschlafly and I go back to check what the new headline is, it will almost always be a valid and interesting news story. However, the more common thing I find is multiple, consecutive edits from User:Conservative which are inevitably posts to the aforementioned blogs. I have no hard numbers/facts to back this up, just an observation I've made. Fnarrow 00:24, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

Was this ever settled? I only ask because I just noticed that with everything currently going on in the world, the current top "News" article in MPR is an advertisement/link for blog which itself leads to another advertisement/link for a second blog. Imagine a first time visitor to this site and the impression they would make from that being the first thing they see, do we really want the world thinking that we believe promoting blogs is really the second most important "news story" (after the heading I mean, I always count that as number one) in the world right now? Fnarrow 12:58, 19 April 2013 (EDT)
UPDATE: (PLEASE NOTE: I had to run the Alexa graph links through bitly as they contain the URLs for the sites it compares and apparently any mention of that athiest wiki by name is blacklisted here) the list now goes 2-Boston news articles(acceptable for MPR news), followed by a link to blog providing hearsay (Please see Conservapedia Commandments 2 & 3 for this site's stated stance on hearsay, gossip and uncited statements) about an anonymous "expert" using and unspecified piece of software to determine that the athiest wiki is subpar. They may or may not be subpar, I've never been there, but unsupported claims ARE NOT NEWS. The Alexa Web Information Service comparison between the atheist wiki and conservapedia shows that they are clearly gaining reach over us and I feel that will continue to happen if we don't make serious changes to reign in the opinions which are currently over shadowing the facts. Not only that, but the blog post I previously linked to specifically says that the anonymous expert and his unspecified software determined that creation.com was significantly superior to the athiest wiki, so I thought I'd provide the same alexa data for that comparison. It might be technically better by whatever metrics he is using, but the "reach gap" is steadily increasing. I know it sounds like I complain and attack the way this site runs a lot recently, but it's only because of my drive to make this site the best it possibly can be the feeling that my efforts are being ignored and in some cases completely undermined by certain powerful users. A final note to Mr. Schlafly, Admins/sysops and other concerned conservapedia editors; if you'd like to contact me directly about this or any other matter instead of out in front of everyone, I'll be putting my email address on my user page. Thanks, Fnarrow 16:18, 19 April 2013 (EDT)
Another blog link, more unsupported and blatantly false claims on said blog, still no response here or at my provided email address from anyone... why do I keep trying? Fnarrow 01:13, 20 April 2013 (EDT)
Fixed my earlier post to conform to Karajou's explanation when it was deleted, I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience; I promise it was unintentional and I'm doing my best to learn the ropes here as we work together to make this site the best it can be. In other "news" the top link in MPR now literally just leads to that same blog with a headline and a single sentence which itself links to another blog quoting a third blog... I'm not judging the quality of the information provided, only saying that it shouldn't be posted prominently in MPR when it isn't "news the MSM is ignoring." Thanks, Fnarrow 09:29, 20 April 2013 (EDT)
Aschlafly, I need to thank you. I saw you rearrange the MPR earlier with a note to keep 'relevant news at the top' at least you're trying... Unfortunately, your efforts have already been buried under a pile of blog links in mere hours. My favorite was the one that quickly changed between 3 different book titles about atheism before finally settling on one which rather than having a "zero star rating" as claimed, in reality it merely has not been rated at all in the 4 days since it was released. Fnarrow 15:17, 20 April 2013 (EDT)
More blogs drowning out the news... also, I have to wonder where that blog is getting its information. It (along with the headline here, making us look just as stupid) claims that the Paul Kurtz book has a zero star rating, as I addressed earlier. Yet, when I just checked again, Amazon shows the book clearly has 2 reviews from readers, both of whom gave it 5 stars. The only question now is whether the blog post and headline will disappear completely, spin some conspiracy theory about liberals/atheists/whatever the monster of the week is... or if they'll just silently edit the book title again as they did earlier. Fnarrow 00:11, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

Popular articles

Please add Ronald Regan into the popular articles-list --Alex00 09:24, 5 April 2013 (EDT) Excuse me Alex00 (great user name by the way!) but Ronald Regan would be to rational to even be a congressman right now the way the party is moving

Job Numbers

I just saw the labor department released the Jobs numbers, and they were less than one half of what the "experts" predicted. Funny--they matched up with what people are the street have been saying: hiring is down! Meanwhile, 500,000 people dropped out of the labor force (i.e. gave up looking for work) as even CNN was forced to report. http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/05/news/economy/march-jobs-report/index.html?source=cnn_bin

Thanks, WilliamWB 10:35, 5 April 2013 (EDT)

Were these seasonally adjusted numbers? I'd be wary of drawing any conclusions about how many people dropped out of the labor force from such statistics, even if there is bipartisan support for reporting employment and joblessness with adjustments which hide known patterns.
Maybe we should talk more about what causes the cyclical changes. --Ed Poor Talk 10:50, 5 April 2013 (EDT)
Mr. Poor, I didn't know if the numbers were seasonly adjusted--as math is not my strong suit. After some research, including your helpful additions here at conservapedia, I have determined that the unemployment rate is likely seasonally adjusted. However, the number of people believed to have exited the labor force, the 500,000, is not. Thank you for encouraging me to dig a little deeper. WilliamWB 07:50, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

Baroness Thatcher

A great conservative and world leader has passed on. Rest in peace Maggie, you shall not be forgotten. --Patmac 14:39, 8 April 2013 (EDT)

Agreed. Yesterday was a tragic day for the world. It says it all that even the left have adopted most of her policies. Not many politicians have changed the entire landscape the way she did. I'll be raising a glass to her memory next Wednesday.--EugeneH 08:18, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
Unfortunately, it's not that important on the main page here. It's had to make room for some breaking news from the Question Evolution blog about a French woman with a nice accent. Situation normal. Rafael 10:20, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

Dr. William Lane Craig winning the debate hands down and the audience asking followup questions clearly rattled the atheist philosophy professor Alex Rosenburg

This thread should not be edited further, unless significant new developements occur

Dr. William Lane Craig beats the atheist philosopher Alex Rosenburg in a landslide debate victory.[3]

Why does Duke University still employ this atheist, nutjob professor? Conservative 23:00, 8 April 2013 (EDT)

It looked to me like Craig just spouted his usual waffle. In fact if anything he's deteriorating. Talk about basing his entire argument on unfounded assumptions; that became very obvious in the first five minutes of his initial argument.--BrandonST 08:08, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
It was not William Lane Craig who was reduced to a water chugging nervous wreck who obvious lacked machismo and who was spouting irrationalism! The atheist professor, who teaches at a leading university, was essentially defending "Everything in my book defending atheism is meaningless and there is no truth, yet atheism is true!" And despite his old earth leanings, Craig was a calm beacon of sound evidence and rationality.[4][5] It was a glorious victory for Christendom and it is futile to deny this fact! Conservative 09:11, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
That's cool, User:C. Move along now, nothing to see here. brenden 13:41, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Personal remark removed

MPR Article Suggestion

If none of the admins/sysops mind I figured we could just leave this heading here for whenever someone finds a news article they feel might be appropriate for featuring on the main page since we can't edit it...? Then the suggestions can just be removed after a decision is made either way. Fnarrow 01:45, 11 April 2013 (EDT)

[6] Apparently California would like to remove the Boy Scouts of America's tax-exempt status if they do not start recognizing homosexual or atheist members. Perhaps this is deserving of Main Page coverage?--DTSavage 01:05, 11 April 2013 (EDT)

Via terror plot suspect says Criminal Code 'not a holy book' something that probably deserves to be mentioned and I have yet to hear about on the MSM here in America. One of the suspects in the plot to derail a commuter train near the US/Canada border is claiming the Canadians have no right to judge him as the legal code is not a 'Holy Book' and therefore imperfect. Obviously this argument will be ignored/thrown out in court, but it's an interesting and important story which is not getting coverage. Fnarrow 15:04, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

Great Britain and atheism

News from the land of atheism: "Margaret Thatcher death celebrations" sweep the faithless Great Britain. Part of this edit is correct and true, celebrating someones death is wrong, but the faithless part, and land of Atheism? please show your evidence for such outrageous claims?. Also England(as apposed to the UK as a whole) is officially, enshrined in law, a christian nation where school prayer is mandatory. I thought Conservapedia was not supposed to use gossip. I would like to point out that the increasingly socialist Football Association is refusing to have a minutes silence for the Baroness,hopefully the more conservative Premier League will give the silence the green light. --Patmac 17:09, 11 April 2013 (EDT)

Great Britain is the mecca of atheism. Does anyone seriously doubt that?--Andy Schlafly 17:17, 11 April 2013 (EDT)
I do Sir, but I do take your point, Religious apathy would be closer to the point. Also please remember that Northern Ireland is part of the UK and Is at least on par with some of the more religions regions of the USA i have visited. Also do you know that people such as Richard Dawkins are not well known here in the UK, because nobody cares what he thinks. Like I said, Apathy. Andy, If you have any suggestions on how this can be rectified I would love to here them

--Patmac 17:27, 11 April 2013 (EDT)

It is not merely a problem of apathy. Atheism is promoted and applauded in Britain unlike anywhere else. Evolution is taught in British schools, in promotion of atheism, as though it is the gospel truth and cannot be questioned.--Andy Schlafly 11:54, 12 April 2013 (EDT)
Socialist Football Association, it is a very conservative organization?? If the PL imposes a silence it will not be honored? Soccer fans still hold a grudge against her beause of the Hillsborough disaster. CameronD 13:39, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

Watergate and the McConnell tapes

There's a pretty substantial difference between the President of the United States ordering a bunch of goons to break into the opposition's committee headquarters and a member of an (officially) unaligned political group wearing a wire to a conference. In the very least, the former is a misdemeanor, the latter is just politically inconvenient.--JHunter 19:09, 11 April 2013 (EDT)

Minnesota Twins

From 1981-2011 the Twins played in a domed stadium, hence the "decades" without a home weather delay. This is something even the most cursory research could have clarified. TomHooper 10:06, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

But there have still been many seasons in an open stadium without a snow cancellation, and games in domed stadiums can be canceled if there is a snowstorm.--Andy Schlafly 11:52, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

Vive la French Creationnisme

It should be "vive la creacionnisme francaise". If you need to use a machine translator, avoid Google translate, and use Babelfish instead, as it is more accurate. (If you are already using babelfish, I recommend translating the whole phrase, not word by word). brenden 13:44, 12 April 2013 (EDT)


In fact, brenden, it really should be "vive le créationnisme français". Onestone 07:50, 17 April 2013 (EDT)

Tiger Woods Cheating

Seems he is going to be DQ'D for cheating. [KINK] Serves him right IMHO !!!!

PGA backed down already... only a 2 shot penalty.[7] Still ironic nonetheless when you consider his past and the multiple definitions of the word "cheating" lol. Fnarrow 10:43, 13 April 2013 (EDT)
Although I don't agree that Wood's sporting ability is overated I don't think he is a good man and obviously a cheat and had it been a "lesser" player the ban would have stood. He has refused to do the decent thing and withdraw. The 14 year old Tianlang Guan has shown far more maturity than Woods, who accepted his penalty for slow play like a man saying "I respect the decision. This is what they can do,"--Patmac 12:28, 13 April 2013 (EDT)

Boston

As a bostonian, the way you choose this moment to criticize leftists right now. The WACO bombing was on patriots day, as was this, it isnt wrong if someone chooses to speculate a connection.

You criticize "Liberals" for politicizing the news, the truth is you do it as well. You all have double standards. And, while I'm at it, I hope all fellow bostonians here are safe and sound AlexSz 17:29, 15 April 2013 (EDT)

Have something against us pointing out the problems with the left? We did not politicize this event; CNN and NBC did. They have a habit of doing that. If a bunch of liberals and leftists don't like that, too bad. Karajou 17:43, 15 April 2013 (EDT)
One wonders if Obama hadn't of reduced defense and intelligence funding that this may not have happened. Getting closer to Muslims is always dangerous, I fear we may say more incidents like this more and more in the future. The war on guns isn't helping either, terrorists now have an easier time as don't have to worry about getting caught by good citizen with a gun. Dvergne 07:45, 16 April 2013 (EDT)
Bearing in mind that you and Muslims both worship the same god, of course... HarrisonWBaals 13:14, 16 April 2013 (EDT)
Muslims worship Allah. I don't.--SamTyler 14:34, 17 April 2013 (EDT)

Even though he was a spammer/vandal and just trying to start a fight, I believe he was referring to the fact that "technically" Christianity and Islam (along with Judaism and Baha'i Faith) are both Abrahamic Religions and therefore technically stem from the same beliefs despite their subsequent departures from one another. No matter if you want to admit it or not, or what language you use to name him, you both worship the God of Abraham, even if you disagree on everything that happened since the time of Abraham. Fnarrow 15:01, 17 April 2013 (EDT)

I don't mean to stir the pot, but the current posts on the MPR, as well as the current heading on that page are really concerning to me. As Karajou pointed out, the MSM were the first to attempt to use this horrible tragedy for political gain, but I don't think that means we should lower ourselves to the same level. Neither the FBI or the BPD ever named the Saudi student as a subject and they are both reporting that the search of his apartment cleared him. Please take this opportunity to show the world that this site is a reputable source for the facts and not another "Right-wing wack-job website" jumping on the "blame the brown people" bandwagon. Fnarrow 23:25, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

Very interesting video about the war on drugs

I recently saw a video of Peter Christ, a former police captain, advocating the legalisation of drugs in order to reduce gang related crime. His theory is that if the drugs are regulated it'll have a major impact on gang-related crime, and that families and community should be the ones responsible for steering people away from drugs.

I am not for the legalisation of drugs, however I could see a lot of sense in what he was saying and found it hard not to entertain the ideas he was proposing. He's clearly thought about this a lot and puts his case forward very well.

The video can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8yYJ_oV6xk - I thought that some of you might like it as well and wanted to start a discussion on it to see your thoughts. If there's a proper way to do this, please let me know. WilcoxD 21:41, 15 April 2013 (EDT)

Another question about US gun culture

I just finished reading the article on a background check bill being rejected in your senate, which I can see pleases you however I also recall at times your stance being that certain people (eg the mentally unfit) should not have access to them. This seems like a contradiction to me, or have I misinterpreted something. WilcoxD 21:11, 17 April 2013 (EDT)

Current main page headline

There's an old journalists' joke that the answer to any question posed in a headline is almost always "no". In other news, I'd always advise against the use of multiple question marks. JohanZ 18:42, 18 April 2013 (EDT)

If it's an old journalist "joke", then perhaps it isn't true. As to multiple question marks, they properly highlight the rhetorical nature of the question.--Andy Schlafly 19:47, 18 April 2013 (EDT)
It's Betteridge's law of headlines, which you yourself said was "funny". I do think it's a good idea to avoid headline conventions that indicate a lack of sources if this isn't the case. GregG 22:36, 18 April 2013 (EDT) Though since the headline isn't a yes-or-no question, I think the law doesn't apply. Nevertheless, I would advise against using multiple question marks: it appears unprofessional. GregG 22:40, 18 April 2013 (EDT)
Perhaps the law is more true with short headlines (e.g., "Is this progress?) than long ones that are more substantive.--Andy Schlafly 22:39, 18 April 2013 (EDT)

George Soros

Great news, apparently he has passed away ! Dvergne 19:32, 18 April 2013 (EDT)

Reuters accidentally released an obituary due to a technical error. Alexandra Petri reports in the Post: 'What gave it away were the headline that stated his age as “XX” and the lede noting that “George Soros, who died XXX at age XXX...' [8]. The piece by Petri is hilarious, by the way. --TonySidaway 20:16, 18 April 2013 (EDT)

Baghdad bombing news item

At a minimum an additional sentence is required to provide a logical segue from the bold headline to the italicized subtext. Though at first blush, I think it would require a substantial bit more than one. As it reads now, the headline makes as much sense as "Grizzly bear mauls campers. Liberal obsession with city leash-laws of no help." --DonnyC 21:47, 18 April 2013 (EDT)

History of painting

Our article is ahead of that one of Wikipedia:

See Google seach

Search results vary by geographical region and by your own previous browsing and search history. On my computer the Wikipedia entry is number one, and the CP entry does not appear until halfway down the 2nd page. --DonnyC 21:58, 18 April 2013 (EDT)
Good point, but ours has just a few days on the air! and counting! --Joaquín Martínez 22:44, 18 April 2013 (EDT)
Number 16 among 270,000,000! --Joaquín Martínez 23:13, 18 April 2013 (EDT)

Watertown

Pretty hectic stuff happening in watertown at the moment with Boston bombing perpetrators being surrounded/dead. I wonder gun control has allowed for this to happen as good citizen would probably have stopped them by now. Dvergne 05:54, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

Apparently the terrorists are from Chechnya. I think army should go in and wipe the despicable Muslim terrorist of the face of the earth. Dvergne 07:07, 19 April 2013 (EDT)
Without meaning to be trite the Russians tried that and reduced Checnya to rubble. And the military actions in Checnya led to all sorts of atrocities in Russia such as the massacre at the theatre and at that school. Do you really want the US army to go and get involved in another war when they are finally managing to extricate themselves from the disasterous Iraqi action? Davidspencer 11:06, 19 April 2013 (EDT)


Agree! --Joaquín Martínez 16:20, 19 April 2013 (EDT)
It now appears they moved to the US when they were 8 and 15 and spent their formative years with little to no contact with their native land. One was a naturalized citizen and the other was a green card holder. Legally here, world view based upon their experiences here... This might be an unpopular opinion, but I don't think there (currently) is any reasonable argument to blame and foreign faction or country. Even their religious beliefs seemed to be disagreed upon at this point. I've gotta watch my language here, but it's entirely possible they were just "s***heads" or as their uncle put it "Being losers; hatred to those who were able to settle themselves. These are the only reasons I can imagine." Fnarrow 16:45, 19 April 2013 (EDT)
Agree! --Joaquín Martínez 17:26, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

I'm praying the government doesn't try to use this tragedy to invade some other country AlexSz 17:31, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

I shouldn't think so. Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation, and I'm fairly sure President Putin has Views about the arrival of several thousand uninvited US troops. Those Views would probably be expressed in the form of a massive artillery barrage and a couple of thousand T-72 main battle tanks. As I don't think the Pentagon is too keen on losing a division or two it ain't gonna happen.--LucyR 21:01, 19 April 2013 (EDT)
    • I wonder how much of the successful arrest if down to the good law enforcement structure that was developed and implemented by Mitt Romney. I also suspect that Barack Hussein Obama will try and claim all the credit as usual, when the policies he has implemented probably slowed down the entire operation. Watch this space Dvergne 23:30, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

THEY GOT HIM

Dvergne 20:46, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

So let me get two things straight

One; virtual reality video games are responsible for violence, but real guns, with real bullets that kill real people, aren't? Secondly, two crazy young men are completely representative of the entire Chechen people and of all of Islam? I suppose then that I should take Fred Phelps to be the archetype for all you Christians. JoeSpivey 22:29, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

"...found by an ordinary resident who went outside against government orders"

False... the resident went outside only after the lockdown had been lifted, after a press conference early Friday evening.

But seriously, what kind of message are you trying to convey? Don't listen to government officials / law enforcement, even if there is a potentially dangerous terrorist on the loose in your neighborhood? --Randall7 00:04, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

LIBERAL CENSORSHIP... at Conservapedia?

So, over the past several days Conservapedia boldly proclaimed the direct connection between the Boston violence and video games... but with absolutely no evidence sustaining this assertion. Two Conservapedians earnestly asked for the source of this evidence, and they were answered by... having their comments completely erased.

Question: is censorship acceptable?RThorn

Fitch Ratings has downgraded the United Kingdom's long-term foreign and local currency issuer default ratings

More Brit bashing I see Conservative, and what has Darwin on the tenner got to do with it? Tell you what, as you are so keen on debates lets have one, something along the lines of "Is the UK a morally backward nation?" And so I cannot be accused of cowardice I will leave the terms entirely up to you, be it chatroom, live chat or right here on conservapedia. We can use your choice of judges for the result, Indeed you can even judge yourself. All I ask is the debate and result be made public, and actual travel is out of the question so it will have to be an online debate. So what do you say, a debate nearly entirely on your own terms?

--Patmac 08:12, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Evolution

I don't understand. Why has Talk:Evolution been memory holed? From what I can recall all there was on there was an offer from a troll to debate user:conservative. Davidspencer 08:36, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

Some things are best not debated. For example, the latest "News the MSM isn't fully covering" links to a QE blog that links, without comment, to another creationist blog that spins around an out-of-context quote from an atheist blog. There's a lot to be unpicked there, including issues of honesty, before we even get to the meat. At the first sign of discussion the "15 questions" etc firewall goes up and we go around in circles, coming nowhere near the real issue to be debated, until one of us gets bored or banned or both. Let sleeping dogs lie. We know it's what they do. Rafael 10:36, 20 April 2013 (EDT)
Ahh, my old sleeping dog always used to dream. It looked like he was dreaming about chasing cats. But I guess it could have been rabbits or sheep instead. I wil lgo away and think about how to add a table to the Moto GP article I started before the next race at that wonderful track The Circuit of The Americas in Texas. One day I hope to come over to see it myself. Davidspencer 11:41, 20 April 2013 (EDT)
What? You're not sticking around for the latest hot news from QE!? It seems a book by an atheist hasn't had any reviews yet and that means the end of Darwinism is one step closer! Rafael 14:41, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

Rafael, Secular humanist Paul Kurtz vs. the Christian Francis Schaeffer - Schaeffer wins hands down in the legacy department.[9] I hope this clarifies matters for you.

I also notice you failed to buttress your out of context quotes allegation and dishonesty allegation.

By the way, when liberalism runs out of other people's money (Eurocrises, Sequestration in the United States, etc.) and the demographics favoring religious conservatives over liberals/secularism accelerate (fertility rates), your side of the aisle in terms of its influence is going to be crushed like a tin can! [10] Also, 2013 is going to be the worst year in the history of Darwinism and it is already starting to happen![11][12][13] I hope this further clarifies things for you. :) Conservative 15:41, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

QED Rafael 17:55, 20 April 2013 (EDT)
For the record, here's the news the MSM isn't fully covering, all eleven words of it, here's the source blog and here's the original piece from PZ Myers. If anyone reads this before it gets deleted, they can decide for themselves whether what Vox Day has "been predicting for years" isn't a straw man that has little bearing on what Myers says about modern theory - stuff like genes - not being part of Darwin's theory. If. Rafael 18:06, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

Things are certainly not trending right for post high school evolutionist indoctrination!

Things are certainly not trending right for post high school evolutionist indoctrination! It doesn't take a PhD to figure this one out, does it?

College enrollment shows signs of slowing which means less post high school evolutionary indoctrination. Also, the ever shrinking role of tenured evolutionist professors and evolutionary biologists.[14]

Rafael, did you see the graph posted on this article and what the Wall Street Journal reports about a depressed college market. This doesn't sound good for post high school evolutionary indoctrination, does it? :) Plus, with all the useless liberal leaning college majors that will inevitably be cut or pared back, no doubt this will also be bad for Darwinism since liberals are more apt to be evolutionists. :) People can certainly educate themselves outside of college so I am not upset. Conservative 18:57, 20 April 2013 (EDT)
I have no idea why you are asking me but if you want a debate to dissect your assertions, perhaps we should set up an old fashioned debate page? Rafael 10:50, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

Wait a minute there, Conservative... I'm confused. Here you say you're happy that few people are going to college, because college leads to "evolutionary indoctrination", but on Atheism and education you very clearly stated that "education positively affects religious participation, devotional activities, and emphasizing the importance of religion in daily life." and list several citations to back up that claim. Which is it? Fnarrow 20:41, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

Fnarrow, theistic evolution is religious. The Pharisees and Sadducees who played a significant role in getting Jesus crucified and opposed his apostles were religious.
Next, there are variety of methods to educate. Christian homeschoolers are often better educated that public school students. Unlike many atheists at Conservapedia who were "educated" in public high schools/ colleges/universities, many Christian homeschoolers can correctly spell the words atheism, atheist and atheists. So I don't see a contradiction.
In addition, I don't see where I said I was happy about fewer people going to college. I merely said I was not upset about it as there are other avenues of learning. I certainly would not mind if more colleges which are like the colleges which are friendly to biblical creationism emerged or if the existing colleges like this received more students. As public funds for secular colleges/universities decreases the pro-creation Christian colleges will be a in a better position to compete. Conservative 23:18, 20 April 2013 (EDT) Conservative 22:59, 20 April 2013 (EDT)
There really isn't other avenues for learning for some professions. How would you feel if your local doctor only did a 2 year apprenticeship instead of going to college and learning all the required knowledge ? Or if the engineer who designed your car just went to that job straight out of high school. You'd end up with some dodgy outcomes mate. Dvergne 23:16, 20 April 2013 (EDT)
Also can you perhaps learn to use the preview button. It is very annoying trying to add a reply when you are continual messing around with you comment. Go use word or something to formulate your comment and then add it. Dvergne 23:18, 20 April 2013 (EDT)
Also most of the pro creationist universities are very very rubbish at producing innovative discoveries when compared to such places as Berkeley or MIT Dvergne 23:24, 20 April 2013 (EDT)
"Unlike many atheists at Conservapedia who were 'educated' in public high schools/ colleges/universities, many Christian homeschoolers can correctly spell the words atheism, atheist and atheists." This is ironic coming from the same user that has made numerous misspellings and grammar errors on our main page that I myself have pointed out, for example [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. GregG 23:35, 20 April 2013 (EDT)


I'm breaking my response into 3 points:

  1. Way to be the bigger man and attack the dyslexic for transposing the "I and E" a few times while trying to repair my unfairly deleted posts instead of responding directly to the questions and facts I supplied in the In the Blogs section on this page.
  2. "Happy" vs "not upset" is merely semantics, we both know what the other one meant, please don't play that game here.
  3. Re: your "variety of methods to educate" comments, I agree completely that there are many different ways in which people can learn. The problem is that the source you linked to on Atheism and education as well as the graph you posted here were both referring to college and post grad education, not home school vs public school.

Fnarrow 23:27, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

Fourth point: Dvergne is absolutely right. Figure out what you're going to say before you say it. By the time I posted my response, you had edited yours multiple times to the point where parts of my response no longer make sense. Fnarrow 23:31, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

I predict for economic, technological and social reasons, there will be less and less liberal fluff being taught in public brick and mortar colleges/universities. It is happening already because less students are going to these type of colleges/universities. Liberals, prepare yourselves for some liberal academic fluff belt tightening at public brick and mortar colleges/universities because greater and greater austerity measures are coming! Conservative 23:40, 20 April 2013 (EDT)
And you just proved my point again Conservative. I suggest you use word to write your statements out before and proof read them. Dvergne 23:49, 20 April 2013 (EDT)
Also you still haven't got a talkpage which is against the conservapedia commandments. Dvergne 23:53, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

GregG, I can certainly spell and won a prize in a spelling bee plus I scored 50,026 on the Word Dynamo test. Sometimes due to a temporary medical condition which sometimes causes sleep issues, I commit various mistakes in typing/spelling. I think you are just upset because you want to be a liberal professor and that pursuit in society is becoming more and more unattractive and/or because your hero Professor Kenneth Miller will continue to be less influential in relation to creationists![21] Get used to religious conservatives having more influence in the world and fully accept it. Then you will be less upset with me/us! Conservative 00:04, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

  • Some proof for both of those statements would be good. Given your medical condition wouldn't you think it would be more appropriate to use MS word or something similar to write your statement before hand. Also modern browsers such as chrome have spellcheckers integrated into them. Maybe you should try using one of those. Dvergne 00:10, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
    • That, or just not open the can of worms in the first place by attacking other peoples' spelling... Fnarrow 00:16, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

I just expect militant atheists to be able to spell the words atheism, atheist, atheists and I find it humorous when their public school education prevents this from occurring. :) I also laugh at all the factual errors in Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. :) He should have hired a fact checker. Conservative 00:23, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

Simple question for clarification sake: Are you calling me a "militant atheist" in that statement? Yes or No, it's that simple of a question. Fnarrow 00:26, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
Fnarrow, you describe yourself as a "Christian agnostic" and it appears you believe I have extreme views, despite the fact that 46 percent of Americans are young earth creationists, theologically conservative Christianity and creationism are rapidly growing around the world and that from a evidential/historical/global perspective my conservative Christian views are not extreme at all. I believe you are likely a dogmatic Darwinist who cannot answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and that your dogmatism is rooted in stubbornness. Conservative 03:53, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
Fnarrow: see my comments above about the 15 questions firewall and walk away. User Conservative will play the same note over and over until you get bored or banned or both. Rafael 10:53, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

Rafael, are you and an evolutionist of your choosing willing to debate Shockofgod and his chat room moderator Vivayehshua (who has studied biology post high school in a major university) on the 15 questions for evolutionists? If not, why not? There must be a reason why you are afraid to do so! What is it? We both know that you are very afraid to do so! Afraid of losing very badly and having the debate distributed to tens of thousands of people, my evolutionist friend? Creationists love oral debates because we love hearing timid evolutionists stammer and hearing their terrified voices quiver! :) Conservative 13:26, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

Conservative I asked you a simple question requiring a simple "yes or no" as answer and received a paragraph telling me what you think I believe about your beliefs... without answering the question. To the best of my knowledge, I have never stared an opinion on your beliefs and if I have I apologize as I honestly don't know what your beliefs are. If I did know your specific beliefs, I still wouldn't judge them as right/wrong as we both still accept the God of Abraham as the one (and only )true God and Jesus as his son. I know you read my user page to get that title which I use for myself, but I have to question whether you read how I defined that or not considering your follow up statements. My only issues with you so far are 1. the non-news blog posts in the MPR and 2. Your repeated ignoring of my requests to be allowed to bring the Penn Jillette article up to the standards laid out in the Conservapedia:Commandments. Other than that I greatly respect the amount of work you do for the site and I feel we're all on the same team here in attempting to make this site a viable alternative to Wikipedia and "the atheist wiki". Fnarrow 13:39, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

Fnarrow, please read this article: http://creation.com/dealing-with-doubt Second, you describe yourself as a "Christian agnostic". It seems you are having problems with doubt and being double-minded. I am sure this issue can be resolved if you are willing for it to be resolved. I suggest reading these various resources on the evidence for Christianity http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html, daily Bible reading (and following what the Bible says to do), daily prayer and weekly church attendance. Conservative 15:11, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

College administrators: Less evolutionary anthropology pseudoscience and more dentistry or close your doors!

College administrators: Less evolutionary anthropology pseudoscience and more dentistry or close your doors![22] Conservative 09:11, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

ATTN: Aschlafly Marijuana Rally Shooting

Just wanted to let you know that the article you linked to on the heading now says only two were injured if you want to update the headline. Also, thank you for posting real news on the header and MPR. Fnarrow 13:26, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

Further reading makes it look like the originally reported "3rd injury" was a dog. Sad, but not equal to a person in my book... Thankfully all are expected to recover. Fnarrow 13:29, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

Colleges in UK and USA

It appears that someone doesn't understand that college in the UK does not mean what college in the USA means. College in the United States of America is the equivalent of university in the UK. WilliamGladstone 13:38, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

There's that... and the fact that the cited article from The Telegraph does not support the cited blog's claims that it has anything to do with "liberal arts" or "darwin-ism". It merely describes a new government post, to be appointed later this year, which will have the power to set and enforce standards. Much like the Department of Education and various accreditation organizations do in the United States. Fnarrow 13:58, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
Fnarrow, you need to do some rereading. I think you sloppily read the blog post. Conservatyve 17:02, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
As Dvergne pointed out below, you edit the blog post, then blame the person pointing out it's flaws... It's not as creative as you think it is. Fnarrow 09:51, 22 April 2013 (EDT)
This is what he does, Fnarrow - it's par for the course with Cons. Keeping Cons honest and on topic is like herding cats. AlanE 17:07, 22 April 2013 (EDT)

Evolutionist college administrators: shape up or be fired!

"Given the high joblessness rate of many college graduates in the Western World, it is no secret that pro-evolution academic institutions are failing to prepare their students for the world outside of academia. Intellectually rigorous material relevant to the real world and the marketplace would better enable student to obtain work. Darwinism is not an evidentially rigorous scientific paradigm. In fact, it is counter evidential as the evidence in the physical world clearly points to a Creator who intelligently put together his creation and not to some evolutionary forces performing this matter. See: The evidence points to creation and not to evolution It is not surprising that an educational system which puts liberal/secular ideology over reasonableness and evidence would fail its students in other ways and that many of their students would be unemployable.

An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during their first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called "higher order" thinking skills. Students are often upset when they discover that college does not adequately prepare them for the world outside of college and leaves them with a significant amount of debt."[23]

I hope this clarifies things. Conservative 17:31, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

Cons. You are still confusing oranges and lemons. The "FE" bureaucrat in Britain is being appointed to control "Further Education Colleges". Many of them have links with Universities but they are not themselves unis. They are vocational colleges, teaching practical skills in such things as agriculture, business, the arts, building trades and so on. They also assist in apprenticeships. You can't get a degree in one. There is no comparison between them and American Universities.
(And seeing as you mentioned dentistry: a degree in dentistry in Britain requires 5 years of study at an accredited university attached to a teaching hospital - like medicine.) AlanE 18:24, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

AlanE, have you read this article? It seeks as if you commentary is facing a moving target and is now obsolete! :) Conservative 04:08, 22 April 2013 (EDT)

That is what happens when you change the blogpost Conservative. It is much better to put in updates and clearly label them as updates as anything else is downright dishonest, untruthful and therefor unchristian. Dvergne 05:40, 22 April 2013 (EDT)
Dvergne, are you an evolutionist? Conservative 06:44, 22 April 2013 (EDT)
No! Why would you ask such a question given I have stated on a number of times when question by you that I am not. It would be like me asking you if your are a homosexual or had a mullet. Pointless and a complete waste of time given I know the answer. (NO (unless you play AFL in which case you probably do have a mullet and a ratstail) Dvergne 07:39, 22 April 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, To show some contrition, you are obviously a very passionate man with deep beliefs, these are good qualities I can respect, but why can't you respect others have different views without labeling them --Patmac 07:53, 22 April 2013 (EDT)

Patmac, I didn't recall Dvergne telling me he was a creationist. Second, I have my doubts he is a creationist. Conservative 13:33, 22 April 2013 (EDT)

I recall Dvergne defending Creationism more than once on this site. The standard rules and morality of social intercourse and the concept of goodwill within debate don't apply to you do they Cons? AlanE 17:07, 22 April 2013 (EDT)
I wasn't aware that anybody "defended creationism". I was under the impression that creationism consisted almost entirely of attacking "Darwinism" and other branches of science. --DonnyC 19:26, 22 April 2013 (EDT)

DonnyC, Late in Charles Darwin's life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design. In a letter to Asa Gray, Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." See also: Evolution I hope that clears things up. Conservative 22:52, 22 April 2013 (EDT)

Conservative, I find your response above to be lacking. Both in content and in accuracy. You once again employed your all-too-typical use of quoting out of context. In that particular letter to Dr. Gray, Darwin was continuing a discussion they were having about the extinction of what they called "disjoined species", not the theory of evolution. The letter was written in 1857, roughly 2 years before the publication of On the Origin of Species, at which point he had not even revealed his thoughts on evolution to Dr. Gray. So the "specualtions" in question were not about evolution, as you attempted to imply. I would go on to address Darwin's relationship the with Duke of Argyll, but it would take up too much space and would not progress an already-fruitless conversation in any meaningful way. Conservative, if you genuinely would like to be taken seriously, stop quote-mining, start looking things up for yourself, stop challenging people to debate people who are not yourself, and finally start putting together original arguments. Your routine is well past the expiration date. --DonnyC 01:24, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
AlanE, I don't pesterfest Dvergne at his talk page. Dvergne tried to do this in my message area, but he was shut down! Conservative 22:54, 22 April 2013 (EDT)
Conservative and what does that have to do with this conversation ? I tend to think that your constant changing of tack is actually hurting your argument rather than strengthening it. As the saying goes, the strong man stands still whilst the weak man changes position. Dvergne 23:32, 22 April 2013 (EDT)
Also you still haven't unprotected Penn Jillette so I can fix the article. Dvergne 23:34, 22 April 2013 (EDT)
Cons. Why do you have a "message area" instead of a talkpage? Oh dear! Are you superior to us mere mortals who have a permanent talk page? More important? Or do you just want to be able to run and hide when you feel it necessary? AlanE 00:28, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
AlanE, afraid of liberals? Afraid of the people who are unable to find a single factual error in the atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles? I challenged a leading representative of this camp to a debate, namely Penn Jillette, and he backed down!
AlanE, are you and an evolutionist of your choosing willing to debate Shockofgod and his chat room moderator Vivayehshua (who has studied biology post high school in a major university) on the 15 questions for evolutionists? If not, why not? There must be a reason why you are afraid to do so! What is it? We both know that you are very afraid to do so! Afraid of losing very badly and having the debate distributed to tens of thousands of people, my evolutionist friend? Creationists love oral debates because we love hearing timid evolutionists stammer and hearing their terrified voices quiver! :) Conservative 03:33, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
And again I ask what does your comment above have to do with you not having a talkpage, deleting archives, not understanding the difference between a college in the UK and the USA and bullying other users ? Challenging someone to debate someone else isn't a particularly good response to a question. Dvergne 03:45, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

Dvergne, given your pesterfesting me via my message page with trivial matters which was shutdown, I find your bullying charge rather humorous. It must frustrate you that I/we have bigger fish fry than your petty nonsense. Second, according to the owner of this website, "We respect users' control over their own talk pages as much as possible."[24] If you have a complaint about this page, I suggest you take it up with the owner of this website who will ignore your complaint given its lack of merit. Conservative 12:06, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

Dvergne, by the way, Penn Jillette did back down from Shockofgod's debate challenge. I know it distresses you that this occurred, but it is not being erased from the Penn Jillette article. Conservative 12:41, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
User:C, you should have some way to contact you, besides forcing people to create message pages for you in your userspace.brenden 13:55, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

I reopened my message area. Conservative 14:54, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

DonnyC, as far as the Duke of Argyll episode, it is cited by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in their Notes to Teleological Arguments for God's Existence article. [25] I did find your "take up too much space" excuse rather humorous though given that you can post your argument in a Conservapedia essay and numerous other places on the internet and then simply cite it. As far as I know, I don't think there is much risk of you crashing Conservapedia's server or the internet if you were to attempt to refute the Duke of Argyll episode in terms of its relevance and importance. :) Conservative 15:06, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
DonnyC, I cite: "Despite differing opinions, Darwin and Argyll had great respect for each other and he served as one of the pall bearers at Darwin's funeral."[26] You have a lot of splainin' to do DonnyC! I hope you are not saying the Argyll made the episode up and that it never happened! :) Conservative 15:14, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
Who keeps trimming this discussion and why? Rafael 17:21, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

@Conservative, I have a lot of splainin' to do? Why don't you explain the blatant quote-mine I called you out on, how about that? And I don't need you to cite the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at me. Since Darwin's response to the Duke boils down to "Sometimes it bugs, other times... not so much", I don't see this as any sort of game-changing refutation of evolution. I would commend you on making a valiant effort, but you haven't, so I won't. --DonnyC 20:04, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

DonnyC, until you portray things more precisely and don't try to downplay various matters, we can't move forward in a discussion. For example, Charles Darwin frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design.[27] It was not merely sometimes but rather frequently. It was not merely "bugs me" but overwhelming thoughts. In fact, these frequent overwhelming probably manifested themselves in illness. See: Charles Darwin's illness Last time I checked, Duane Gish never had overwhelming thoughts that biblical creation belief was errant! The evidence for creation is much too strong for that!
Darwin might have saved himself from a lot of crying, vomiting, flatulence, skin eruptions and nervous exhaustion if he had put away his evolutionary nonsense and stopped his foolish rebellion concerning the overwhelming evidence for biblical creation. A journal article in the American Journal of Medicine states that Darwin suffered from "psychoneurosis provoked and exaggerated by his evolutionary ideas" (see: "The Illness of Charles Darwin", William B. Bean, September 1978, American Journal of Medicine"). Conservative 12:37, 24 April 2013 (EDT)
Oh Conservative, you sure do know how to put a smile on my face. Our little dance started when I made the comment to AlanE "I wasn't aware that anybody "defended creationism". I was under the impression that creationism consisted almost entirely of attacking "Darwinism" and other branches of science". And what has your response consisted almost entirely of? Attacking Charles Darwin. It's almost like I'm a prophet. Wait a minute... another vision is coming to me... alright it's becoming clearer now... Oh! it's a vision of you ducking questions about your quote-mining and asking me a question in return. I have your answer for you: No, I'm not interested in debating Shockofgod and his chat room moderator Vivayehshua (who has studied biology post high school in a major university) on the 15 questions for evolutionists. --DonnyC 15:21, 24 April 2013 (EDT)
DonnyC it is insincere proponents of the religion of Darwinism who attack science. They attack creation science. Personal remark removed Vivayehshua. Vivayehshua would win a creation vs. evolution debate with you hands down and we both know it. Conservative 18:31, 24 April 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, I have no clue who Vivayeshua is. I only know the name from the quadrillion times you've challenged other people to debate him. Why don't you invite Vivayeshua to create an account on CP, and we can have written debate right here? After all written debates are the best, right? Oh, I forgot you're into oral now ;-). Better yet, why don't you debate me? I don't understand your reluctance on this matter. Once you lose, you can always just block me, burn the page, and block any user who mentions it. But you will never debate anyone, and we both know that for a fact. Well take care and have a- Oops, I almost forgot... what's the story on the quote-mining you started our discussion with? --DonnyC 21:07, 24 April 2013 (EDT)
Personal remark removed
Lately, prominent atheists have clearly gotten rattled in debates so I have developed a greater liking for oral debates (William Lane Craig vs. Rosenburg, William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - a rattled Hitchens pretended his ear piece was not working and Thunderfoot vs. Ray Comfort). Conservative 22:20, 24 April 2013 (EDT)
"Like playing chess with a pigeon..." --DonnyC 23:06, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

DonnyC, we know that the creationist Jonathan Sarfati could whup your sorry evolutionist derriere in a chess match. Who are you kidding? I would offer to play chess with you, but I like a challenge! Conservative 00:32, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

You just made my day Conservative. Thank you. --DonnyC 00:42, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

Boston bomber drug use

Currently the main page has two statements, "Dzhokhar was a big marijuana user." and "Was Dzhokhar on drugs?" The cited sources fail to support the claim that he was a "big marijuana user" or that there were drugs in his system at the time of his brother's death. My other reading about the bombing has not suggested a "drugs were a factor in his actions" narrative. Rather, most evidence currently points to the influence of his brother and political radicalization. Perhaps these entries should be trimmed. Thanks, Wschact 06:54, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

Muslim Terrorists and Assassins often smoke Hash before they commit their murderous acts. The word assassin(Ḥashshāshīn) is actually derived from the word Hash (Cannabis) given you clearly haven't done your research. Dvergne 07:24, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
I am reading everything that I can find. However, there is no indication of "big marijuana use" or "hashish use." Much more research should be done, and I hope they examine his computer carefully. Maybe they can establish a link to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Wschact 13:41, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
Can someone help me out here, news sources say this terrorist could face the death penalty, something I have no problem with, but I read Massachusetts has abolished capital punishment. Am I missing something? --Patmac 11:50, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
Yes. If he is convicted in state court, he would not face the death penalty. So, the prosecutors decided to charge him in Federal court where there is a death penalty for the offenses that the prosecutors included in the indictment. Wschact 13:38, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
Wschact is absolutely right. If convicted and sentenced to death he would be held and eventually executed at the Federal Correctional Facility at Terre Haute, Indiana. However, there was a time when the Federal Government was capable of instituting the death penalty, yet did not have their own facilities in which to carry it out. For a really interesting example, look up "Anthony Chebatoris" some time when you get a chance. Fascinating story of State vs Fed on the implementation of a death warrant. Fnarrow 15:22, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

Dvergne seems to have cherry-picked HIS research. The etymology of assassin is "one who follows Asas." It was misunderstood by foreigners. More importantly, there still are no sources for the claim about drugs. -JaimeY

Not so. The Etymological Dictionary of the English Language (Oxford, 1897) states that the word was in use in the 13th century and comes from "haschischin, drinkers of haschisch, an intoxicating drink, a decocotion of hemp[...]adj hashihi, hashashi; pl. hashashin ie "hashish-eaters".
There is also plenty of evidence of hashish use among the Mudjahadeen in the 1980s. Rafael 15:43, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

Cover Up

If you're using words like "probably" or "likely" in a headline, it means the story either isn't ready to be reported yet, or you need to re-phrase things in order to give a more honest account of what is fact and what is still unknown.

The actions of the Tsarnaev brothers last week were despicable and indefensible, and it wouldn't be a big surprise if Tamerlan has murdered before. But if the Obama Administration and Massachusetts authorities actually have DNA evidence of a past murder, please cite sources for this! People would be very interested in legitimate sources. --Randall7 21:33, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

Quitting the Senate

Now you question why a senator is leaving Congress. When Nancy Pelosi wanted to become Speaker again, you asked why liberals can't give up power. Which is it?

- JaimeY

He's applying "conservative logic"; no matter what someone he disagrees with does, he'll try, and fail, to make himself look good with a self-aggrandizing Twitter-style jab.
Being 1 of 100 senators is not a position of power akin to being Speaker.--Andy Schlafly 19:48, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
...and there's your fail.
You have to remember, only Conservatives can show initiative or ambition. Liberals only know how fear-monger and grab for power. JamesBlake 14:17, 26 April 2013 (EDT)

SPLC Accusations/FRC Shooting

Why is WND so far behind? These claims came out and were responded to by the SPLC the day after the shooting last August... This was widely reported at the time. MPR still needs better criterion (or at least better enforcement of existing criterion) for "news". Fnarrow 15:35, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

Well, we're not going to let the left get away with it. Karajou 15:41, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
Understandable, and as I've told Conservative several times, I'm not judging the value of the content on the pages either of you are linking to... I just don't know if MPR is the right place for them. At least yours is in fact news (and can even be linked to current events in Boston), it's the blog posts which do nothing more than promote QE which I really think have no place on MPR. Fnarrow 15:48, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
I've campaigned for some time now to have the news section of the main page reformatted. There are many items of interest posted on in the In the News that simply aren't news by any charitable definition. I think the vast majority of the blog entries could be rolled into a new "Around the Web" or "Blog Roll" section, leaving the In the News section reserved solely for breaking and unfolding news events. --DonnyC 19:15, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

Main Page Right

"One more chapter to go before the newly revised Question evolution! campaign book for middle school students is sent to a second group of student reviewers."

I can't believe the mainstream media aren't all over this story.--DHouser 13:05, 26 April 2013 (EDT)

Obama speech leaked?

Hi all, the mother of one of my daughter's friends emailed me this link today and I thought I should pass it along. I'm obviously fairly alarmed, but why isn't the mainstream media reporting this? http://dailycurrant.com/2013/02/12/obama-declare-america-socialist-republic/ JasonBullman 18:00, 26 April 2013 (EDT)

When will people start checking sources...?
"The Daily Currant is an English language online satirical newspaper that covers global politics, business, technology, entertainment, science, health and media. It is accessible from over 190 countries worldwide - now including South Sudan.Our mission is to ridicule the timid ignorance which obstructs our progress, and promote intelligence - which presses forward."

You don't even have to do any research, just click on their about tab. Fnarrow 19:16, 26 April 2013 (EDT)

Earth Core vs. Sun Surface

Andrew Schlafly, you wrote: Earth's core is proven to be as hot as the Sun, contradicting atheistic theories. Biblical scientific foreknowledge predicted this, as Earth and heat were created prior to the Sun. Have you thought this through? The article states New measurements suggest the Earth's inner core is far hotter than prior experiments suggested, putting it at 6,000C - as hot as the Sun's surface. Do you think that the core of the sun holds the same temperature than its surface? The lowest estimate I found for the core temperature of the Sun is 15,000 K - while the general consensus seems to be 15,000,000 K. --AugustO 18:22, 26 April 2013 (EDT)

And your point is ....? Atheistic theories are surprised and confounded by this proof that the Earth's core is as hot as the Sun.--Andy Schlafly 19:19, 26 April 2013 (EDT)
But, it doesn't contradict anything or confound anyone... All the previous numbers were estimates from computer systems or imprecise measurements from inferior tests. The article you provided makes that very clear and even ends with the sentence "But importantly, Dr Dewaele said, "now everything agrees"." That doesn't sound like any kind of surprise, contradiction or confoundedness to me. Fnarrow 19:32, 26 April 2013 (EDT)
Actually, upon further research this new test actually confirms the 2002 findings of Alfe, Gillan and Price which can be found Here (Google Books) and Here (Pay Wall for full text) published in the Jan 30, 2002 edition of the peer-reviewed Earth and Planetary Science Letters Journal. Fnarrow 19:59, 26 April 2013 (EDT)
"Science revises its theories based on new research and evidence" - this is nothing new and scientists will no doubt need to continually do this until they accept biblical truths GUnston 21:20, 26 April 2013 (EDT)
Atheistic scientists repeatedly teach falsehoods in school to pull students away from the Bible, and then shift to new falsehoods when the old falsehoods are disproven.--Andy Schlafly 21:31, 26 April 2013 (EDT)
I'm confused. You said that: "Earth's core is proven to be as hot as the Sun, contradicting atheistic theories. Biblical scientific foreknowledge predicted this, as Earth and heat were created prior to the Sun." But then you just now said that this is a falsehood (when you said that the Atheist scientists have shifted to new falsehoods). Are you saying that the idea that the Earth's core is as hot as the Sun, confirmed by the Bible, is false? Also, why would you say that the Earth's core was proven to be as hot as the Sun, when that proof was constructed and presented by people who you say invariably lie? JasonBullman 22:26, 26 April 2013 (EDT)

After reading these responses and upon further reflection, I'm now confused too... How does this contradict the bible any way? I'm not trying to sound sarcastic, so I sincerely apologize if it comes across that way, but I've read the bible front to back several times and I don't remember a statement of "the earth's core is as hot as the sun" or anything to that effect. Mr. Schlafly, I was only trying to point out that these findings do not contradict current scientific understanding and I was responded to by GUnston and yourself with statements about scientists trying to pull students away from the bible... please help me understand this part, I really want to understand. Fnarrow 22:58, 26 April 2013 (EDT)

Fnarrow et al, Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge is a game that some Christians in general, and Young Earth Creationists in particular, like to play. It's a very challenging game. God doesn't make it easy. He doesn't sprinkle the Bible with passages like:"Let us make the Earth as a sphere; and it's heart shall be crystals of iron glowing with heat of the Sun." Oh no, it's a lot more cryptic than that. Still, the rules are fairly simple. First comb through the popular and scientific literature looking for new discoveries. Then sift through the Bible looking for a quote or passage that can be twisted to match the new discovery. If you can't find a suitable passage, then you go to the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts and you twist those around. If you still can't plausibly shoehorn a new discovery into the Bible, then you just make a sweeping claim that earth's core is still hot because it's leftover heat from God creating light... or something. Either way, you declare victory and collect your points. --DonnyC 23:27, 26 April 2013 (EDT)
Two points. First, would it make more sense to compare the Earth's core temperature to the Sun's core temperature instead of the surface temperature? Second, I was taught that human intelligence, knowledge and technological understanding were God-inspired. So, shouldn't we be welcoming an improved understanding of geophysics and the structure of the Sun? I do not understand why we would condemn data as "atheistic"? The Bible teaches us about the Earth and "let there be light", but it does not have teachings regarding the core temperature of the Sun or whether the core temperature of the Earth should be hotter or colder than that of the Sun. Christians can come up with their own opinions as can athetist, but everyone has to argue from the best available facts. If the Earth was created before the Sun, and both the Earth and Sun have been cooling since, one would expect the Earth to have a cooler core temperature than that of the Sun. However, I have an open mind on this issue. Wschact 07:26, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

Abortion vs. Darwin's Theory of Evolution

I understand that the items on main page right can be a bit telegraphic because we want to keep them as short as possible. However, there should be some threashold of readability and logic to each item. Today a new item appeared which reads, "In 2013, 42 states in America have introduced legislation imposing limits on abortion access. Expect more pro-life legislation because 2013 will be the WORST year in the history of Darwinism.[5]" Neither the item nor the source it cites tells how many of these 42 states actually acted upon the proposed legislation, and whether the final action was to adopt the bill. The legislative session is now over in many states, so it is not clear why the author would expect additional action on abortion legislation in calendar 2013. However, there is no logical link between a state legislature imposing legal limitations on abortion and members of the public accepting or rejecting the Theory of Evolution. The purpose of the main page should be to draw readers into the various parts of the encyclopedia. Someone visiting the Main Page and reading this as one of the top items will just scratch his head and move on to a different website because the item is opaque, confusing and illogical. Could it please be trimmed or rewritten? Thanks, Wschact 16:02, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Your post engaged in liberal wordiness and a key allegation was not supported: "However, there is no logical link between a state legislature imposing legal limitations on abortion and members of the public accepting or rejecting the Theory of Evolution." Conservative 16:55, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
To be fair, I'm not certain there is a link. A correlation between people who reject Christian truths and who support abortion, yes, probably, but not between what happens in the state. That's why church and state are separated. If Obama gets a third term and passes legislation to make the United States a muslim state, do you think this will lead to the citizenry ignoring the Bible and turning to Islam? My faith is not affected by what my government or anyone says. JasonBullman 22:01, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
Respectfully, assuming that there is some logical link between the adoption of legislation further restricting abortions and the public rejecting the Theory of Evolution, then a person could research how many state legislatures adopted such legislation in 2013. The number of states where one legislator introduced a bill that was ultimately rejected is not a good measure. Most state legislatures have adjourned for 2013, so this should be a final number for the year. Thanks, Wschact 14:28, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

Pro-abort and evolutionist sour grapes. The trend is clear and you have no plan to turn things around![28][29][30] Conservative 00:19, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

I assume by "you", User:Conservative means me. Why should I have any plans to change either state abortion laws or whether people believe the Theory of Evolution? My goal is to create a viable online encyclopedia alternative to the horrible mess at Wikipedia. That requires a sense of fairness and a duty to communicate to our readers clearly. My objections are not to the ideas expressed, but rather to the confusing way they are presented. I believe the sources here are mixing laws regulating abortion with laws prescribing school curiculum and proposed bills with enacted laws. Could we please reword the item to say the facts? Thanks, Wschact 08:06, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

The Main Page Header

Is both pointless and inaccurate. The Lakers have two of their all-star players injured--including Kobe Bryant who at 34 is still one of the best scorers in the NBA--and are playing the #2 seed in the west who are also the most well-coached team in the NBA. Additionally, the Lakers aren't the only team in the playoffs or the NBA, the season is hardly over, in fact, if memory serves, the finals usually don't finish until well into June. SLionel 16:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

The Lakers were playing poorly even before their Overrated Sports Stars were injured. Kobe Bryant scored lots of points because he hogged the ball. His shooting percentages were not great, and he never won a title without supercoach Phil Jackson (who won many titles with or without Kobe).--Andy Schlafly 16:42, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
So what NBA team have you ever formed that's done so much better? RustyKoontz 16:45, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
What about the Heat? They're looking like they're going to repeat and they have Lebron James. Most people agree that he's the best player in the league right now if not the best player to ever play the game. And that Phil Jackson claim. He won all his rings with either Kobe or Jordan. Are the consensuses that Jordan and Lebron are not overrated?

EDIT: The headline is a bit clearer now, I'll quit my whining. SLionel 18:16, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Is it actually their worst in decades? A quick flick backwards through recent seasons reveals that '04-'05 (eight years ago) was worse. WilcoxD 19:04, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Lakers

This was hardly rheir worst season in "decades". In fact, it wasn't even their worst in the past 10 years, as in 2004-05 they went 34-48. Or perhaps 2006-07, in which they had 3 less wins and lost in the first round too. Do your research. TomHooper 11:54, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

"the media give"

Shouldn't it be "The media GIVES"? ZetaSonic 00:03, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

No. "Media" is properly the plural of medium. Although modern usage accepts one media / many medias, it is certainly not preferred. Since, in the construction here, it is clear that multiple media (print, broadcast, etc.) are being cited, the classical use of media is intended and a singular verb would clearly be wrong. MelH 01:53, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

Liberals admit defeat!

Liberals at Time Magaziee admit liberalism is doomed! [31] What a glorious month April 2013 is!

And soon an upcoming economic crisis and austerity measures will take away liberal funding for their boondoggles and unsustainable government programs!Conservative 03:13, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

Attention American evolutionist hombres!

You will never surpass the growth of Hispanic American creationism! We are like a fast moving Chevy![32]

Olé! Olé! Olé! Conservative 03:13, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

Hacking

It appears that someone has been trying to Hack my account. I have got about 10 emails recently from someone trying to do a reset on my account. I suggest other users be aware of this as I believe that some liberal vandals and trolls are trying to cause some trouble. Dvergne 06:34, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

Recently, some gentlemen said the password that you choose reflects your personality and they were wondering what User:Aschlafly's password is. Some password difficulty analyzer software estimates that it would take 4.861953298954663e+48 centuries to crack my password for this wiki. So what does that say about my personality? :) Conservative 11:20, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
Do not choose an English word. Add numbers and punctuation in random places. --Ed Poor Talk 12:32, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
I found this image to be illuminating. brenden 13:53, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
If you have a sound mind/body and know various mnemonic techniques, no password is too hard to remember. :) Conservative 19:52, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
It actually depends. When trying to get around a person guessing your password, complexity is good. When a computer is trying to brute-force guess your password, the best defense is simply having a lot of characters in the password.--DTSavage 02:52, 1 May 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, why would you say 4.861953298954663e+48 centuries when it would have been more correct just to say 4.861953298954663e+50 years . It seems you need to do a bit of brushing up on your expression of figures. Also that would mean your password is roughly 29 characters, questionevolutiongentlemen isn't a very safe password :) Dvergne 04:13, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

Here is an interesting question: How many people know my password? Conservative 04:51, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

Hopefully only one. I'm sure that Mr. Schlafly will be (understandably) upset if other people have the ability to massively harm the project by accessing your account via your password and abusing the admin tools. GregG 08:14, 1 May 2013 (EDT)
To prevent password disclosure from hacking the wiki server itself, MediaWiki software never saves your password. Instead it runs passwords through a hash function and then saves the hash. So each time you log in, it compares the hash of what you enter against the saved hash, and if they match, you can login. Wschact 09:33, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

GregG, rest assured the fingers that log onto User: Conservative are always the fingers of a conservative! Lastly, 微乎微乎 至于无形 神乎神乎 至于无声 故能为敌之司命. :) Conservative 21:53, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

What does "Remote micro-almost regards invisible God of God almost as far as the silent and it could be an enemy of the Siming" mean? Please make all posts in English as specified in the Conservapedia Manual of Style. Fnarrow 12:02, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
Personal tools