Talk:Main Page/Archive index/112

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Inconsistent Agenda

Your link has a member of the "Occupy" movement in Chicago saying, "I want Medicare, Social Security. I want housing to be taken care of. I want the upper 1 percent to pay fair taxes." It's interesting to note that here in the UK we have all those things (more or less) and yet "Occupy" still chose to camp outside St Paul's Cathedral for several months: --JasperK 11:56, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

Unreliability of Scientific Studies

The headline on the main page should be more clear - the reported findings of the researchers is for 53 selected publications about cancer discoveries, not about science in general. The high unreliability rate of "landmark" studies may or may not extend to other fields of science, but the headline should not imply an 88.6% unreliability rate for all scientific studies, as it does right now, without more evidence. It's not even clear that the 53 publications are a representative sample of all "landmark" cancer research, so the reported 88.6% unreliability rate may not even be accurate for cancer research in general.

On a related note, it is my opinion that headlines about science and other news items about cold hard facts should cite firsthand sources or objective secondhand sources as much as possible. However, third-hand opinion-based blogs can be useful to illustrate the implications of scientific findings, or to criticize faulty science (if the criticism itself is based in fact). --BaileyJ 22:50, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

The blog entry cited Yahoo news which was a Reuters news story. I don't see why citing the blog was the wrong thing to do. Second, medical science has a very direct effect on the well being of humans so one would think the scientific community and universities would take measures to maintain its quality. It turns out they may need to raise their standards. Conservative 11:29, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Leonard Nimoy

Is User:Conservative aware that Leonard Nimoy was just an actor playing a science officer on the Starship Enterprise? He wasn't a real science officer. --JeromeKJ 01:14, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

JeromeKJ, I'm not surprised that a fictional character would be cited on this site. 99% of the information on this website is linked to overtly biased sources like CSMonitor. Although to be fair, they do occasionally misrepresent information found on more mainstream news sources...which are hardly appropriate cited sources either. --William Ingramm 0825, 10 Apr 2012 (EDT)
First of all, everyone has a bias in something, and it doesn't matter what the subject is. Second, Leonard Nimoy is well-known for the character of "Spock" in the Star Trek franchise; he's going to be called by that name for the remainder of his life and then some; but in this instance he's the host of a television program developed in the 1970's. Third, Mr. Wilgram, your own refusal to even consider - let alone look at - any of the sources that we site in any of our articles not only indicates your own bias against what we do, but the above posting indicates your open contempt of this website. In a nutshell, Mr. Wilgram, you are calling us liars. Karajou 09:35, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
His opinions seem perfectly valid to me. He's an science star and represent science and logic in the minds of many.--DavidEdwards 10:06, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Can we get real here? 1) This documentary was made in 1979, so it's hardly breaking news. 2) These are not the opinions of Spock, nor even those of Leonard Nimoy. He's an actor reading a script. If the opinions belong to anyone, its the writers. 3) Even the writers don't believe what they're saying. Listing to the disclaimer about 2 minutes in: 'This series presents information in part based on theory and conjecture. The producers purpose is to present some possible explanation, but no necessarily the only ones in the mysteries we will examine.' 4) Look at some of the other episodes in the series: Martians, Ghosts, UFOs, Reincarnation, Time Travel. Does Spock believe in all these things? Possibly, but is that a good reason why we should? --JasperK 10:23, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

I've already addressed my concerns with using the "...In Search Of" television series as source material. Karajou 10:34, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
Leonard Nimoy is an observant Jew. It is not hard to believe that he believes in the historicity of Noah's flood. Conservative 00:17, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
I don't know much about Leonard Nimoy, Mr Spock or their views on atheism, but I don't think that item belongs under the "featured on Conservapedia" heading. The only Conservapedia article it links to, Leonard Nimoy, is very short and says nothing about atheism. Or perhaps the "Featured on Conservapedia" heading should be changed?--CPalmer 11:37, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
It will probably convince some wavering athiests.--DavidEdwards 11:51, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

Cooking oil

That's not really that high a price for cooking oil. And I'm pretty sure that things under Batista's regime were worse than under Castro. This isn't an endorsement of Fidel Castro, but rather a denunciation of Batista, who was a ruthless murderer and an unabashed supporter of US mercantilist policies that hurt the Cuban people. Castro has a long list of crimes, but it's not as long as Batista's.--CamilleT 11:28, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

I disagree. The average person in Cuba was far better off prior to Castro seizing power than afterwards, as the data about the monthly salary today being only $20 illustrates. The cooking oil price illustrates that expenses are still significance despite the extremely low incomes.--Andy Schlafly 11:55, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
The nominal GDP per capita in Cuba is $5,000/year. This is still $400 a month. Even in Haiti, people make more than $20/month. Not to mention Cuba affords a good healthcare system that is comparable to the US, and enjoys a longer life expectancy. RealCuban 14:13, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
GDP does not convert to average income. GDP includes the substantial costs of materials, for example. As to health care, survival rates from cancer are likely far higher in the U.S. than in Cuba.--Andy Schlafly 14:29, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
But we can agree on the price of cooking oil, right?--CamilleT 14:49, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
I agree that Cubans have America-like expenses for basic food like cooking oil, while struggling to live on only $20 a month in income in Cuba.--Andy Schlafly 15:04, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
Why would you think that the cost of materials increases GDP but not incomes? Where do you think the payment for materials disappears to?--MRend 22:15, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
In many cases, "the payment for materials disappears to" importers of the materials. That does not increase domestic income.--Andy Schlafly 22:33, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
Imports also don't increase GDP--MRend 22:35, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
I think the cost of raw imported materials is included in GDP when the domestically manufactured goods are sold.--Andy Schlafly 11:10, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
They are, but that is why the value of all imports is then subtracted in calculating GDP. There are differences between GDP and national income, but these have to do with cross-border income flows, not the value of intermediate goods or imports.--MRend 11:29, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

I'm sorry, MRend, but what are you arguing about? I found many sources that say the Cuban average monthly income is about $20, including the CIA Factbook. EricAlstrom 12:15, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

I apologize if you got the impression I was arguing about anything. I really have no interest in the discussion about Cuban living standards, and was merely pointing out that it is a serious error to think that aggregate expenditure (including that on intermediate goods) does not more or less equal aggregate income.--MRend 12:24, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Rick santorum suspends campaign

Looks like it is Romney for the GOP this year then Davidspencer 15:19, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

In 2020, there will probably be a better political environment for a social conservative in the US President race.[2] Also, given the current fiscal crises in Europe that seems to be growing larger, perhaps in 2020 a fiscal conservative will be electable as well. Like a cross between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum/Michelle Bachmann. Conservative 00:25, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Ozzie Guillen

While I agree that Castro is horrible, I think this a clear example of political correctness coming into play and I this type of reaction to a controversial statement is disturbing to me.KingHanksley 21:46, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

And what Guillen said is a controversial statement disturbing to lot a fans of the Miami who fled Cuba when Castro took over. Baseball is a business, and it depends on the money generated by its fans. I don't think any business of any kind is going to put up with anyone on its payroll who accidentally or deliberately causes a drop in revenue. Karajou 11:43, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
I understand the situation. Political correctness is often profitable. KingHanksley 13:25, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
Of course, expressing admiration for Catro's ability to survive is a sign that Guillen disagrees with Mr. Schlafly's theory on Castro being dead. :)KingHanksley 13:28, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Election Odds Update - post-Santorum update

With the GOP nomination process possibly nearing its conclusion, the movement in the odds suggests that the biggest winner of the past four months has been Barack Obama, who has gone from being a 44.8% chance to a 62.1% chance of being returned to office in that time - a gain of 17.3%. Mitt Romney emerges as a 32.1% chance, an improvement of 11.6% in the same period.

-- Ferret Nice old chat 09:15, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

It is still way too early to call. The US and world economy is fragile and Obama is very dependent on the economy not getting worse since he hasn't built up a tremendous amount of goodwill. ObamaCare could be ruled unconstitutional which would make the ex law professor Obama look foolish. Middle East problems via Iran/Israel could ratchet up the price of gas further which would be a bigger drag on the economy plus irritate voters. The Koch brothers could dump a whole lot of money in Romney's campaign for negative ads against Obama. Conservative 11:17, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
If those odds give an accurate picture, it would seem to give the lie to the idea that a less conservative Republican candidate is more electable. As the centrist Romney's chances of winning the nomination go up, the Republican party's chances of winning the election go down.--CPalmer 11:54, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Liberals Deny Obama is a Keynesian, insist he was born in Hawaii

No, that is not a typo. A reporter at the Stewart/Colbert rally went around holding a sign saying "Obama=Keynesian?" and asking liberals what they thought of it. At least a dozen insisted that Obama was born in America and that he had the birth certificate to prove it. Several were also outraged that the conservatives were demanding so much proof of Obama's nationality. Unfortunately for them, the question was not whether Obama was Kenyan. See the video at [3]. This is pretty old, but was recently posted on Lew Rockwell's YouTube channel. It's pretty good. Gregkochuconn 19:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Probably educated in public schools. If they'd been homeschooled, I bet they wouldn't make mistakes like that! JamieM 21:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
Possibly.... I went to public school and I didn't even know what Keynesianism (is that spelled right? Google Chrome says no) was (at least by name) until college. We just learned it was right. When the government educates the children, the children will be educated to believe what the government wants them to think. Ultimately, I feel privatized school choice is a better option than homeschooling, but the latter is a viable solution in the interim. Gregkochuconn 20:11, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Fate of the World

Hey I'm new here but I thought you guys would like to see the latest liberal attempt at brainwashing children, the PC game Fate of the World. In it the worlds goverments are replaced by a single all powerful leader who has control over all nations in order to fight the 'theat' of climate change. In the name of this trumped up hoax you can do terrible things like enforced sterlisations, launching coups and banning all fossil fuel use overnight. As far as I'm concerned this game is just a way of ensuring that the next generation will willingly allow these illegal measures without any sort of resistance. I would create a page for this myself but I've never edited a wiki before and I'm worried that I wouldn't do it justice. If no else wants to though I'll give it a go. MBluth.

Let the left keep the faux-outrage, friend. If you're going to get this worked up over a game, I'd suggest you at least focus on one that's not essentially a card game. EricAlstrom 12:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

I disagree this game is clearly designed to indoctrinate children into leftist beliefs so that they don't object to such illegal measures as UN Agenda 21. Also as I'm new how do you do the proper sig at the end of your comment? MBluth

Then we shall agree to disagree, which is totally alright here. To add your signature add "~~ ~~" (no quotes, and take the space out), then it puts in it automagically. Welcome aboard! EricAlstrom 13:41, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
Thank you very much! I look forward to trying to help further improve an already good site. MBluth 13:57, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
Frankly, that's like claiming that the game Risk is intended to promote globalism and imperialism through propaganda. Or that any one of numerous Star Wars-based games is intended to promote investment in interstellar space travel. I played Risk as a child(and enjoyed it) , but I would object to America attacking Ontario and Quebec in their quest to conquest all of North America, reach Europe, and ultimately take over the entire world. Gregkochuconn 19:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
I would object too - particularly knowing that they'd get 5 extra armies the next turn. EricAlstrom 23:28, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
@ MBluth, The game isn't interested in trying to convert people to global warming theory, and it simply assumes the player already believes in it. Considering the emphasis on statistical analysis and scientific theory, the game doesn't seem interested in being accessable for younger players, so I don't see how one could assume it is a children's game. The game is based around balancing environmentalism with population growth and development. Having played Fate of the World, I have seen for myself that if anthing, the game goes quite a long way to show how untenible, strict environmentalism is. That game is astonishingly hard to win. maninahat 13:52, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

Global Warming "Hoax?"

So the link to the "global warming hoax..." I read the link to the NASA site. I read the whole thing. The last paragraph states:

"The Bering Sea stands in stark contrast to the rest of the Arctic ice cap, where sea ice extent was below average in both January and February. Ice cover was down drastically on the Atlantic Ocean side of the Arctic, including the Kara, Barents, and Laptev Seas, where air temperatures were 4 to 8 degrees Celsius (7 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) above the norm."

So I'm not sure that linking to a site that gives clear evidence of global warming is in your best interest. Or were you hoping readers would not get to the end of the article? - rwilsonr

Maybe people should think twice about using blog entries as citations, since they are more likely to contain misinformation or incomplete information compared to primary sources. (And by "primary sources" I don't necessarily mean the mainstream media.) --BaileyJ 20:30, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
It's significant how the mainstream media did not report on the same story about the enormous amount of ice.--Andy Schlafly 21:28, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

But it's also significant that Conservapedia didn't report the ENTIRE story. And while it is certainly interesting that there is so much ice in the Bering Sea, the key point is that the temperature is SEVEN TO FOURTEEN degrees ABOVE the norm. I think you are on pretty thin ice (pun intended) to suggest the mainstream media failed to report the story, and then cherry pick the items in the story that suit the hoax narrative. Your headline said "Global warming hoax disproven again," which is not at all what the story suggests. - rwilsonr


Our article Diabetes mellitus, could it be improved or is convenient to leave it short and easy to read? --Joaquín Martínez 16:54, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

At a bare minimum, I would add a section on prevention. Conservative 22:13, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

Question Evolution Campaign

This campaign is very insightful but wouldn't it be more productive to ask these questions of prominent evolutionary scientists rather than the common layman on the street or Youtube? It appears to be disingenuous to ask people, many of whom are armed with only a high school level understanding of science, to address these more complex questions. Take these questions to people who study and promote evolution for a living and see what they have to say. user:Wingram/Bill Grahm 10:59, 13 April 12 (EDT)

Bill, I first recommend reading these articles: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates and Atheism and cowardice and Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates Second, I would recommend reading these articles: Evolution and Atheism and deception and Atheism. Third, it has become abundantly clear to the person who does even a modicum of honest investigation that macroevolution is false. In addition, creation testifies to the existence of God. Romans 1:20 declares: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse...". Psalm 19:1 declares: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork”. Fourth, are you an atheist? If so, do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? Fifth, if you are an atheist or an evolutionist and take issue with the resources that I just provided, I suggest proving me wrong that prominent atheists/evolutionists are disingenuous cowards through convincing a prominent atheist/evolution to publicly debate the 15 questions for evolutionists. Conservative 11:30, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
I don't understand the "prove atheism" challenge posed. Atheism is a simple standpoint: "I reject the idea of God", what is there to prove? If someone said "I do not believe Unicorns" would you expect them to "prove" that their non-belief is true? Now, asking someone to "prove" that god doesn't exist is different and obviously an impossible task. As for my original question: I understand where you are coming from. You wouldn't expect an evolutionary scientist to be honest...yet you also don't expect the layman atheist, who believes evolution, to be honest either. So...why not approach the appropriate scientists to answer these questions? If you want a chance to break down their claims don't you need the most accurate and comprehensive answers (according to Evolutionists) to your questions which can only be provided by those at the forefront of evolutionary research? Basically, if you assume atheists and evolutionists will lie to you then you will never, in your own estimation, get any "satisfactory answer" making the entire campaign seem disingenuous. I do enjoy the debates that have occurred (particularly Craig v Harris) but debate will never affect science or prove anything, it can only be used to persuade laymen to believe one thing or the other. This is why evolutionists shy away from public debate because it's about rhetoric rather than science. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME! --user:Wingram/Bill Gramm 12:14, 13 April 12
Bill, atheism is in decline in the world in terms of adherents and the decline is expected to accelerate. I don't think your post is going to turn things around. :) By the way, the year 2020 is quickly approaching and things don't look good atheism and evolutionism.[4] Conservative 13:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Bill, one more thing, if I were you, I wouldn't be surprised if the supporters of the Question evolution campaign challenge a prominent evolutionist at a later time. After all, the campaign is in its infancy. Historically, Christians have been very determined, patient and creative when it comes to social movements they engage in and the abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement and the pro-life movement all attest to this fact. I don't see why things should be any different when it comes to the creation vs. evolution culture war. If I were you, I wouldn't be surprised if the supporters of the Question evolution campaign are methodically, patiently, and strategically carrying out their game plan. "When the gushing torrential water tosses stones pushing boulders, it is because of the force of its momentum. When the ferocious strike of an eagle, breaks the body of its prey, it is because of the timing of the strike. Thus, the forces and momentum of the adept in warfare are so overwhelming and ferocious and his timing of engagement is precise and swift." - Sun Tzu. Conservative 14:12, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Bill, you ask a great question. "What is there to prove?" You are absolutely correct. Belief or disbelief in god is a matter of faith and by definition, not subject proof or disproof. No one will answer your question here because there is nothing to prove. What astounds me on Conservapedia is the idea that it is somehow there is a battle between religion and atheism. Faith, or lack thereof, is personal. There is nothing to "win." If you believe that the bible is the word of god then that is your perogative. You are not "wrong." The opposite is true also; if you do not believe, you are also not wrong. The crux of the matter is this: what does one person's belief have to do with anybody else's? If you are Christian or Muslim or Jewish or whatever religion, believe. Be happy. Live a good life and be kind to others. If you aren't, don't believe. Live a good life and be kind to others. Most of all, we all need to respect each other's opinions and accept that what is good for one person is not always good for another. - rwilsonr
Rwilson, aren't you taking the postmodernism position that there is no absolute truth when it comes to worldviews? If so, are you absolutely sure there is no absolute truth when it comes to worldviews and isn't this a rather contradictory position? Wasn't the most ardent advocate of postmodernism, Jacques Derrida, an atheist/skeptic? Didn't the apostles of Jesus assert they were eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Why did the apostles do that if evidence doesn't matter? Are there proponents of Christianity who assert that Christianity is a reasonable faith? Does a reasonable faith have proof and evidence? Did the apostles and do Christians say there is prophetic evidence showing Christianity to be true? If so, do you claim that prophetic evidence is no valid and if so what compelling reasons do you have? See: Bible prophecy. Does Christianity teach that one can get into heaven and avoid hell through good works or did the Apostle Paul teach that this position is false? If you assert that one can get into heaven though good works and that being a Christian is not necessary, then why did Jesus die on the cross? Conservative 16:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
@conservative - those Question Evolution pictures are from Melbourne. Where I lived and my family still does. Those posters were never there. Its a photoshopped picture(s). But I think you know that. VMcDowell 22:39, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
McDowell, I am guessing you are an atheist given your lack of proof and evidence for your photoshopped claim. Conservative 22:46, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
One "picture" is outside Flinders street station. I can have someone actually go down there and take a real picture, or even a live video, should you so desire. Those posters are not there and you know it! VMcDowell 22
52, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

You can rip down posters and take all the pictures you want. Rest assured more posters will be put up and more Question evolution! tracts will be given to the public!!! Rome and the Soviet Union couldn't stop the message of the Bible and neither will you! Conservative 22:58, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

VMcDowell, perhaps you have overlooked the stickers? In the second picture you can identify the sticky tape which is used to put the flyer to a lamppost: the perspective is awfully misleading and turns the lamppost into an advertising column. AugustO 00:53, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
Being an illogical evolutionists, McDowell will probably ignore Occam's Razor and argue the sticky tape was photoshopped too. :) Conservative 01:19, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
Being a blocked editor, McDowell has no chance to argue any longer.
And even though the pictures may not be photo-shopped, the perspective is misleading, optically enlarging the perhaps 3" × 4" stickers to veritable posters. AugustO 01:57, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Conservative, I'm going to do so something I rarely see you do on this site. I'm going to answer each and every one of your questions as best I can. a. Yes, I am taking the view that there is no absolute truth in regards to worldviews if worldview is defined as "1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world" or "2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group." Notice the keywords "perspective" and "beliefs." By definition, a worldview concerns one's opinion; I don't see how this could be a contradictory position. b. I don't know who Jacques Derrida is and frankly, I don't care. His opinions have nothing to do with mine. If he is an atheist/postmodern/skeptic, that is his affair. c. Did the apostles assert that they were witnesses? I suppose so. Whether it actually happened is a matter of faith however. Did Muhammad receive a revelation from god? Did Joseph Smith find the Golden Plates? Is L. Ron Hubbard a prophet? d. I have no idea what the motivation of the apostles was. e. Yes, there are proponents of Christianity who assert that Christianity is a reasonable faith. I would think that would be a prerequisite for being a Christian. f. No, faith has nothing to do with proof or evidence. That's why it's called faith. g. Yes, but that doesn't make it so. All religions present evidence they believe to be "true." My "claims" about the validity of prophetic evidence are mine, just as yours belong to you. It's what I believe and nobody else's business. h. Whether there is a heaven and how one gets there are theological questions and subject to interpretation. The idea of sola fide is by no means a universally held doctrine. Why did Jesus die on the cross? It depends on whom you ask.

So the question still stands: What is there to prove? Debating faith is an excercise in futilty. It's like trying to tell someone what their favorite color is. To understand the world around us, we ask questions, gather evidence and subject it to repeated trial. It is the standard we have and it's the best we can do given our abilities. Generations from now, there may be a new way of understanding and they will laugh at our ignorance. But for now, all we have is the scientific method. Unfortunately, it's not something we can apply to the question "is there a god?" We can't test it. We can't come to an agreement on questions of theology. So we rely on faith. Faith is a spiritual journey and is very personal. To suggest that a person is wrong about what they believe is pure folly. Once we start accepting and respecting beliefs that are contrary to our own, the world will be a much nicer place in which to live. - rwilsonr

You are just engaging in postmodernism babble. If there is no truth when it comes to worldviews, then why did you spout your worldview in a lengthy babble. The decline of atheism is not surprising and postmodernism babble is part of the reason why so many people do not take atheism seriously. Conservative 20:41, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Hm. It's incredibly funny to me that someone who constantly accuses Richard Dawkins of evading debate and evolutionists of being unable to answer the so-called 15 questions would stoop to such a childish level. But then again, I'm not surprised. No wonder no one wants to debate you. When faced with a coherent and logical argument, what do you do? Stick your fingers in your ears and scream "nah, nah, nah, nah." I never said what wrote was "true." It's an opinion, which is the whole point. Let's suppose you are correct and "...many people do not take atheism seriously." My point is who cares? What does it matter to the atheist what the believer thinks and what does it matter to the believer what the atheist thinks? I'm engaging in postmodern babble? That's your opinion. My opinion is that you engage in willful ignorance and denialism, and you've been doing it for quite some time. -rwilsonr

You might consider reading the article The Decline of American Postmodernism.[5] You might not want to hear it, but the world is increasingly not taking postmodernist like yourself seriously. [6] Conservative 11:35, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

Still have your fingers in your ears, eh? That excerpt is supposed convince me of what the "world" thinks? The first sentence tells us that the excerpt is a critique of postmodernisn AS A LITERARY MOVEMENT. Even if I am a postmodernist, what does that excerpt have to do with what we're talking about? I'm not writing a book. But whatever. As I said, it's no wonder people aren't willing to debate you. One wonders who is really taken less seriously.

rwilsonr, are you an atheist? If so, do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? Because I know that biblical Christianity has plenty of evidence that it is true. Lastly, where are the countless millions of missing transitional fossils if macroevolution occurred? Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould said that Neo-Darwinism doesn't stack up because of all the missing links in the fossil record. Richard Dawkins said that Gould's punctuated equilibrium doesn't stack up due to the lack of biology supporting it. Plus, the naturalism underlying evolutionism doesn't stack up due the origin of life issue. Dawkins has even proposed the "little green men" hypothesis due to the immense weakness of abiogenesis hypothesis. Conservative 13:38, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

main page news - Ayn Rand's philosophy was wrong

Per capita atheists and agnostics in America give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists. See also: Atheism and uncharitableness

Ayn Rand wrote in her work Atlas Shrugged: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." According to the Apostle Paul man's purpose is: "We are His workmanship created for good works in Christ". Ayn Rand was an atheist and I don't think her philosophy was in accordance Christianity.

Furthermore, Ayn Rand wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness. The Apostle Paul taught: "If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." (Philippians 2:1-4). I would agree with her that capitalism is better than socialism, but there is much of her philosophy that I disagree with.

Lastly, the Christian Chuck Colson wrote an essay entitled Shrugging Off Obligations: Ayn Rand and Objectivism which I agree with. Conservative 17:47, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Rand cannot be taken seriously because she rejected God and was thus not a genuine conservative. She exalted reason as her god, when Scripture plainly says, "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." (Prov. 3:5) Her exaltation of human reason over God led her to moral relativism. DavidE 08:54, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
A big problem I have with Ayn Rand is she exalted selfishness and was against altruism. In Ayn Rand's world Christian philanthropists such as William Colgate were wrongheaded. Also, I dislike arbitrary wars and believe in the Just War concept. With that being said, in Ayn Rand's world the American soldiers who sacrificed their lives at Omaha Beach in WWII were also wrongheaded. Also, many parents like working hard and leaving their children an inheritance. In Ayn Rand's world, I would think this is wrongheaded as well. Brave people who rush into burning buildings and rescue children are also despised in Ayn Rand's world. Many examples could be given. It is not surprising that Ayn Rand was not pro-life as well. The atheist Ayn Rand epitomizes the information found in this article: Atheism and uncharitableness. Conservative 09:54, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Xronia Polla! Kalo Pascha! Christos Anesti

I won't be on line tomorrow so I have to wish it to you today. Xronia Polla! Kalo Pascha! Christos Anesti! Maybe in the future, Orthodox Christians will not be overlooked by this site NicosB 02:45, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Questioning evolution in Melbourne?

I wonder what the question evolution campaigners thought of Cardinal George Pell's acceptance of evolution and an old Earth in his televised debate with Richard Dawkins a few nights ago BruceDownUnder 22:06, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

I can give you my view as a Bible believer. From the 1960s onward, the Roman Catholic Church in the West became more liberal and accepted liberal notions such as evolutionary nonsense, etc. During this period they had scandals and a declining membership. The same thing happened to liberal Protestant denominations in the West, but perhaps not as many high profile scandals. On the other hand, conservative churches have seen an increase for some time now and much of the church growth in the Eastern World is of a conservative Christianity makeup.[7][8] Part of the reason for the expansion of conservative churches has been evangelization and part of the reason has been demographics related to birth rates. See: Demographics and conservative churches. In addition, spiritually dead/weak churches generally lose members while Bible believing churches generally gain members. I am guessing that the Roman Catholic Church in Australia has accepted evolutionary nonsense for some time and has seen a decline in membership. Conservative 22:41, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
"During this period they had scandals and a declining membership." The Church is growing in the "west", not shrinking. The only declining group I see at my church is the little old bead counting ladies I serve early Mass. I don't think you want to know the real numbers for your "conservative" churches in North America and Europe, especially Calvinists and Southern Baptists if I recall correctly. "I am guessing that the Roman Catholic Church in Australia has accepted evolutionary nonsense for some time and has seen a decline in membership." You're guessing wrong. The Church continues to grow in Australia, is the largest Christian group, and thankfully educates the most children. Nonsense indeed, eh? Nate Nate 09:34, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

Nate, I realize that liberals/dogmatists such as yourself like to assert bogus claims without evidence, but that is not going to cut the mustard. The Roman Catholic Church is having a net loss of membership in the West and it would be losing membership in the United States if it not were for Mexican immigration which could decrease if the USA economy goes down further.

Here is a 8/2010 article from The Economist:

"But in many European places where Catholicism remained all-powerful until say, 1960, the church is losing whatever remains of its grip on society at an accelerating pace. The drop in active adherence to, and knowledge of, Christianity is a long-running and gentle trend; but the hollowing out of church structures—parishes, monasteries, schools, universities, charities—is more dramatic. That is the backdrop against which the paedophile scandal, now raging across Europe after its explosion in the United States, has to be understood. The church’s fading institutional power makes it (mercifully) easier for people who were abused by clerics to speak out; and as horrors are laid bare, the church, in many people’s eyes, grows even weaker."[9]

Here is an April 2011 article from the Vancouver Sun:

"The Catholic church is losing huge numbers of members. If ex-Catholics were their own denomination, they would make up the third largest denomination in the United States, according to The National Catholic Reporter.

Canadians have much to learn from a powerful new study released by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, which shows that one out every 10 Americans is now an ex-Catholic. {Scroll through my take on more Catholic church issues.}

“Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why. But the U.S. bishops have never devoted any time at their national meetings to discussing the exodus. Nor have they spent a dime trying to find out why it is happening,” writes Jesuit Father Thomas Reese. The former editor in chief of America, who is a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University in Washington, is working on a new book: Survival Guide for Thinking Catholics.

It will include his analysis of the Pew data showing that half those leaving the Catholic church remain unaffiliated, while the other half become Protestants. The latter group of ex-Catholics complain of a lack of spiritual nurture, while others disagree with Vatican policy on issues such as abortion and homosexuality. Surprisingly, perhaps, Reese notes that two-thirds of ex-Catholics become evangelicals."[10] Conservative 11:05, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

Brucedowunder, here is a very good article relating to your question: Voting with their feet. Conservative 19:56, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
Just to clarify for anyone trying to follow before the point of this conversation gets completely derailed as usual, this is about "Conservative's" claim that Catholic Church membership is declining in the "west" and in Australia. Simple stuff.
Both claims are false and nothing "Conservative" says here changes that. The point of the Economist article is to note major changes in the Church's decline in power as an institution in various countries. It mentions declining numbers of priests in Europe, which the Vatican is open about, but doesn't say anything concrete about declining Church membership in the "west". It's about a complicated change in a great number of people's views of their relationships with the Church and the Church's overall decline in power.
The Vancouver quote is bad for your claim that Catholic membership is declining in the "west".
Look at this basic info from the National Council of Churches 2011 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches. The Catholic Church gained membership in the United States in 2010 and remains the largest single denomination. Southern Baptists, United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran, Presbyterian, Missouri Lutheran, Episcopal, American Baptists, and United Church of Christ all lost members. The only growth looks like it was with pentacostal outfits like Assemblies of God and Church of God and whatever the Seventh Day Adventists are. Are these the "conservative" churches you keep mentioning? If not, look at this census info and see if you can shed some light on this.
As for anything you might call the "west", I believe the numbers reflect that the Catholic Church is growing in general - it's losing membership in Europe but gaining in Latin America/Caribbean and North America at a huge rate. It may be outpaced by other Christian groups, but it is simply false that its membership is declining.
As for the hateful personal stuff, I pray that God in His mercy will grant you respite from this suffering you bear so publicly. Peace be with you. Nate Nate 11:36, 16 April 2012 (EDT)
Nate, I suggest examining the article Western World. Secondly, I did indicate that the Roman Catholic Church would be having a net loss of parishioners in the United States if it were not for Mexican immigration (both legal and illegal). By the way, the percentage of people who are Catholics in Mexico is falling. [11] Conservative 22:13, 16 April 2012 (EDT)
Nate, one additional matter, when I think of evolutionism and atheism, it often brings a feeling of mirth due to its absurdness. It certainly does not produce suffering. You might want to reconsider your career in armchair psychological analysis and move on to more productive endeavors. :) Conservative 02:36, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
See Daniel1212 16:33, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

According to the Association of Religion Data Archives for 2010, American Roman Catholicism lost 5% of their membership: Association of Religion Data Archives for 2010 I am guessing in Europe the decline was steeper. Conservative 05:07, 7 May 2012 (EDT)

Stalking Horse

Hi, as a Brit I'm a bit lost with all the happenings in the republican campagian and was wondering if someone could clear up a few points for me. What happens to Rick's delagates now that he has left the race, ar ethey divided amongst the remain canidates? how does a stalking horse work? because as far as I can see from the (limited) infomation I have it looked like Rick drew more delegates away from Romney than the others. Thanks MBluth 13:37, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

There were no stalking horses in the race, just politicians with big egos who think they can win without adequate preparation. Newt Gingrich's former staff quit on him due to his lackadaisical attitude. It takes a workhorse to be president and being a show horse is not enough. A lot of money has to be raised plus you have to build an organization. Conservative 02:42, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
To answer the question, Santorum is considered to have won 285 delegates. Of these, 97 were non-binding anyway and can vote for whomever they choose. The remaining 188 are currently bound to vote for Santorum but he can decide to release them, in which case they too will be able to vote for anyone. Santorum can recommend they vote for one particular candidate (ie by endorsing one of his former rivals), but this would be non-binding on the delegates. -- Ferret Nice old chat 08:46, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
You're entitled to your opinion, "Conservative", but I should point out that Mr. Schlafly regards the matter quite differently. Are you denying that Conservapedia has been proven right in this instance? Perhaps you should have a more open mind on the subject. --JohanZ 14:18, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
In retrospect, since it is easier for a Democrat to gain favorable mainstream press and gain momentum easier, Democratic candidates don't have to put in as much work to be President and relatively unknown candidates can win presidential races such as Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. On the Republican side, however, Mitt Romney's 8 years of preparation to be president in terms of building an organization and cultivating donors is paying off. In 2020, however, I think socially conservative Republican candidates will better able to compete against moderate Republicans backed by money from business people as the mainstream media will be weaker (television and newspaper) and the demographics will be better for a social conservative due to the higher birth rates for religious conservatives.[12] Conservative 16:17, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
Thank you very much for the informative answer Ferret before conservative derailed the post as usual MBluth 09:52, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

Typo on main page

There is, however, a country called "Colombia." Perhaps Conservapedia needs a dictionary as badly as Obama needs a teleprompter. DVMRoberts 08:22, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

The article links to a goddess, not a South American country. DVMRoberts 09:27, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
Corrected. Karajou 09:34, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
Do you see the irony in a front-page headline about somebody's grammatical errors being two inches away from a spelling mistake? DVMRoberts 09:38, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
And your point is? Karajou 09:45, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," or "the pot calling the kettle black." You choose. DVMRoberts 11:01, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

Right now it sounds more and more like you're then one with his hands on the stone. Karajou 11:07, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
DV, your first quote is apocryphal. See Essay:Adulteress Story. Or does someone need to be "without sin" to cite the Bible?--Andy Schlafly 11:18, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
Oh, right, you're the guy who thinks forgiveness isn't a core Christian value and re-wrote the Bible to reflect that. DVMRoberts 11:54, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

More proof that global warning is a hoax

[13] JonnyAmerican 15:37, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

Pippa Middleton

This is not about gun control advocacy that's not mentioned in the article. This is about gun safety. Every parent here needs to seriously consider the answer to this question - what would you do if you saw your daughter in a car next to a boy pointing a pistol at someone with his finger on the trigger? The only worse gun safety is Russian roulette. Pippa Middleton is in line to be queen and the boy could have been arrested so it's no wonder you'd see an article about people expressing their concern. If they were just regular people, it wouldn't be in the news because all you'd have is a dad like me beating the snot out of that kid for being so careless. Nate 01:59, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

I think Pippa Middleton is pretty far down the line of're thinking of Kate, her sister. EricAlstrom 08:41, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
Pippa is so far down it that I am higher. Unless she marries Harry then she will never get to the throne. However Nate's point is TOTALLY valid. France has just suffered a series of high profile attacks by gunmen which killed several people. It is NOTHING to do with gun control to criticise this insanity that her friends indulged in and everything to do with good sense, logic and obeying the law. The only shame is that a passing - armed incidentally - French policeman did not see them and shot them on the spot. Davidspencer 08:54, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
You last sentence is obviously inappropriate, and what preceded it is not much better. Gun control is in denial about how more than 99% of guns are properly used for self defense, and widespread ownership of guns is essential to a free society. Europe's history demonstrates what can happen after gun control is allowed (genocide).--Andy Schlafly 09:52, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
You know that the Nazis actually relaxed controls on handguns and entirely abolished them on long barrelled weapons, right? --LaikaT 17:56, 19 April 2012 (EDT)
My last sentence was self-evidently flippant. However the fact is that this ladies companion was breaking French law. The French police are on high alert right now after the recent events in which several people have been murdered by gun wielding muslim terrorists. It was the height of silliness to do what her companion did and condemnation of that has nothing to do with gun control - France is a country in which hunting is as widespread as the US - and everything to do with pointing out her companion's stupid actions. Were someone to drive along Pennsylvania Avenue doing the same thing would your attitude be as liberal towards them? Davidspencer 10:02, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
I was wrong. I guess that's what happens when those royals were ever your kings and queens. Anyhow. Mr. Schafly, please tell me what you'd do if you saw your child near a boy pointing a gun at someone with his finger on the trigger? Would you criticize yourself for being a gun control advocate for admitting he scared the heck out of you? That kind of total disregard for gun safety is harrowing. Nate 10:18, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

"Strong men more likely to vote Conservative"

A news article that'll interest the Conservapedia community. Might be worth putting it on the front page.

"Physically strong men are more likely to hold right wing political views because they believe society should be geared to personal struggle and self-preservation, an academic study claims."

HumanGeographer 12:01, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

In the Western World, most liberals are evolutionists and most atheists are liberals plus most homosexuals are liberals (See: Evolution and liberalism and Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality). Of course, given your study this means that most liberals/evolutionists/atheists/homosexuals are weaklings and wimps. :) In addition, this also means: Since most young earth creationist are conservatives that young earth creationist are more likely to be he-men and have machismo (this certainly explains why Chuck Norris is a conservative and a young earth creationist. See also: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?). :) And lets not forget that most atheists are nerds and most nerds are weaklings and wimps. :) Is it any wonder that a decline of atheism is occurring partly due to the atheist community having a lower birth rate than the religious conservatives community? :) Atheists lack machismo and couples with men who lack machismo have less kids! (see: Decline of atheism and Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?). :) And let's not forget how the study relates to atheism and obesity. :) Of course, this study you referred to is a gold mine of satire concerning atheism.  :) Conservative 13:35, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
An addendum: One of the most vociferous opponents of the atheist and evolutionist PZ Myers is the internet Christian apologist Ken Ammi who has written a collection of essays concerning the follies of PZ Myers at his website True Free Thinker.[14]In January of 2011, Ken Ammi became a National Fitness Examiner for the internet news organization the Examiner.[15] See also: Essay: Professor PZ Myers fails his applied biology course and Atheism and obesity. :) Conservative 14:33, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
Here is the: Atheism anthem Of course, this goes a long way to explain Friedrich Nietzsche's Übermensch (Superman). Nietzsche was an atheist Walter Mitty who secretly longed to be a Christian creationist filled with machismo! (Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?). Conservative 15:41, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
Indeed Conservative, I'm familiar with your essays. I just thought you might want to include an academic example to add credibility to your juxtaposition of anecdotal examples, hence why I pasted the link. HumanGeographer 16:48, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
Upcoming satire: Essay: Atheists are scrawny weaklings and fat slobs Conservative 11:38, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

Hello user conservative. I’d say you seemed pleased by the findings of the Daily Telegraph article. What are your views on this Daily Mail article? (For those of you outside the U.K., the Daily Mail is the tabloid equivalent of the right leaning ‘Telegraph’.)

It doesn’t contradict the findings of the Telegraph article but addresses the question of intelligence in our political affiliations. What are your views? EJamesW 14:59, 20 April 2012 (EDT)

Obama borrowing from the Stalinist playbook

"to curb speculation and rehabilitate the market by striking at the speculators and the kulaks who engaged in speculation, by setting in motion the laws against speculation in articles of mass consumption." Rob Smith 15:07, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

Viva la biblical creationism

Just a gentle prod that "viva" is Spanish and not French. I believe the correct translation would be "vive", the second-person singular imperative of the infinitive "vivre", but it would be best to check it with a native or advanced French speaker.

I do hope that your French blog won't be written half in Spanish, else it won't have much use for anyone outside of Catalonia! ;) HumanGeographer 08:35, 20 April 2012 (EDT)

Yup, that's right. "Viva la biblical creationism" means "Long live biblical creationism" in Spanish, and "Vive la biblical creationism" means "Long live biblical creationism" in French. Someone should change that. JonnyAmerican 08:42, 20 April 2012 (EDT)
Also, French and Spanish versions of words ending -ism tend to be masculine, so the appropriate definite article would be le (French) or el (Spanish) rather than la.--CPalmer 08:45, 20 April 2012 (EDT)
So, the completely correct phrase would be "Vive le créationnisme biblique", which means "Long Live the Biblical Creationism".JonnyAmerican 09:08, 20 April 2012 (EDT)
Just to throw another thing in the mix, Allez is another good idiom. So you could say, for example: Allez biblical creationism! Allez the Question Evolution! campaign! Allez svelte Francophone Bible believers!--CPalmer 09:22, 20 April 2012 (EDT)
Out of interest, what is the rates of French learning in the States? Of course France is far away and due to large migration from Latin America, Spanish is obviously more popular, but with Quebec on the doorstep of New York state and above, or there must be some demand for it. HumanGeographer 10:33, 20 April 2012 (EDT)

In French, we say "vive," not "viva." 2. "Créationnisme" in French is a masculine-gendered noun, so it should be preceded with "le," and not "la." Merci bien, et bonne chance. Sylvain 11:27, 20 April 2012 (EDT)

Je viens de noter que quelqu'un a déja mentionné les erreurs en question. Mes excuses. Sylvain 11:29, 20 April 2012 (EDT)
Thanks. Corrected. Conservative 12:11, 20 April 2012 (EDT)

HumanGeographer, I never said the Swiss/French blog was my blog.

Second, as you can see, America needs to have much more commercial engagement with the world and increase its exports and foreign language learning would be a by product of that. America should have a positive balance of trade and not a negative one. The USA should practice a more export driven economy like Germany and China. A big reason why the USA Federal deficit and the USA unemployment rate are so high is that America does not export enough goods/services. I also think Americans need to produce/save more and consume less, if it is going to get out of its financial hole.

Third, under a intellectually lazy, golf playing and liberal elitist Barack Obama, who does not understand the basics when it comes to economics, business and the private sector, America significantly moving more toward a export model of economic development will never happen. Obama is obsessed with how to slice up and redistribute the American economic pie rather than how to make the USA economic pie bigger. As Kennedy said, "A rising tide lifts all boats". Conservative 12:36, 20 April 2012 (EDT)

Under Obama American exports to Europe have actually increased: Chevrolets are now available as a cheap, unattractive but functional car brand for people who can't afford a Skoda. The real problem is the corporations who make things in America. With the exception of aircraft, most of the stuff you produce just isn't that good.--LaikaT 13:38, 20 April 2012 (EDT)
Ah I just assumed that you might run the French one or have ties to it since you run the English language one. My mistake. Bringing the topic back to languages again, do you believe that US citizens should then all learn a second language if world trade is to increase? HumanGeographer 15:09, 20 April 2012 (EDT)
Laika, I/we never said I was an American. Second, I/we don't believe USA exports have increased significantly under the Obama administration. Obama seems focused on wealth distribution, engaging in his wars, promoting homosexuality and playing golf and taking vacations. Obama is LBJ 2.0/Carter 2.0/leftist liberal elitist all rolled into one. Conservative 15:27, 20 April 2012 (EDT)
"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu

HumanGeographer, America is doing poorly in education as a whole whether it is formal education or self-education in comparison to many developed countries. As long as there is Democrats or moderate Republicans in the executive/legislative branches of the federal government and state governments, this is probably not going to change. Pain can be a great motivator and America may have to go through economic hardship for any significant educational reform to happen. Also, if the federal government and state governments have less money, they will have less power. Bloated deficits will eventually come home to roost as Greece has shown so one way or another, these governments will have less power in many cases. Lastly, I/we never said that I/we run the English blog in question. Conservative 15:39, 20 April 2012 (EDT)

Effectivement, oui. Depuis la fin de la grande rćession de 2008, il y a eu une forte hausse en exportations pour les Etats Unis. Voici des donnés qui montre que les exportations sont à leur meilleur niveau dans tout l'histoire du pays. Mais il faut toujours rappler que les importations ont continué de monter à un taux encore plus élevé, qui veut dire qu'il reste encore une forte imbalance de commerce pour le pays. Sylvain 15:53, 20 April 2012 (EDT)

(Translation: Actually, yes. Since the end of the great recession of 2008, there was a sharp increase in exports by the United States. There are statistics that show that exports are at their best in all the country's history. But also it has to be remembered that imports continued to rise at an even higher rate, which means there is still a strong imbalance of trade for the country. --Joaquín Martínez 18:19, 20 April 2012 (EDT))

User:Conservative, could you please stop this silly I/we are male/female(s) farce? Reading your comments the only question I have is whether you are twelve years old! AugustO 16:22, 20 April 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, we are not amused by your last post. "Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu Conservative 16:44, 20 April 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, congratulations, my fate seems to be in your hand, as your comments aren't sound anymore... AugustO 17:02, 20 April 2012 (EDT)
It is hard to take Conservative seriously when we know so little about his gender, nationality, city or even name. I actually rather respect Andy Schnafly and Terry Hurlbut since they are real people who are passionate about what they do, whether or not I am aligned with their views (one does not necessarily need to agree with someone to respect them). The only things we can be sure about is that based on the content of his/her/their essays, Conservative seems to know an awful lot about atheism, homosexuality and bestiality! (Joke!) HumanGeographer 17:59, 20 April 2012 (EDT)
HumanGeographer, you are committing the genetic fallacy. If you could be more logical, I/we would be indebted to you. :) Second, someone with good research skills and an ability to weigh evidence can write material about things they previously knew little about. Is there some content that I/we wrote that is incorrect? If so, what is the material and why exactly is it incorrect? My/our liberal critics appear to be unable to show a single factual error in my/our content at this time which must be very frustrating for them. :) Conservative 21:38, 20 April 2012 (EDT)
Unfortunately we are all human and when we view others, we prefer to think of them as a human being that we can identify with, as opposed to a name that could mean a genderless person or group of people! The main reason that I'm not particularly interested in the content of your essays which tend to revolve around a single anecdotal example (an arbitary obese athiest, etc) rather than taking a topic and being insigtful or informative. Hence why I thought you might have been interested in that study of conservative voters being more macho. HumanGeographer 15:47, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

Main Page

For the first time that I can remember the main page looks respectable, without silly gifs and over-the-top announcements! I like it... AugustO 09:28, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

I am sure members of former ideologies didn't like "over-top announcements". By the way, is your evolution loving denomination still shrinking? Conservative 09:33, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, Don't me so mean. First, Matthew 7:1- “Do not judge, or you too will be judged." Second, stop thinking that EVERY European denomination are liberal evolutionists! They're not. JonnyAmerican 09:57, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
Johny, you don't understand that Bible verse. Jesus said, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." (John 7:24) Please read the article HERE. Lastly, your other statement is also incorrect as I/we did mention that the Evangelical Free church in Germany, which is a biblical creation believing church, is growing in Germany. Conservative 12:52, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
Ok, I see your point about the verse. But, you just called User:AugustO's church a shrinking, evolution loving denomination 3 posts ago and now you say it's a growing, biblical creation believing church! JonnyAmerican 13:00, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
Thank you User:Conservative for reminding me to return and read that bible verse again. I found this section of Matthew 7:2-5 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?" particularly enlightening. Have you read it recently? Davidspencer 15:08, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

Indeed, User:Conservative, you made the statement about the Evangelical Free church in Germany before. You even thanked me for letting me know more about the German church situation. And do you remember that your claim was somewhat incorrect? AugustO 13:32, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

August), is your denomination still shrinking? I see you tried to dodge that question. Do certain churches in your denomination still do "blessings" of homosexual "marriages"? Do certain churches in your denomination ordain women pastors? Lastly, I was mistaken about how far down on the slope your denomination currently is, but your denomination does have a problem with "truth decay" and it is definitely on the slope as a whole. By the way, we both know that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists, don't we? Conservative 14:01, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, one other matter: The denomination you belong to is the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck. What is your church denomination's history in relation to the evolutionist Adolf Hitler/Nazi Party and in relation to the Confessing Church in Germany (which opposed Nazism at the time)? Conservative 14:27, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

I like the look of the current Main Page too. A Monet picture is much more aesthetic then what is usually up there. Btw: User:Conservative you forgot to add the "we" to the "I" ;-)--VPropp 14:37, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

Speaking of the Main Page: THIS article might be of interest. It reports about the christian background of the producers of the hugely popular and successful Kony 2012 campaign--VPropp 14:40, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

VPropp, if User: Conservative is a collective, individual members could certainly use the singular at times. In fact, it could be preferable to create variance and unpredictability. :) "Those skilled at uncommon maneuvers are as endless as the heavens and earth, and as inexhaustible as the rivers and seas. Like the sun and the moon, they set and rise again.Like the four seasons, they pass and return again. There are no more than five musical notes, yet the variations in the five notes cannot all be heard.There are no more than five basic colors, yet the variations in the five colors cannot all be seen. There are no more than five basic flavors, yet the variations in the five flavors cannot all be tasted." - Sun Tzu Conservative 15:18, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
Unfortunately a very basic discourse analysis testifies against that. Your style of writing overwhelmingly reveals that you are a single person, male and American! HumanGeographer 15:53, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

No internet atheists has experienced me/us with their 5 physical senses. According to "atheist logic", I/we don't exist. :) Conservative 20:12, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

  • August), is your denomination still shrinking? I see you tried to dodge that question. One could call this a lie, as I've answered the question earlier: the EKKW has at the moment perhaps 900,000 members. At the end of the decade, there may be 50,000 - 100,000 less, due to the demographic development here in Germany (see here)
  • Do certain churches in your denomination still do "blessings" of homosexual "marriages"? no
  • Do certain churches in your denomination ordain women pastors? yes
  • Lastly, I was mistaken about how far down on the slope your denomination currently is, but your denomination does have a problem with "truth decay" and it is definitely on the slope as a whole. I don't follow your telediagnosis. The EKKW may have problems, but neither are you able to spot them, nor to give advice
  • By the way, we both know that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists, don't we? The question can be answered satisfactorily for any reasonable, science-oriented youth, just not for you as your standards are so arbitrary: e.g., you often answer question directed to yourself with random quotes, often in foreign languages (and even foreign alphabets).
  • The denomination you belong to is the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck. What is your church denomination's history in relation to the evolutionist Adolf Hitler/Nazi Party and in relation to the Confessing Church in Germany (which opposed Nazism at the time)? That's a very complex matter: there were those within the Church who burdened themselves with great guilt, others who acted heroically: the Bekennende Kirche is not something which happened on the level of a Landeskirche, but on the level of the individual Gemeinden. But I think that this matter can't be presented in the simplistic way you need to fit your weltanschauung. What was the position of your Church when it came to slavery in the 1850s?

AugustO 08:54, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, you wrote: "the EKKW has at the moment perhaps 900,000 members. At the end of the decade, there may be 50,000 - 100,000 less, due to the demographic development here in Germany". It appears as if many in the EKKW are not into evangelism nor are they into having children. Second, did the bulk of the EKKW go along with the Nazi program or where they involved in the Confessing Church which resisted Hitler instead? I do realize that liberals often take the "that's a complex question" dodge so you may not want to answer that question. Conservative 16:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
Frankly, I see no need in discussing my personal beliefs with someone who hasn't even the courtesy to state his/her sex or numerus. Why did you dodge my question about your church's position to slavery in the 1850s? AugustO 16:08, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, Thomas Sowell wrote in an essay entitled Ending slavery: "The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called "the religious right" and its organization was created by conservative businessmen."Ending slavery Second, although I have attended denominational churches and have much in agreement with various Christian denominations, I am inclined to be non-denominational in my theological outlook which is in accordance with 1 Corinthians 1:13. Conservative 16:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
Are you speaking for all of your personas? AugustO 16:18, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
Actually, as far as 1 Corinthians 1:13, I/we are quoting the Apostle Paul, which might not make sense to someone who belongs to denomination where the bulk of people were for Nazism or did not actively resist it (instead of belong the Confessing Church) and whose members cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists. In short, I/we are not merely giving my/our opinion but citing the Word of God which is supported by a great deal of evidence. Conservative 16:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
I wasn't asking about 1 Corinthians 1:13, but about you being non-denominational. That should have been obvious. But obviously you prefer to dodge the question. AugustO 16:23, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
I revised my last post. Conservative 16:27, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, I/we noticed you used the term "someone" in referring to User: Conservative. We/I remind you to you it still has not be granted for you to know if User: Conservative is one or many. Conservative 16:43, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

I won't discuss serious subjects with you as long you are upholding your silly charade. You have the habit to attack my denomination and my beliefs, while you are hiding behind a childish smokescreen. This is disingenuous. AugustO 16:40, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, I see you are unable to successfully launch an effective criticism on the validity of Bible believing Protestantism of a conservative theological character whereas I/we find it easy to criticize the EKKW's theology and practices. Conservative 17:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
That you find it easy to criticize the EKKW doesn't make your critic substantial. I find it amusing that you try to smear the current EKKW by trying to find problems in her history, while your congregation has no history at all... AugustO 17:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
JohanZ, failure to spill one's guts and provide liberal reams of unnecessary information is hardly a vice. And there have been plenty of beloved figures in history/story who have not disclosed every bit of information about themselves. Are you saying the Lone Ranger, Superman, Zorro and Batman were liberals or were unseemly due to their lack of full disclosure about their identities? Superman fought for "truth, justice and the American way". Batman with his mansion, dignified butler Alfred, and law enforcement friends seemed rather conservative as well. Wham! Pow! Crash! Kapow! It looks like liberals lost this round as well. Besides, we all know that conservative woman such as Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann have more machismo than liberal men who love the Nanny State.Conservative 19:48, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
Did you just compare your penchant for escaping honest debate by resorting to ad hominem attacks to random acts of vigilante justice dispensed by masked men in spandex? Wow, just wow... By the way, given your obsession with homosexuality, you may want to take a closer look at the "professional" relationship between batman and his twinky houseboy sidekick, Robin. --JHunter 20:02, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

I/we understand that weak liberals want everything for free instead of earning it and want me/us to provide free information about myself/ourselves, but conservatives understand that many things in life you have to earn. I/we suggest doing things to gain User: Conservative's favor if you want information about User: Conservative. :) So start doing things you think will gain my/our and I/we will let you know if you have done sufficient things to gain my/our favor. :) Conservative 20:18, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

So you live according to a worldview whereby honesty must be earned instead of expected? If obfuscation is your default state, it certainly explains the outright fabrications gross factual errors with which much of your writing is saturated. --JHunter 21:10, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
You must be the person who recently was kicked in the shins after rifling though a woman's purse on the street. The reason I say this is because you appear not to comprehend the concepts of privacy/full disclosure/honesty. I suggest using Word Dynamo to help ameloriate this personal problem of yours. Conservative 21:56, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
  • I didn't expect Conservapedia to be populated by comic characters (Lone Ranger, Superman, Zorro and Batman) - and even for those it is known what sex they have - and how many they are! Interestingly, their religion often stays somewhat vague - as does yours, User:Conservative
  • "The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called "the religious right" and its organization was created by conservative businessmen." And there were no members of the religious right opposing abolition - and no conservative businessmen involved in the slave trade?

AugustO 01:00, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, if you have evidence about the slavery issue, then present it. In the meantime, I know this is true: "A new campaign by the National Bible Association to encourage Bible reading highlights the influence the Holy Book had on slave abolitionist William Wilberforce and other freedom heroes." [16] I also know that the evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler received support and acquiescence from evolution believing German "churches" so he could carry out his master race ideas. Since you are a German evolutionists, I thought I would once again remind you of that. By the way, perhaps these will be translated into German. That would be wunderbar, no? Conservative 01:37, 23 April 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, I have no evidence, I have questions about those in whose tradition you see yourself:
  • what part of the "religious right" of its days was involved in the anti-slavery movement?
  • how many conservative businessmen opposed slavery, and how many conservative businessmen had a financial interest in it?
AugustO 02:49, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

Chuck Colson dead

[17] Rob Smith 22:24, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

'"Remarkable increase in the rate of" large earthquakes...'

Wow, talk about misleading. I had to Google the story since there no link was provided, and now I see why. The quotemined phrase "remarkable increase in the rate of" does not refer to large earthquakes at all, but small quakes in the magnitude 3.0 range which are only just strong enough to be felt, and very rarely cause any damage. They are considered to be "Minor" earthquakes. The strongest reported was 4.0 which is barely into the "Light" range.

And the full context of the quote makes it clear that these small quakes are man made, not natural, thus it is no surprise that they are increasing, given increase in drilling activity in those areas:

“A remarkable increase in the rate of (magnitude 3) and greater earthquakes is currently in progress,” Ellsworth and his colleagues wrote in a summary of the study.

“While the seismicity rate changes described here are almost certainly manmade, it remains to be determined how they are related to either changes in extraction methodologies or the rate of oil and gas production,”[18]

I also don't see anyone denying that this is happening, since the press has been reporting on this particular phenomenon for a while now, as scientists have been conducting studies into it.

Regarding truly 'large earthquakes' -- i.e. those 7.0 and above, the numbers have been dancing around the long term average of 18 (including "great earthquakes") for decades now. But even if there was a trend upwards, the fact that small man made earthquakes are happening more frequently in areas where they are drilling for oil and gas is certainly not evidence for an upswing in the frequency of large earthquakes worldwide. MarkJW 16:22, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

I have to agree with MarkJW. Especially introducing the word "large" is dishonest, as no large earthquakes were observed in the area under discussion. AugustO 11:52, 23 April 2012 (EDT)
I changed "large" to "significant". This is nitpicky tweaking.
The claim that these earthquakes are manmade is pure speculation, and highly implausible.--Andy Schlafly 12:59, 23 April 2012 (EDT)
  • I personally prefer a significant earthquake of magnitude 3 over a large one of magnitude 6 and higher. But perhaps that is nitpicking, too...
  • Pure speculation? Tell that to the inhabitants of Basel!
AugustO 14:05, 23 April 2012 (EDT)
Or to the people who live around Blackpool here in the UK. Davidspencer 15:43, 23 April 2012 (EDT)
That human activities, such as "fracking" or underground nuclear testing (which no longer happens in this country), have been known to induce seismic events since at least the late sixties. Also, a higher rate of detection (especially for smaller quakes in remote areas), as well as other systematic artifacts of detection methods are also known to be at least partially responsible for the apparent increase in earthquake frequency. --JHunter 15:37, 23 April 2012 (EDT)
The frequency of earthquakes are definitely on the rise. How many Tsunamis have we heard of 20 years ago? Man made earthquakes? I am sure that is pure speculation.--OconnorM 03:19, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

Chris Mooney's Book

Has anyone read that book yet?

18:38, 22 April 2012 (EDT)


See, most of us understand that the reason the rich pay more taxes than a lot of people is that stuff needs to be done and the rich can afford to pay for it. Or are you seriously endorsing taking money from people at or below the poverty line? Perhaps instead of simply saying how much of the tax the rich supply, you should also mention the specific amount they pay as opposed to how much they can afford. (For instance, 50 percent of the Gate's fortune is going to cover a heck of a lot more than fifty percent of a construction worker's income). KomatsuToriko 20:35, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

The United States operated fine when it had no federal income taxes. Generally speaking, when you tax something it suppresses that activity. Suppressing income generating activity is not intelligent during a time of high unemployment. The Bahamas are some of the most prosperous islands in the Caribbean and they have no income tax, no corporate tax, no capital gains tax and no wealth tax. Besides having a tourism industry, the Bahamas has a well established financial services industry. In terms of GDP per capita, the Bahamas is one of the richest countries in the Americas. Hey mon, it's time you recognized the great benefits of economic conservatism! Conservative 20:56, 24 April 2012 (EDT)
The United States government relied heavily on tariffs when it had no income tax, which would be even more disastrous than income taxes considering the role of the United States in trade deals like NAFTA. The Bahamas are an incredibly poor example, as their GDP doesn't reflect the reality for situation (as is often the case with just a bare GDP). Their GINI coefficient is .57, an incredibly high amount and reflects the reality: a large group of poor with a few rich people to tip the scales. So yes, the Bahamas has a system that benefits a rich minority, but hurts a large poor majority. If that's your idea of prosperity, congrats. However, some of us recognize that the government should serve all the people, rather than just the rich. KomatsuToriko

Just because some people are wealthy does not mean others are hurt. United Nations report year 2000: "The poverty rate in the Bahamas has declined from about 9 percent in 1993 to about 5 percent, which is low by international standards and points to an improved economy. The United Nations Human Development Report 2000 ranks the Bahamas high in human development, placing it at number 33 in the world. This ranking is based on a combination of per capita income, standard of living, and access to health care, education, and so forth."[19] I do understand that liberals often like to covet thy neighbors stuff so it must be infuriating to watch re-runs of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous - especially when they featured wealthy people in the tropical paradise of the Bahamas! As far as I know, many people in the United States on welfare have cable television and many of them are overweight so they are not exactly suffering! Conservative 21:20, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Did you even read the link you posted? The conditions you speak of are true for the richer citizens living in the urban areas such as Nassau. However, the poorer islanders live in situations that would not be considered living comfortably, which amneties lacking. Again, you are talking about a polar world where the rich are rich enough to make it look like an overall healthy place and covering up the poor. The poverty rate is again up to 9 percent as of 2004. Again, this is an example of a very divided nation in terms of economic status. Your mined quotes don't provide for the totality of the situation. And quite frankly, I wouldn't trust your knowledge of those on welfare, considering the knowledge you have displayed on other subjects (hint: being overweight is a sign of poverty, as the food that is cheapest and easiest to get in the United States is high in fat). KomatsuToriko 21:43, 24 April 2012 (EDT)
Beans, rice and vegetables are inexpensive and exercise is free. Nobody forces overweight people on welfare to sit in front of their tax payer payed cable television programs and eat fatty foods! Given your posting above though, I can see you have a political lottery mentality and are hoping to strike it big with heavy taxes on the incomes of Bill Gates and others. I suggest getting out of bed earlier instead because judging the size of America's debt, the austerity budgets that are happening in Europe are coming to America! Weep and wail liberal, there will be no economic free lunches for you! Conservative 22:00, 24 April 2012 (EDT)
I found an interesting article by Stewart and Blisard which argues that extra money given to the poor to spend on food goes towards beef and frozen prepared meals, and that dollars are spent on fruit and vegetable consumption just above 130 percent of the poverty line, which is the cut-off for SNAP. That is, fruits and vegetables are seen as a luxury that only gets phased in at higher incomes. Thus for whatever reason, poor persons choose to spend less money on healthy foods that satisfy all the parts of the food pyramids, and so poverty can serve as an explanatory variable for obesity, as KT suggests. GregG 13:56, 25 April 2012 (EDT)
  • sigh* Again, your essentialist views of welfare recipients demonstrates both an incredible lack of empathy and an incredible lack of knowledge of what life is like for said individuals. Instead of characterizing them all as lazy, perhaps you could take the time to actually explore the situation. Good day sir. KomatsuToriko 22:09, 24 April 2012 (EDT)
Did User: Conservative say that all people on welfare are lazy or are you making that up? Usually, when a debate opponent makes things up that his/her opponent said, it is a sign they lost the debate very badly. Also, if you think taxing the very wealthy heavily is going to solve America's problems, think again. The rich have options and can live whereever they wish. For example, "Last year, almost 1,800 people followed Superman’s lead, renouncing their U.S. citizenship or handing in their Green Cards. That’s a record number since the Internal Revenue Service began publishing a list of those who renounced in 1998. It’s also almost eight times more than the number of citizens who renounced in 2008, and more than the total for 2007, 2008 and 2009 combined. Since Obama’s election, more people are choosing to leave the country. Last year, a record number renounced their citizenship."[20] Lastly, no true skeptic knows if User: Conservative is a male or female or a collective! Conservative 22:38, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

This debate might be winding down, but I'd like to add in a great quote I heard once - "When you're not paying for dinner, you'll always order steak." When half of the country pays no (federal income) tax, it becomes hard to reduce waste and make tough decisions, since their net marginal utility can only go down. That's why no one is serious about the deficit (Congress included). I don't care if it's $10 or $10M, if everyone gets societal benefits, everyone should have skin in the game. </rant> EricAlstrom 13:47, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

I just saw this, but this is relevant: 5.4 Million Join Disability Rolls Under Obama Daniel1212 20:03, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

Romney: Snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory so early?

Is Romney snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory so soon with his openly homosexual spokesman? Many evangelical Christian conservatives who are social conservatives may decide to stay home on election day.

Unless the economy tanks further or Romney can increase his fundraising, Obama could win in 2012. The Federal Reserve will be trying to pump up the economy but the Eurozone economy could easily get worse before the election and negatively effect the USA economy which would deny Obama a second term. Obama has a Eurozone "war room" now below the US Treasury building.

Intrade has Obama with a 60% re-election chance, but I think its closer to 50/50 due to the risk the Eurozone poses to the US economy. Conservative 03:32, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

Are you in favour of not employing someone just because he is a homosexual? Isn't that discrimination? --OconnorM 03:16, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
Are you in favor of not taking into account a person's moral character when applying for a job? Also, do you have any proof and evidence that homosexuality is not an immoral choice? For example, have you found a gay gene? If it is a choice, is a bad and immoral choice? See: Homosexuality and choice and Ex-homosexuals. Also, are you an atheist and do you have proof and evidence that atheism is true? The reason I ask is that the Bible, which says homosexuality is an immoral and bad choice, has plenty of proof and evidence as can be seen HERE and HEREConservative 16:48, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

He resigned.[21] It looks like he wasn't the best man for the job! Conservative 21:22, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

"Perhaps God does have a sense of humor"

God probably does, but I apparently don't. Could someone explain the Andrew Luck Main Page joke to me? EricAlstrom 13:34, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

Seconded, right now it just seems like an obscure in joke. MBluth 14:41, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

Thomas Jefferson's religious beliefs, Dr. Kennedy at WorldNetDaily plus the website

Thomas Jefferson's religious beliefs, Dr. Kennedy at WorldNetDaily:, Jefferson's religious beliefs:

If Jefferson ever was a Christian, it appears as if he left Christianity later in life. It also appears as if he was not hostile to others practicing Christianity or government acts recognizing the existence of God Conservative 18:42, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

How 'bout that Tim Thomas?

Leading the Bruins all the way to a first-round collapse. Awesome performance there. Sylvain 22:44, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

Obama and church attendance

I found this article interesting in light of the headline on mainpageleft about Obama's church attendance. It seems that Presidents rarely attend church services while in office for many reasons, including security concerns and turning a worship service into a media event. (Personally, I'm interested in the churchgoing habits of John F. Kennedy, whose Catholic faith requires mass attendance on Sundays.) GregG 00:56, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

Good story for the Main Page

Corrupt Democrat Tim Holden (D, Pennsylvania) lost his seat Tuesday in the primary, because of his cash-for-bills favors to polluters. Good job![22]. --JanW 13:53, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

Wikipedia Redefining the Abortion Debate

The headline on the main page - and the article it cites - are misleading. The Wikipedia discussion referenced in the article isn't about redefining the term "pro-life." Although it is about possibly changing the terminology used to describe the two sides of the abortion debate, a change which would likely make the pro-life side look worse. --Randall7 20:43, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

Angry Queers’ smash church windows in Portland

PORTLAND, OREGON, April 26, 2012, ( – A homosexual activist group calling itself “Angry Queers” claimed responsibility for smashing nine windows in a church known for teaching traditional sexual morality early Tuesday morning.

“Upon arriving at the church, we discovered nine separate windows had been smashed in with rocks, including two beautiful 100-year-old stained glass windows,” wrote Tim Smith, pastor of the Portland campus of Mars Hill Church. “We estimate the damage to be several thousand dollars.”

The vandals sent an e-mail to local television station KOIN-TV stating they took the action, because “Mars Hill is notoriously anti-gay and anti-woman.”

Church members say they hold to “traditional Bible-based views on homosexuality.”

Eyewitnesses told police they saw six young men wearing “dark, mask-like partial face coverings” flee the scene around 2:30 a.m.

“This certainly saddens us greatly as our pastors in Portland have made many efforts to build relationships with the homosexual community in Portland,” Smith said. “Even though they chose to destroy our property and scare away people trying to worship Jesus, we wish them no harm.” [23]

Also, ````

I wouldn't be surprised if they are also militant atheists and they are upset that women don't like them. You see atheists lack machismo and that may be a big part of the reason why many turn to homosexuality in the first place! Conservative 15:03, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
Is this even on topic?brenden

Brazilian doctors: disabled unborn babies will either be cut to pieces or torn apart with aspirator

April 20, 2012 ( - In the wake of a decision by the nation’s Supreme Federal Tribunal determining that babies suffering from the birth defect known as anencephaly aren’t “legally” alive, and therefore can be freely aborted, Brazilian doctors are explaining to the media how such babies will in fact be killed under the new legal regime.

In a recent interview with Brazil’s most popular news magazine, Veja, the Vice-President of the Federal Council on Medicine, Dr. Carlos Vital, explained that doctors will have two choices: either “curettage” or “aspiration.”

Abortions of ancephalic babies will be performed in the second or third trimester.

A curettage abortion uses a loop-shaped knife to cut the child to pieces, and then scrape his body and placenta from the uterine wall. An aspiration abortion uses powerful suction to tear the child apart, and likewise separate him from his mother. [24] Daniel1212 16:38, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

Anencephaly, by the way, is a birth defect where the fetus is born without the main portion of the brain, skull and scalp. The child has only a brain stem and a small amount of brain matter, usually not even covered by skin or bone. The majority of such infants are stillborn, and the rest die within days. The infants are incapable of thinking or feeling pain. Forcing women to take such infants to term, especially since the syndrome can be diagnosed as early as 11 weeks into a pregnancy, is cruel and futile. TaylorS 18:50, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
This is wrong - life begins at conception. A newly fertilised egg has no brain but is still a human being. At what point are these so-called "doctors" claiming the soul departs? BruceDownUnder 10:14, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
They are not "so-called" doctors. They are doctors, and they are quite aware of the issues involved here. These infants are going to die without ever having a conscious thought anyway, and while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, nobody should be forced to go through the danger of childbirth knowing with certainty that the child will die within minutes of birth.
And it may seem impossible to believe, but not everyone believes that a fertilized egg should be considered a human being. The female body rejects about two thirds of fertilized eggs without ever implanting them, and yet nobody accuses them of unconsciously murdering a human being. Nobody knows when a fetus receives a soul, or even if the soul exists apart from as a philosophical concept. It is a subject for debate as to whether God would give a soul to a infant incapable of thought or feeling pain. TaylorS 14:54, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
Oh please, nobody is suggesting that the natural processes of a female body rejecting fertilised eggs is "unconscious murder".BruceDownUnder 20:25, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

"Car emissions claim more lives than road accidents"

This may be true, if you believe the liberal Click Green organization, but let's look at this objectively. These emissions may take a few years off of some people's lives - 13,000 premature deaths in the UK is the number claimed by the article - but this doesn't compare to a much more harmful practice: abortion. Abortion claims about 42 million lives per year worldwide (well over 1 million in the U.S.) [25]. And these are full lives, not just slightly premature deaths. Maybe we should put things into perspective instead of vilifying the transportation industry. --BaileyJ 22:01, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

Great point. Thanks for your insight.--Andy Schlafly 22:18, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

What does abortion have to do with car emissions? MickeyD 10:22, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Dan Savage video

For those who haven't seen it, here is a link:

Gray hair = young earth?

Are you people kidding me? The age at which someone develops gray hair is completely unrelated to the age of the Earth. You use such ridiculous claims to boost your ego and nothing more. What a pathetic site.

The sharp decline of the human race -- illustrated by the increasingly premature graying of hair -- demonstrates that human existence cannot extrapolate backwards in time very long.--Andy Schlafly 16:17, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
If only your logic was as sharp as your linguistic skills.
Mr Schlafly, that's a really interesting insight. I've noticed that over the years, more and more of the guys I've been dating (in a Christian way, of course!) have been grey-haired or bald. Thanks for explaining why! PenelopeP 21:00, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
But I don't get it. How does one example of someone having gray hair prove that there now is an increase of graying in the human race as a whole? I'm sure that 200 years ago there were people in their 20's with gray hair. My point is that 1 instance does not prove that the whole human race is suffering if premature graying. What if I theorize that human hair graying is actually happening later in life, and provide as an example the fact that my grandfather, who was 95 when he died, had no gray hair? This, of course, would be ridiculous. Gabe
One example can illustrate a trend. When Dick Fosbury surprisingly won the Olympic gold medal in the high jump -- see conservative parables -- it did cause nearly all high jumpers to conclude that his "Fosbury Flop" was a better way to jump. And they were right, based on one example. Likewise for the example of the Resurrection.
In this case, one startling example should cause people to consider the possibility with an open mind.--Andy Schlafly 21:27, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
I suppose, but it doesn't mean that "Conservapedia has been proven right". The one example doesn't say anything as to whether the theory is right or wrong. And also, even if it is true that humans are graying faster, what does that have to do with an old earth? Why is it assumed that this graying pattern must have existed for some time, and even if it did, how does graying hair translate to a "sharp decline in the human race"? How do we know that the graying isn't being caused, for example, by chemicals contained in fast foods... which would cause more graying now than before, since people eat more fast food now than ever in history?Gabe
People denied Conservapedia's observation/prediction that premature graying is increasing. Speculation about fast food being the cause -- which seems implausible to me -- is irrelevant to that denial.
Conservapedia has provided additional high-profile examples. How many examples should be needed for someone to admit, "Conservapedia may be right!"--Andy Schlafly 21:37, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
I'm not necessarily denying premature graying. My point is that how do we know that this isn't being caused by something that could explain why premature graying is happening now as opposed to as before? Gabe
There are numerous examples of our lifestyle influencing our appearance. Take for example earlier sexual maturity (another ill though out counter example to old earth). You can clearly tie this to diet and a few other factors. Take a Chinese person in China and a Chinese person in America, and the Chinese person in America will reach sexual maturity earlier. Had it been caused by some genetic decay, they should reach sexual maturity at the same time. I am not aware of any serious study of the issue, but I am sure premature grey hair would have a similar casue.--PeterNant 02:07, 30 April 2012 (EDT)
There is no evidence supporting claims that people's hair is greying younger today than in the past. In any case, given that millions of people routinely start seeing grey hairs before their 30th birthday, there is absolutely nothing unusual about a 33-year old movie star having a few grey hairs (except maybe that she hasn't bothered to dye them!). Some people go grey very young -- a friend of mine was mostly grey by the time she was 30 -- and some much later -- another friend is approaching 50 without a single grey hair on his head. There is nothing to indicate that this did not happen 100 years ago, 500 years ago, or even 2000 years ago, when records show that Romans used to dye their greying hair pretty much as people do today. MarkJW 14:39, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

According to the British newspaper the Daily Mail premature greying among British women is on the rise.[26] Based on cursory examination of what I have read and seen in various people in order of importance, these appear to be main causes of premature greying: genes, stress/trauma, smoking and nutrition.[27][28][29][30][31]

Due to factors such as: genes, increased single parenting, post sexual revolution leading to increased co-habitation or other events (more violence and breakups in these couples plus probably more rape post sexual revolution), more women working outside the home, increase friction between women and men post feminism (increased divorce, etc.), liberal economics failing, poor nutrition in post fast food and more processed food environment (post more working women), premature greying among women (and men for that matter) was bound to go up.

Lastly, according to young earth creationists, this appears to be true in terms of man's genetic make-up: "Fifty human generations of 20 years each gives us only 1,000 years as a timescale over which a human lineage would begin to experience a significant mutation load in its genome. This is alarmingly rapid compared with the supposed evolutionary time scale of millions and billions of years."[32] Also, "The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005". [33] Conservative 19:57, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Simple arithmetic sequence

Just a quick note, the word "arithmetic" in the MPL headline should probably link to arithmetic progression rather than arithmetic. GregG 13:55, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Don't think so, because the pattern is not an arithmetic progression.--Andy Schlafly 15:45, 30 April 2012 (EDT)
Whoops! I missed that during the first reading. Your edits helped clarify your point, which is good.
(Also, you might want to reconsider having the spam filter block out repeated colons, as colons are used to indent, and this page currently appears to be uneditable unless you add a new section or edit a particular section. GregG 15:50, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Video games in school

Why is learning to make a game so bad. If done right , they can have skills for the video game industry, as well as the computer, tablet, smart phone, and CGI movie industry. All of those get a lot of money! JonnyAmerican 11:01, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Video games are often produced by liberals and are a waste of time. There are many professions that are much more worthwhile. Would a person have contributed more to society by creating a silly little script like Pac-Man or using that know-how to create better medical technology?--James Wilson 11:10, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
Then why don't we make conservative games. Like a iPhone app or something. And the technology industry (including video games) is getting more and more influential in American, European, and Japanese society. JonnyAmerican 11:19, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
That won't solve anything. Kids are addicted to video games on a massive scale and any "conservative" game would fail to make the mainstream like Grand Theft Auto or a similar title that encourages liberal moral behavior, violence toward women, and other ideas inappropriate for children. If we encourage kids to do something more constructive than video games, it will be better for them.--James Wilson 11:23, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
You guys are still on the Grand Theft Auto example. The games that I know of that have more influence then that is Angry Birds, Mario games, Sonic the Hedgehog, Legend of Zelda, Street Fighter, Pokemon, Halo, and Call of Duty. But, if you were to make a conservative iPhone game, you need a good story, a cast of great characters, and the money to make it. If I think about it, that kind of game would actually be fun! JonnyAmerican 11:35, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
Grand Theft Auto is an influential and atrocious game. Angry Birds is just a silly little waste of time, Mario is fun but nonsubstantive in modern gaming, Pokemon implicitly depicts animal abuse, Halo involves shooting, as does Call of Duty. The point is that games are a waste of a kid's time and there are many more substantive things they can do to develop intellectually.--James Wilson 11:47, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
So you think that video games never have the potential to teach? Also, I would like you to guess my age. JonnyAmerican 11:51, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
They cannot. What do you think teachers, books, and homework are for?? Also, are you about...fifteen? It seems a good estimate given your opinion on video games and teaching.--James Wilson 11:54, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
I do my school online, so all grading is done automatically. And since it's online, I don't need books or homework. And I'm 14. JonnyAmerican 13:58, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
I was one year off. My point is, that you are seemingly sucked into an industry that will likely die out in the near future from lack of influence.--James Wilson 13:20, 4 May 2012 (EDT)
Wow, really? JonnyAmerican 17:17, 8 May 2012 (EDT)
James is right. In addition, video game addiction harms people's ability to develop their writing skills, and causes many to drop out of school.--Andy Schlafly 11:27, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
Yeah, but you can use video games to teach. I can imagine iPads in schools to teach. It's just that too many people don't see the potential it has and only think of games as violent and never being able to do good. JonnyAmerican 11:36, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
Most influential games are either violent or an utter waste of time. Using them to teach is silly: there are textbooks and homework to accomplish that.--James Wilson 11:47, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
It has uses. You can stuff a whole semester of on an iPad or Nook and still have enough room to spare. You can practice handwriting on a app. JonnyAmerican 11:55, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
A intellectually gifted conservative creationist might engage in some Wolfenstein (video game) conquest over Nazi evolutionists as a child, but then he moves onward and upward to chess and then eventually Go. :) Mein Leben! :) Conservative 15:21, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Personally, I have been programming computers since around 2001 (which would be when I was 12 years old). During my first trip to Space Academy in 2004, I was part of the Robotics track, which involved constructing and programming a Lego robot to perform actions on a playfield that would score the most points (the actions were described in the context of a hypothetical space station rescue mission). I think that programming software, including games (which is something children can relate to) is a valuable exercise in problem-solving, mathematics, and logic, as the mathematical instructions to be executed by the computer must be exactly correct for the program to function as intended. GregG 16:32, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Dittobrenden 22:23, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

This is exactly what is often wrong with conservative thinking. It tends to be mired in the past and unwilling to adapt to a rapidly changing world. As I understand it, the point of the entry “Worst College Majors” and the accompanying article concerning the magnet gaming school in Miami is that there are majors in college that aren’t worth the cost because of the lack of job opportunities and because they lead to liberal thinking. Johnny, you quite astutely raised the point that gaming helps develop skills valuable to other industries. You were told that, “video games are often produced by liberals and are a waste of time.” You then suggested creating a conservative game or application and you were told that won’t “solve” anything, as if there is something to solve. Certainly it is true that many kids spend too much time playing video games but that doesn’t mean that you do. I spent hours playing video games when I was younger. I was also president of the National Honor Society, the salutatorian of my high school, and graduated summa cum laude from college. The key is balance.

Johnny, you are entirely correct. As the article indicated, the gaming industry has a bright future and “is projected to generate $115 billion a year by 2015,” which as far I can tell, makes it a worthwhile industry to enter. A person who tells you that pursuing your dream is a waste of time is not someone you should listen to. Who decides what a waste of time is? If within the scope of your day you get your homework and any other requirements done and you have time to play video games, is it a waste of time? If because you spent that time gaming you come up with some new algorithm that gets you a scholarship to college, is it a waste of time? If in college you end up creating a conservative game or app that becomes a runaway hit, earns millions of dollars, and influences millions of people, is it a waste of time? I think not.

(James Wilson: Why would anyone suggest that games can not be used to teach? Of course books and homework are important but in schools across the world, teachers are using iPads and other technology to teach. Why? Because children learn in different ways. A child who finds it difficult to master multiplication tables or has trouble with vocabulary might find an application that helps him or her succeed. A quick Google search reveals the literally thousands of educational applications available to teachers. Are you actually suggesting that these tools have no value?)

So Johnny, if gaming is what you want to do, don’t let anyone tell you that your dream is a waste of time. Do your research. Talk to your parents, teachers and counselors. Find out what college is best for you academically, financially, and socially. Find a major that you enjoy that will hopefully help you become successful after graduation. You seem to be on the right track! - mike swann

Mike, thank you. I completely agree with you. You're awesome!
You see, other conservatives, this is why liberals think (and poke fun at) that we do nothing fun. Because half you guys are stuck in the 80's! So, be open minded when it comes to these things. You could change the world, you just gotta start and not let any one (including you guys) say that there's no hope and that you can't do it. Because WE CAN DO IT! :D JonnyAmerican 10:49, 4 May 2012 (EDT)
Jonny and Mike, there is a reason why video games an iWhateveritistodays cannot be used to teach. Books, teachers, and homework have shown to be much more effective than some machine. Humans can understand students, not computers. Video games are a waste of time that lead to nothing productive, and hinder a student's ability to function in school and society. Even sleep and eating disorders have come from video game playing. It may be a big industry now, but in about ten years, it is likely to die from lack of influence. It almost died in the 1980s because people had better things to do, and it's not unlikely that it will suffer a similar crash now. --James Wilson 13:20, 4 May 2012 (EDT)
Actually, it almost died in the 80's because the games were so crappy (Anyone remember "E.T. The Video Game"?). But, Nintendo came to the rescue! The video game business will never die by this point. It's too entwined into society. JonnyAmerican 17:01, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

Wow James. Your insight into the human condition is truly inspiring. That you are able to discern what humans can and cannot understand is quite remarkable. I’m not entirely sure why you are wasting your time responding to entries on a faux encyclopedia like Conservapedia when you should be solving the complexities of the world but since you’re here, I’ll let you in on a little secret: I am a teacher and guess what? I use books, lecture, hands-on experience and technology everyday to get my job done. I have had students who couldn’t understand fractional relations, had trouble remembering the major generals during the Civil War, and couldn’t tell the difference between a noun and a pronoun, among other things. In every one of those instances, the student succeeded where they were failing before, because I combined a traditional way of teaching with something they could identify with. The reality is this: Children do spend too much time playing video games. We as educators have two choices. We can continue to try to teach with just books and a chalkboard while the world passes us by, or we can adapt to the fact that our children’s attention spans are not what they used to be. Instant gratification is what drives our society currently. Simply having students read Poe or forcing them to immerse themselves in a textbook of quadratic equations is begging for failure. We have to be creative. We have to adapt. We have to find new ways to engage our students and if that means we use games or applications, so be it. Ideally, we’d like to engender a love for the traditional way of learning but reality doesn’t allow that. Not at least if we want to be successful.

So James Wilson, if you are a teacher, I’d love to hear more about your ideas on how students learn. If you aren’t, I suggest you give it a try instead of making one unsubstantiated claim after another. I think you’d be surprised at what you find out.

It is interesting to watch how students respond to methods of teaching. This technology can be helpful if it is utilized properly, but it's not. It's true that educational video games have little to no influence: students would rather be playing liberal and immoral titles such as Grand Theft Auto or wastes of time such as Angry Birds. If teachers were to use them, where would they get them? I mean, would a student rather play a game to learn about the Civil War or to learn quadratic equations, or would they rather play a game where they blow peoples' heads off? Most students would definitely prefer the latter. Video games and other technologies have a huge influence on students right now, and if they are to be used to better education, they need to be brought out to the mainstream. Mario is Missing is a somewhat unoffical entry into the series made by a company with permission from Nintendo. It had some substantive learning including history lessons. Which has more influence, and which have more kids heard of: Mario is Missing or Super Mario Galaxy, with the latter having no educational value whatsoever. My point exactly. Educational games may have good intentions and good content, but they will never become mainstream when the focus is currently on the fluff. As to Jonny's career choice, would he be more likely to make money in that industry making educational games, or a zombie slaughter game? What I'm saying is there's a right way and a wrong way to adapt to teach students, and video gaming is not likely the right way.--James Wilson 11:18, 8 May 2012 (EDT)
Then we should make a game that has education and entertainment wrapped into one. Something that actually catches their attention and stimulates their thinking with some educational stuff in it. A flat-out educational won't do it, but a entertaining game with education as it's secondary genre might. If they're too "lazy" to read a book, then let them do something that will actually enjoy with educational properties that's also in the same decade as they are. JonnyAmerican 17:01, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

James, you can say that technology is not used properly but that doesn't make it so. I just told you that I've used technology to help students achieve and it worked. Teachers use technology, apps and games everyday and it works. Where would they get them? They are all over the internet; you just have to look. Just two among thousands are listed below. How is it relevant that students would rather blow people's heads off? Of course they would rather do that. They would probably rather not read books either - for that matter, I'm sure they'd rather not be in school at all. The choice isn't between a violent video game and an educational one. The choice is between a book or lecture and an educational video game when the book or lecture isn't working. Teachers use both. Some students will be fine with a book or a lecture. Some won't. Some will need a different method of learning. I can stand in front of my class and teach them about European capitals or have them study from a book and for most of them, that would be enough. Some of them however, might benefit from the quiz game below. Something they find boring suddenly becomes interesting because of the graphics, or the music, or some goal they have to achieve to win the game. And maybe, just maybe they can now remember that Zagreb is the capital of Croatia. You seem to be arguing that teaching is an "either or" situation but it's not. Successful teachers use differentiation or "instruction to accommodate the different ways that students learn," which "involves a hefty dose of common sense, as well as sturdy support in the theory and research of education (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). It is an approach to teaching that advocates active planning for student differences in classrooms."

As to the amount of money Jonny is going to make, he can decide for himself what is adequate. If he decides to make educational video games and he is happy, that is the only thing that matters. If he decides to make zombie slaughter games and he is happy, there is nothing wrong with that either. As far as I know, zombie slaughter games are not illegal. Jonny has already demonstrated his insight; I'm sure he will be successful in whatever he chooses to do. - mikeswann

Losing the clergy

I am worried after reading this. What is the world coming to? If we lose our priests too what have we got left. --OconnorM 16:38, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

They appear to be mostly liberal clergy (for example, a woman "pastor"). Not exactly a devastating loss for Christianity - especially in the light of the fact that global Christianity is seeking explosive growth and global atheism is in decline in terms of its number of adherents. Conservative Christianity growing and so called liberal Christianity is seeing decline. [34][35] Lastly, God is still on the throne and the weak atheist Richard Dawkins is still cowering in his intellectual bunny hole (see: Atheism and cowardice). Conservative 04:16, 2 May 2012 (EDT)
Even though my church will never do it, I haven't understood the theological problem with ordaining a woman as a priest. May be we need more women priests as we are losing the clergy--OconnorM 02:56, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
"They appear to be mostly liberal clergy (for example, a woman "pastor"). Not exactly a devastating loss for Christianity-- Conservative 04:16, 2 May 2012 (EDT)
Tell me again about how you're not sexist.
One of the problems with not knowing my/our sex is that it is exceedingly hard to make chauvinism charges stick. By the way, what did the Apostle Paul say about the issue of women pastors? You did not say anything about that! Conservative 10:16, 3 May 2012 (EDT)

The Apostle Paul came from an era where women were essentially at the level of livestock. If you really want to go by a 1st century interpretation of gender roles, by all means go ahead. That does make you a sexist pig, however, as most of us have to come to realize that its ok to treat women like people. StanRayVaughn 13:32, 3 May 2012 (EDT)

I notice you did not provide proof and evidence that the first century church treated women like livestock which is very telling. By the way, Triumph of the gospel of love Also, we know how many secular leftist men treat women: The Left’s Long-Time War on Women: Misogyny and male chauvinism run deep in the roots of the modern Left and Atheism and rape and Elevatorgate and Women's views of Richard Dawkins and Atheism and women. Put that in your secular leftist pipe and smoke it! Conservative 13:40, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
Seriously, both of you. Stop it. This is unproductive and uses Ad-Hominem. Trolltop was created for a reason, so that people do not get embroiled in a flame war. I will not add {{trolltop}} again, but I beg of you, stop feeding the trolls.brenden 13:53, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
Also, see how the left treats Michelle Malkin and Sarah Palin in this video interview where Malkin gives testimony of their abusive animus which includes racism and misogny and the patronizing attitude towards women and minorities in liberal academia: Book TV: In Depth: Michelle Malkin. Conservative 13:59, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
Read through biblical law in the Torah and tell me again that women were treated as equals in 1st century Israel. I mean honestly "Blessed art thou Lord who did not make me a woman" was a prayer, and any companion piece to any sort of scripture will atest to the fact that women were excluded from worship and were generally one step above slaves due to the discrimination they faced. (Check out any of the Oxford annotated Bibles if you don't believe me). As for your ludicrous arguments about secularists who started the Women's lib movement hating women...that has nothing to do with why Paul is probably not the best source on women's role in the church. He was a product of his time and his views on women probably reflected their general second class status. StanRayVaughn 19:39, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
Last time I checked Saul changed his name to Paul (Apostle Paul). Also, you still have not shown me a pattern of mistreatment of women in the first century church. On the other hand, I did show you a pattern of agape love which often occurred in the first century church which surpassed the morality of the pagan culture at the time (Triumph of the gospel of love). Feel free to engage in last wordism now. 故兵貴勝,不貴久。 Conservative 22:50, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
Ok, let's start with the Oxford companion to the Bible: "They had become second-class Jews, excluded from the worship and teaching of God, with status scarcely above that of slaves." Since you refuse to acknowledge that thanking God for not making you a woman doesn't qualify as relegating them to second-class citizenry, I suppose I could also mention that a woman's wages and earning the property of her father or her husband, depending on whose care she was forced to accept. She had no regal recourse and lost all rights to inheritance upon marrying. Again, this is a patriarchal society we are talking about with rules that subjugated women to the role of second-class citizens and made them almost slaves. It was from this society that Paul drew his ideas. Since then, most people have realized that women should probably be treated as equals, hence why old patriarchal ideas (such as not allowing women to preach) should be re-evaluated based on a modern context. StanRayVaughn 01:47, 4 May 2012 (EDT)
Wrong! Read the Apostle Paul's letter to the Philippians chapter 3 and Galatians Chapter 3 Also, you still have not shown me a pattern of mistreatment of women in the first century church. On the other hand, I did show you a pattern of agape love which often occurred in the first century church which surpassed the morality of the pagan culture at the time (Triumph of the gospel of love). Conservative 04:04, 4 May 2012 (EDT)
I have provided ample evidence of a culture that is highly patriarchal to the point that even someone like Paul would almost certainly have a view of women that would be considered sexist by today's standards. Again, gender-relations should not be governed by 1st century standards. You ignore my evidence and present sweeping, off-topic Bible verses. I am done, have a nice day! StanRayVaughn 14:04, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

"We don't try to censor sources as liberals do!"

Aschlafly, how can you claim that liberals are censoring this story while pointing out that you got the story from a liberal source? Sylvain 22:01, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

It occasionally happens that far left sources report on news that mainstream leftist sources censor. Reasons for this can include:
  • the far left is too outraged to remain silent
  • the far left believes in free speech more than most liberals
  • the far left "didn't get the memo," as the saying goes--Andy Schlafly 22:07, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
But the New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, CBS News, the Huffington Post, the Seattle Times, the Denver Post, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Washington Post, the Miami Herald, and the San Francisco Chronicle all covered the story. Sylvain 22:10, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
It is typical of the lamestream media to water down key stories.--James Wilson 11:38, 3 May 2012 (EDT)

The "forward" connection?

What's the point of mentioning that "forward" was used by the Nazis and the Italian fascist? The insinuation is that Obama himself is a fascist Nazi. Do we really want to be making these claims in Conservapedia?Gabe

"Forward, not backward" was also a slogan of Tony Blair's. And Thatcher famously said "The lady's not for turning." Very few politicians seem to want to go backward, in fact - the only example I can think of it John Major with his "back to basics" campaign.--CPalmer 11:08, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

"Forward-looking" is listed as one of the best new conservative words ... perhaps it turns out that forward is not sinister but just a commonly used word. WilcoxD 20:13, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

Interesting that most socialist movement outside of the United States refer to themselves as 'Republicans' and use red as the color of their choice. What does that say about the politcal leaning of the Republican Party and conservatism in general!! Nikroberts 07:22, 4 May 2012 (GMT)

Youtube "going out of it's way"

Most of youtube's operations are automated. It probably cost them a fraction of a cent's worth of electricity and processor power to shut down the channel, and the subroutines that did it probably had no idea of the content, hardly honest to call that going out of their way to alienate a segment of the population. --HHB 11:53, 3 May 2012 (EDT)

First of all, it should be "going out of its way" (it's is a contraction for "it is"). Second, they are trying to censor Christianity. Why not close down one of the numerous atheist channels?--James Wilson 12:37, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
They have. OnKneesForJesus is on it's fifth iteration now, or so.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrianMcpherson (talk)
Sorry about the typo. I'm sure that they've closed down lots of atheist channels. They close down a lot of channels, because it's all automated. They have to go out of their way to reopen channels. --HHB 12:45, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
Brian, you made the same error. Remember: it's= it is. HHB, it was a popular channel with over 20,000 viewers. Sure, they will close down the unpopular channels, but why would they shut this one down if they were not trying to censor Christianity? --James Wilson 12:59, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
Do you understand what it means to be automated? --HHB 13:05, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
Sure, but why would their program randomly shut down popular channels? So, they could shut down channels for popular music such as Elvis Presley randomly then? Or let's say that there is this channel with over 1,000,000 views: it can randomly shut it down as well? Is it random to shut down something people obviously watch, or is it censorship of Christianity? --James Wilson 13:09, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
It was shut down for "Multiple severe infringements of Youtube Policies, and or Copyright Violations". Ie, they shut it down for being hateful and or engaging copyvios. It wasn't random, but it wasn't censorship either. Personally I can't say I miss it, it was an odious channel on Youtube.brenden 13:20, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
Just checked it out myself... Seems they been a bit naughty! Not a very good example for a Christian organisation to set! EJamesW 13:27, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
James Wilson, you are the only one suggesting that it was "random". Automated does not mean random. --HHB 13:40, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
The PPsimmons channel was a great channel and it has been renamed the CarlGallups YouTube channel albeit with fewer subscribers. The YouTube channel has been endorsed by the conservative news organization WorldNetDaily via a glowing new story documenting YouTube's malfeasance in not restoring the channel despite an email asking for its restoration. Conservative 17:17, 3 May 2012 (EDT)

Shortly after YouTube shut down the Christian YouTube channel PPsimmons, the Federal Trade Commission reports recruiting a high power litigator to lead its antitrust investigation of Google which owns YouTube.[36] In addition, Google now says it is being investigated by the governments in Korea and Argentina.[37]

Was YouTube's shutting down a large Christian YouTube channel with 20,000 subscribers a good idea?[38] It looks like they should reconsider their decision and re-open the YouTube channel as divine favor is definitely not overflowing on Google. Conservative 17:40, 3 May 2012 (EDT)

Are you suggesting that these investigations are God prepunishing youtube for shutting down the channel? I didn't realize that God was Carl Gallups personal valet. --HHB 17:54, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
See This video Conservative 18:10, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
It seems rather presumptuous to assume that the shutdown of PPsimmons channel caused further developments in the anti-trust investigations against Google, when they merely occurred at the same time. A liberal using the same logic could argue that the election of George W. Bush to the presidency caused 9/11 to happen. See post hoc ergo propter hoc. GregG 19:04, 3 May 2012 (EDT)

Is divine favor overflowing on Google? Has YouTube displayed callousness towards Christian YouTube channels in the past? [39] Has Google displayed antipathy towards biblical Christianity and Christianity in the past? [40][41][42][43] Conservative 19:21, 3 May 2012 (EDT)

Also, see: this Conservative 19:28, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
Touch not my anointed. Google is playing with fire. Do you know what happened to the Assyrian Empire?[44] Conservative 19:39, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, you have made it clear that the YouTube channel PPsimmons was moderately popular and had the support of a number Christians as well as organizations like WND. You have reported the news that YouTube owner Google is being investigated for antitrust reasons, which is seemingly irrelevant to the discussion that is going on about the PPsimmons shutdown. And you have provided some anecdotal claims that Google has made seemingly anti-Christian actions in the past. But I have yet to see you refute YouTube's stated reason for shutting down PPsimmons: "repeated or severe violations of [YouTube] Community Guidelines and/or copyright infringement." --Randall7 20:16, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
Conservative, you can write anywhere on this wiki, if you have things to say that are completely irrelevant to this discussion please put them somewhere else. You have presented nothing that has had anything to do with the discussion. It has all been irrelevant. --HHB 20:56, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
I see the liberals have not been able to effectively rebut my sources. Feel free to engage in more last wordism. 故兵貴勝,不貴久。  !!!!! Conservative 22:54, 3 May 2012 (EDT)

The liberal MSNBC political commentator Keith Olbermann thought he could call the Bible believing Pastor Carl Gallups the "second worst person in the earth" with impunity. Pastor Gallups served as a narrator for the PPsimmons channel.

Shortly afterwards, Olbermann was fired from MSNBC and Al Gore's television network "Current TV".[45] Conservative 14:51, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

Cool story, Conservative, but what does that have to do with the fact that PPsimmons was shut down for "repeated or severe violations of [YouTube] Community Guidelines and/or copyright infringement?" No one is trying to rebut your sources because they are merely distractions that do not prove PPsimmons was shut down unjustly. --Randall7 16:47, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

Since I already adequately addressed the unjust shutting down of the PPsimmons YouTube channel,[46] I want to get back to high powered government litigators.[47]

Here is something to keep in mind:

Bill Gates January 13, 1996 Interview with Time Magazine reporter Walter Isaacson:

Time Magazine reporter Walter Isaacson: Right? Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?

His face suddenly becomes expressionless, his squeaky voice turns toneless, and he folds his arms across his belly and vigorously rocks back and forth in a mannerism that has become so mimicked at Microsoft that a meeting there can resemble a round table of ecstatic rabbis. Finally, as if from an automaton, comes the answer: "I don't have any evidence on that." Rock, rock, rock. "I don't have any evidence on that."[48]

As a result of the antitrust legal process which involved government litigators, Bill Gates is reported to have cried during a company board meeting.[49] This is yet another case of agnostics/atheists/liberals lacking machismo and acting like wailing little girls (see: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?). Do you think Keith Olbermann cried like a little baby after he was fired from MSNBC and Al Gore's television network "Current TV"? [50] Do you think that Richard Dawkins and tree hugging evolutionists are going to cry?[51] :) Conservative 18:34, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

PPsimmons is back stronger

PPsimmons, a popular Christian YouTube channel and supporter of the Question evolution! campaign, is back stronger and leading people to biblical Christianity and away from evolutionism/atheism. [52][53]

PPsimmons has recently expanded its internet reach and is using multiple internet venues to reach the public. Conservative 17:51, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

News - Transit of Venus + Annular Eclipse

June 20 - Eclipse, visible on the west of N. America. Last transit of venus in 180 years on june 5-6. This should be newsworthybrenden 01:02, 5 May 2012 (EDT)

This should be on the main page. It would serve as a break from the political posturing, and give us something else to look at.brenden 12:39, 10 May 2012 (EDT)

Full Moon

The closest, brightest full Moon in two decades appears Saturday night

According to the article, last year's Super Moon was even closer to Earth than this one. So this seems to be not a fact. Or is this one of those insights which are valid without any reliable source?

AugustO 18:25, 5 May 2012 (EDT)

Will you just trim away this error on Sunday instead correcting it - preferring to let it stand on display for a day over admitting to have made such a mistake? That is certainly one way to handle such things... AugustO 02:36, 6 May 2012 (EDT)

Congratulations, North Carolina.

North Carolina will be the latest state to reap the benefits of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. DavidE 12:44, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

I sincerely hope you are kidding.brenden 21:07, 9 May 2012 (EDT)
Same-sex marriage seemed to be detrimental to Massachusetts; as I recall, real estate prices subsequently declined. In contrast, the short-term and long-term economic benefits of the traditional family are difficult to deny.--Andy Schlafly 21:20, 9 May 2012 (EDT)
Intriguing theory. Could I ask what evidence you rely on to draw that connection between same-sex marriage and a decline in real estate prices in Massachusetts? --JeromeKJ 21:41, 9 May 2012 (EDT)
I looked at the real estate market. The data is surely available for anyone else to review.
Real estate values depend on strong families and a growing economic base. That's not same-sex marriage.--Andy Schlafly 23:19, 9 May 2012 (EDT)
That is ridiculous. Canada, which has accepted same sex marriage for the past 2 decades, has enjoyed a significantly stronger economy than the US. Vancouver, one of the most liberal cities in Canada, regularly has some of the highest real estate values on the continent.brenden 12:07, 10 May 2012 (EDT)
In Canada there is no choice given to citizens about the issue: same-sex marriage is imposed throughout the nation. In the United States, there is high mobility away from states that impose same-sex marriage toward states that recognize how important traditional marriage is to long-term prosperity.--Andy Schlafly 12:33, 10 May 2012 (EDT)
You just completely missed the point. Raphael 12:42, 10 May 2012 (EDT)
No, you did. He's saying that Canadians are stuck with it wherever they go, so they stay put, whereas Americans have a choice to flee the gay marriage states, and do. In droves. --DavidMi 21:12, 10 May 2012 (EDT)
No, we voted for it. It won, and we, except for embarrassingly backwards Alberta, hold it as a source of national pride. Furthermore, the american economy is still down the toilet. How can you even begin to correlate prosperity, to a violation of personal freedom by the state?(And I mean the North Carolina government, before you get any ideas)brenden 12:38, 10 May 2012 (EDT)
(Got rid of stupid comment). I have two maps, one of "Rights Granted to Same-Sex Couples by State", and one of "GDP per Capita by State". I'm not implying any causation, but the very high correlation should be apparent by inspection. Andy, I think you're mistaken on your link between same-sex marriage and economic health; the claim is at least wrong, and at most reversed.,0,5345296.htmlstory
EricAlstrom 16:08, 10 May 2012 (EDT)


The "theory" of zoogenesis was thought up in the 1930's. According to the linked page, it basically means that "none of today’s definitions of the phyla or major groups of animals needs to be altered to include the fossils".

Firstly, the "major groups" weren't defined in this article. Did he mean genus? Family? Order? Class? Secondly, of course we would't expect to find fossils that violate classification, because that WOULD go against evolution theory. You can't have it both ways.

His reasons are outdated. Mutations CAN bring about new "information", via gene duplication/ poliploidy, etc... Our structure is nearly identical to that of the apes.

Creationists are getting desparate, taking quotes from authors from the 30's that hold no backing and are clearly outdated. The QE! campaign has had no effect on society whatsoever (except for about 3 people). Please stop embarrasing yourselves. RedGoliath 18:35, 9 May 2012 (GMT)

RedGoliath, how many Question Evolution! Campaign tracts have been distributed? You should consider ceasing to pretend to have knowledge that you do not possess. Also, are Question Evolution! booklets/books being written? Do organizations increase their outreach once books and/or films have been produced? Has the campaign been translated into multiple languages? Do social movements grow over time such as the abolitionist and civil rights social movements? Lastly, please stop embarrassing yourself with your commentary and evolutionary beliefs. We both know the missing links are quite an embarrassment.[54] It is an embarrassment which has kept evolutionism from receiving wide support among the populace of several countries including the United States and Britain (see: Evolution and Global Christianity which is increasingly becoming more theologically conservative). Of course, it hasn't stopped liberals/leftists from supporting evolution, but one must remember that liberals/leftists/evolutionists have supported things such as: evolutionary racism/eugenics, Communism, global cooling, extreme claims concerning the global warming controversy, advocating human extinction and gleefully making claims about potential mass human deaths. [55][56] Conservative 17:42, 9 May 2012 (EDT)
Conservative, you may have to wait awhile for RedGoliath to answer your questions, seeing as how you just blocked the user for a full year. JunoD 18:44, 9 May 2012 (EDT)
Given RedGoliath's breaking of the 90/10 rule, I/we have no problem exercising patience in this matter for I/we have the patience of a saint. :) Plus, given the growth of Christian evangelicalism and anti-evolution immigrants in the UK and their higher birth rates plus the upcoming growth of the promotion of the Question Evolution! Campaign in the UK post summer Olympics, it is just a matter of time before the antiquated ideology of Darwinism fades away in the homeland of Charles Darwin (RedGoliath has indicated he/she is from the UK).[57][58] Of course, Darwinism falling in its homeland will be devastating for evolutionism. Conservative 22:00, 9 May 2012 (EDT)
RedGoliath, have you seen THIS. Lester Lewis is right: I am on the winning side, the winning side, the winning side all the time. Jesus is the winnaman, the winnaman all the time! :) It's so fun to see, fun to see, atheists and evolutionists lose! :) Conservative 04:57, 10 May 2012 (EDT)
Dancing on the grave of an editor that you personally blocked for spurious reasons is unbecoming, don't you think? --JeromeKJ 18:07, 10 May 2012 (EDT)
He's dead? Are you so obsessed with Conservapedia (CP) that you think a year of not editing is akin to death? I think you have a case of Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder. :) Conservative 19:05, 10 May 2012 (EDT)
Do you know what a metaphor is? --JeromeKJ 19:10, 10 May 2012 (EDT)

Hello user:conseravative, hope you and/or your team are well. I've got to admit I'm a bit shocked by your uncharacteristic lack of common courtesy. When you invite an answer from someone who can't possibly respond, and may I add, the audience to which you are broadcasting knows the target of your comments cannot respond is cowardly and in your own words 'lacks machismo'. What is it in RedGoliath's comments that scares you so much? EJamesW 14:51, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

After replying to RedGoliath, I did a quick review of his edits and noticed he was breaking the 90/10 rule and then I promptly banned him. Remember what Sammy Davis Jr. said, "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time." :) Plus, we know that atheism and evolutionism are a farce so his loss of editing privileges was no great tragedy. Conservative 20:01, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

Millions presented with gospel plus many will be shown the folly of evolutionary belief

Millions presented with gospel plus many will be shown the folly of evolutionary belief

The Question Evolution! Campaign forms a strategic alliance with a leading internet evangelism organization. Message to evolutionists and atheists: There are a whole lot of Christian organizations in the world! [59] Conservative 20:01, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

PhDs on Food Stamps

Hi - long time conservative reader here who is perplexed why you all are using this story to promote conservative values. The lady featured in the article has a PhD in medieval history, which could probably be put on your worst PhD majors lists for job prospects. Second, the article blames Republican Jan Brewer's cuts to education for the cause and not her own foolish choices. Another example is a guy with two kids who is doing his dissertation in film studies and has two young children. You're presenting these people as victims of the Obama economy, and I get why, but really this article elevates these people as victims of something beyond the stupid things they chose to study. Don't know why you'd use it. --DavidMi 21:04, 10 May 2012 (EDT)

Presidential Odds Update

Latest odds are updated here. Hilary Clinton is back in a bit of favour... -- Ferret Nice old chat 00:55, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

Rasmussen's poll has Romney with a substantial lead. Its a news story why Obama is favored so heavily by some while Rasmussen's polling says the opposite.--Andy Schlafly 09:52, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

Gravitational Waves

Conservapedia proven right, again: a new scientific paper authored by 815 people describes searching for gravity waves, but if they had accepted Counterexamples to Relativity then it would have saved them the futile effort.

What? Who? Where? When? How? Why? Without answering at least some of these questions - and linking to the paper itself - this isn't even a news blurb, this is just an advertisement like: 200 housewives prefer Conservapedia over other wikis.

AugustO 03:17, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

The link to the paper was added this morning. Sorry for the oversight earlier.--Andy Schlafly 09:46, 12 May 2012 (EDT)
Thanks for the link, Andy, this is very interesting. The paper is not actually about the gravitational-wave search per se, but about follow-up electromagnetic observations in order to identify the sources of two candidate gravitational-wave events. They admit they didn't find anything but they say that this would have been unlikely anyway, and that the goal of this paper is rather to present their follow-up strategy and to discuss possible improvements. Seems pretty hard, those gw detectors don't have good directional resolution, so they essentially have to watch the entire sky. So their failure to find anything may mean that they just missed the sources, or that those gw events were statistical flukes, or it may mean that you were right, Andy. Unfortunately, I can't take your word for the correctness of your arguments, because I'm afraid you haven't presented them in a way yet that would make them inevitable for me, and until you've managed to do that it'd be like depending on hearsay, wouldn't it? (815 authors!!!)--FrederickT3 16:53, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

Hong Kong Ark story is confusing

I was interested to read the CMI article about the Hong Kong Ark - I hadn't heard of that story before. But I was confused by the position CMI takes on radiocarbon dating, which I thought had been thoroughly dismissed by the Christian scientists (and Conservapedia). For example, they say "This is why, whenever creationists send a sample of wood encased in Flood rocks to a C-14 lab, the date comes back as tens of thousands of years, as any scientist who accepted a global Flood would expect" - I don't see how we can say that we accept the Flood and the Creation story and also accept that a date "tens of thousands of years" before Creation could exist? That doesn't make sense? JanW 13:31, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

Please read this and this Conservative 23:13, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President

[60] Daniel1212 12:56, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

That's nice. I still think it is an act of knee jerking. President Bush, Reagan, etc, were horrible to us, and no-one makes a fuss.brenden 13:17, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

Mother's Day

I know you in the US tend to celebrate important memorial days on different dates from us Europeans, but why is Mother's Day on such a random date? Here in Europe, Mother's Day is always on the fourth Sunday in Lent. As well as being a celebration of family and motherhood, it was also traditionally the day when lapsed Christians were welcomed back to take communion in preparation for Easter. So why has the God fearing US moved away at all from the festival's deep Christian roots? Rafael

The tradition of Mother's Day was originally Protestant, not Catholic, in the United States, so Lent would not be part of it. Early May is the height of springtime, and makes as much sense as any other time. Churches are packed because of this celebration.--Andy Schlafly 17:22, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

Notice how Google does not include a father in its family commemoration of this day - that would be politically incorrect. Well, the clue is in the name: Mother's day, not family's day --AugustO 23:42, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

Most fathers participate in family activities honoring Mother's Day. Why does Google pretend otherwise? Political correctness.--Andy Schlafly 00:20, 14 May 2012 (EDT)
If you say so... But I think it was extremely well done, even without the L or the E benignly smiling over the whole scene. AugustO 01:33, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for the explanation Mr Schlafly. Just out of interest, when is Father's Day in the States? In some European countries, its on St Joseph's Day.Rafael

Unexplained deletions by User:Conservative

I see that User:Conservative deleted the following essays (and associated talk pages) which were contained in Category:Question evolution!:

Neither essay was his work. Could he please either explain himself or restore the essays?

I post here because User:Conservative has protected his talk page and I cannot post there. --JeromeKJ 22:56, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

Not going to happen. User:Conservative is given free reign to make as little sense as he wants, and anyone who disagrees is censored and usually banned. You're best off not wasting your time here and letting him have his little fun.--FPhelps 23:46, 14 May 2012 (EDT)
They were garbage. For example, at least one of the essays confused non-religious with atheists and they are not synonymous. If memory serves, this was explained in the deletion comments so there is really no need for explanation. The website is not a dumping ground for trash spewed by atheists. Plus, we all know the term evolutionary science is an oxymoron (millions of mission link fossils, etc. ). Conservative 03:24, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

Given the foolishness of atheism and evolutionism and the worldwide decline of atheism, I doubt there will be a global outcry about this matter or that the UN will take up this matter. :) There are 800 less atheists a day in 2012 and there were 300 less atheists a day in 2011 (the decline of global atheism appears to be increasing).

Given the accelerated rate in the number of foolish atheism adherents worldwide, no doubt the Question evolution axeman continues to sharpen his axe so he may hack away at evolutionism and atheism with great alacrity. :) [1]

Here are the specifics:

The rate at which global atheism is declining is increasing rapidly according to the seminary Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (GCTS) which publishes these statistics in January of every calendar year.

The International Bulletin of Missionary Research (IBMR) obtains their data from GCTS reports.

In February of 2011, the American Spectator reported that according to IBMR every day there were 300 less atheists a day as can be seen here: I discovered that this came from the GCTS January 2011 report.

In 2012, a report from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary showed that each day there are 800 less atheists a day as can be seen here:

By the way, no doubt the Question evolution axeman continues to sharpen his axe so he may hack away at evolutionism and atheism with great alacrity. [61] :) Conservative 18:23, 15 May 2012 (EDT)