Talk:Main Page/Archive index/113

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search



4th grade's poor academic performance

Wut? Are you sure that it was due to the 4th grader's performance? From what I gleaned, it appeared that the standardized grading system was made a little bit harder, possibly causing the students to underestimate the difficulty of the examination. I'm not saying that the results were acceptable; I think that any 4th grader should be able to back up their thesis with logical statements, but still, it does not appear to be the fault of video games, or Facebook. Public schools, on the other hand... pick up your slack, please.brenden 23:33, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

I agree with you. They did make the scoring tougher. Facebook is for only for 13+ and video games should have affected scores by now since they have a 40 year history. JonnyAmerican 07:58, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

Wisconsin Primary

Wisconsin has already voted I thought. Gregkochuconn 13:00, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

Man's "downhill genetic slide"

Is there any objective empirical evidence (that is, not convenient anecdotes or circumstantial supposition) that the human genome is on a "downhill genetic slide"? I can't seem to find any published genomic evidence corroborating this claim. I can easily find ample evidence of genetic drift in human populations following predicted models (two separate sources and links provided), and even evidence that many alleles in the human genome have recently been (and still may be, to some degree) under selective pressure (selective pressure, of course, has the side-effect of weeding out deleterious mutations--which is exactly the opposite of what a "downhill genetic slide" would predict). Additionally, I can even find evidence of novel human genes (for instance brain development genes) emerging from preexisting genes over human evolutionary history. However, in spite of an exhaustive search, there appears to be no evidence (in the primary research) of "human genetic entropy". If there is any primary research to this effect, I would be very much interested in seeing it. --JHunter 13:10, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

Contact the biologist John Sanford at Cornell University as he has written extensively on this matter as indicated in the article cited. Plus, buy his book on this matter or get it from the library. By the way, John Sanford endorsed the Question evolution! campaign. Conservative 18:04, 5 May 2012 (EDT)
Sanford has published relatively few peer-reviewed papers in academic journals since the late 1980s. However, I did take the time to find and read a few of them before posting this reply. Sanford's primary hypothesis that "low-impact" deleterious alleles will be under so little selective pressure that they will accumulate in a population has been very thoroughly addressed and discarded. Outside of a few conveniently-manipulated computer models, the evidence simply does not support that this happens in nature (and many scientists have looked for it). That said, it is known that many common deleterious alleles in the human genome became common in human populations simply because they are closely linked with more adaptive allelic variations and, by this mechanism, "hitchhike" their way into the genetic background of a population (just as current models of natural selection would predict). I must stress, however, that neither of these hypotheses, nor any published evidence, suggests that deleterious mutations are accumulating faster in the human genome than natural selection, or (in the case of low-impact mutations) simple stochastic genetic drift, is clearing them out. --JHunter 19:21, 15 May 2012 (EDT)
Also, it is worth pointing out, for irony's sake, that John Sanford's whole hypothesis hinges on a rather esoteric statistical anomaly found in certain models of natural selection acting on allele frequencies over evolutionary timescales. Far from being a refutation of modern evolutionary theory, Sanford's hypothesis relies on it. --JHunter 19:39, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, it is worth pointing out that your evobabble is not going to reverse the worldwide decline of atheism in terms of it losing adherents nor is it going to find the countless millions of missing link fossils.[1] See: Global atheism. According to Gordon-Conwell Theoological Seminary there will be 800 less atheists by the end of the day and 83,000 more people who consider themselves Christians.[2] By the way, are you an atheist? If so, do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? The reason I ask is that unlike atheism, biblical Christianity has a great abundance of evidence to support it. See: Christian apologetics and Evidence for Christianity. Conservative 20:31, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, I noticed on your userpage that you claim to hold the worldview of agnosticism. I wanted to add that according to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary there will be 1,100 less non-religious people (agnostics) by the end of the day and 83,000 more people who call themselves Christians.[3] Do you have any proof and evidence that agnosticism is a valid worldview? The reason I ask is that unlike agnosticism, biblical Christianity has a great abundance of evidence to support it. See: Christian apologetics and Evidence for Christianity. Conservative 21:25, 15 May 2012 (EDT)
Eh? What does that have anything to do with the argument I was making? I was making the point that there is absolutely no evidence for "genetic entropy" in human (or really any) populations. I was not discussing any other points, least of all my own religious views. I have, along with other users here, addressed many those points before; incidentally, you didn't really address those arguments either. Furthermore, the "evobabble" above is a rather plain-language discussion of the available evidence as it relates to the possibility of "genetic entropy"; whether or not atheism or Christianity are true, and the worldwide number of adherents to either, is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. --JHunter 21:59, 15 May 2012 (EDT)
JHunter, you seemed to place importance on peer review. I was just curious how you felt about 1,100 of your non-religious (agnostic) peers in the world leaving this worldview due to death or switching to another worldview. Because everyday there are about 1,100 less non-religious people (agnostics) in the world while Christendom with its abundance of evidence concerning its veracity is seeing tremendous growth.[4] By the way, I did notice that you failed to provide proof and evidence that agnosticism is true. Plus, you failed to provide the countless millions of missing link fossils.[5] Conservative 22:54, 15 May 2012 (EDT)
Once again, those are not points which I was arguing. I do not need to prove that agnostocism is true in order to argue that there is no "genetic entropy" in human populations--those are two completely unrelated concepts. Additionally, there is a huge difference between academic peer-review and argumentum ad populum.--JHunter 23:19, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called "higher order" thinking skills.[6] It seems as though many academics are doing a poor job, doesn't it? It seems as if you place an inordinate amount of value on the process of academic review. Also, given the foolishness of agnosticism, it is not surprising that you are doing such a poor job at defending it. Lastly, your evobabble is not likely to cause an evolutionism revival given your inability to produce the millions of missing link transitional fossils. [7] Conservative 00:01, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

How does this relate to the point I was making? --JHunter 00:48, 16 May 2012 (EDT)
JHunter, are you willing to face the 15 questions for evolutionists in a internet radio debate with Shockofgod and a creationist biology college student? The debate room is located HERE and it is open right now (most of the time it is open to the public). Shockofgod can record the debate. The reason I ask is that the all the previous debates turned out quite badly for the evolutionists. See also: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debatesConservative 01:37, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative, could you please answer the original question without further ado: Is there any objective empirical evidence (that is, not convenient anecdotes or circumstantial supposition) that the human genome is on a "downhill genetic slide"?

Thanks, --AugustO 05:13, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, are you willing to face the 15 questions for evolutionists in a internet radio debate with Shockofgod and a creationist biology college student? The debate room is located HERE and it is open right now (most of the time it is open to the public). Shockofgod can record the debate. The reason I ask is that the all the previous debates turned out quite badly for the evolutionists. See also: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates. We both know the debate would not go well for you so I will not surprised if you fail to accept the debate offer. By the way, seeing you are a German evolutionists, let this film clip be a reminder to you that American creationists have historically prevailed against German evolutionists in battles. :) Conservative 10:44, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative, could you please answer the original question without further ado: Is there any objective empirical evidence (that is, not convenient anecdotes or circumstantial supposition) that the human genome is on a "downhill genetic slide"?

Thanks again, --AugustO 11:13, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, feel free to accept the above debate offer. Conservative 11:51, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

There is no debate if you are not able to stick to the topic. In this case the topic can be seen by looking at the title of the section. I don't want to impose my will on you, I just would like you to answer the original question without further ado: Is there any objective empirical evidence (that is, not convenient anecdotes or circumstantial supposition) that the human genome is on a "downhill genetic slide"?

--AugustO 11:34, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

August, let me know when you are ready to accept the above debate offer. Thank you. Conservative 11:51, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

You can always invite me to a debate on my talk page: that would be the appropriate place. In this section the question is: Is there any objective empirical evidence (that is, not convenient anecdotes or circumstantial supposition) that the human genome is on a "downhill genetic slide"? And I would appreciate your answer to this question (and this question alone). Thanks, AugustO 13:01, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

I would not consent to debate "shockofgod" for a number of reasons. Notably, the current understanding of evolution is quite complex (it is a synthesis of several different fields), and requires a discussion on the intricacies of many relatively recent scientific discoveries. Seeing as both you, User:Conservative, and "shockofgod" have repeatedly displayed a dismal understanding of even the most basic scientific concepts (e.g. the scientific method), not to mention an incredible inability to stick to logical arguments (or even stay on topic in an individual discussion), I doubt that such a debate would be productive. Furthermore, scientific discourse requires a systematic step-wise discussion of empirical evidence (you don't simply "take on" a big idea in a debate format), which neither you, User:conservative, nor "shockofgod" seem capable of doing (as demonstrated above). You have had the opportunity to participate in such a stepwise discussion before, but failed to produce any evidence (or even any substantive arguments) supporting your position.--JHunter 16:42, 17 May 2012 (EDT)

As a compromise, I would be willing to participate in a debate with shockofgod if creationists are able to satisfactorily respond (that is, address the actual arguments presented, instead of responding to the "straw man" arguments addressed in the links posted by User:Conservative) to 6 out of 15 of the questions posted on Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists. The ball is in your court. --JHunter 16:42, 17 May 2012 (EDT)
If you have so much evidence on your side, addressing real evidence-based arguments should be easy to do. Evidence speaks for itself, no matter who is using it.--JHunter 22:10, 17 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, in terms of evidential support and expansion of adherents I clearly have shown that biblical Christianity and biblical creationism are sitting in the cat bird seat, while evolutionism and agnosticism are losing traction in the world (for example, creationism and evangelical Christianity are expanding even in the UK the homeland of Darwinism).[8][9][10] I suggest debating Shockofgod on the 15 questions for evolutionists while he is still willing to debate you! :) Conservative 00:22, 18 May 2012 (EDT)

Linking to websites on Christian apologetics (which is all that your article does) does not equate to providing evidence of divine creation. I do not dispute that there is some historical truth to the bible--there is ample archaeological evidence to support that claim. Just as, along a similar line of reasoning, there is archaeological evidence to support that the Trojan war actually happened and that the Roman republic was founded after the expulsion of Etruscan monarchs. However, evidence of a few historical truths is not evidence that the entire bible is literally true, much less evidence of divine creation. Furthermore, number of adherents to a belief has absolutely no bearing on whether said belief represents objective truth (so, for the last time, please stop parroting that painfully insipid argument). If you have legions of supporters, as you claim, you should have no trouble rallying one or two of them to come to this wiki in their spare time to provide evidence in support of their position. --JHunter 02:16, 18 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, I referred you to a source which offers a vast amount of evidence for biblical Christianity through its cited sources. In addition, I provided this resource which gives evidence for Christianity: Christian apologetics. On the other hand, you haven't offered one iota of proof and evidence that agnosticism is a valid worldview. Second, you might not like the fact that around the world the non-religious (agnostic) worldview is collapsing and creationism is expanding in the world and in the UK (the homeland of Darwinism), nevertheless it is true. So don't be surprised if creationists feel no pressing need to debate someone who is unwilling to be slaughtered in a debate concerning the 15 questions for evolutionists by Shockofgod (we both know that you would be slaughtered in such a debate).

You might as well face it: a Bible believing Christian can afford to relax on a Caribbean beach on his vacation listening to Caribbean music knowing full well that the non-religious (agnostic) worldview and evolutionism is being eroded around the world while biblical Christianity and biblical creationism is growing around the world.[11] He certainly doesn't have to worry about an agnostic who is unwilling to debate the 15 questions for evolutionists. Hey non-religious (agnostic) mon, all day and all night the non-religious (agnostic) worldview keeps on shrinking while biblical Christianity and biblical creationism keep growing. Hey evolution mon, it's time to debate the 15 questions for evolutionists while Shockofgod is still willing to! Conservative 03:35, 18 May 2012 (EDT)

re: JHunter: I wasn't impressed by the information/speculation that JHunter gave which attempted to rebut this article. Also, to test his sincerity, I asked him to defend his so-called agnosticism and to defend his evolutionary beliefs using the yardstick of the 15 questions for evolutionists which address several of the central claims of macroevolution. Needlessly to say, I wasn't shocked by his inability to defend agnosticism and evolutionism. Lastly, here are some additional resources concerning the issue of genetic entropy: Genetic entropy and Genetic entropy and Respected Cornell geneticist rejects Darwinism in his recent book and Review of J. C. Sanford's Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome and Genetic entropy: a literal fall from perfection. Also, here are a few videos: Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" 1/2 and Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" 2/2 Conservative 22:05, 18 May 2012 (EDT)
I just discovered evolutionist Michael Lynch admitting this in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America in a December 3, 2009 article entitled: Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation (taken from the abstract): "Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed." [12] Conservative 22:18, 18 May 2012 (EDT)
Thank you for the source. That was along the lines of what I was looking for. I read the paper you referenced and, while I do have many criticisms, Lynch's hypothesis of increased accumulation of deleterious alleles in industrialized populations certainly seems plausible. However, it is important to note (as Lynch demonstrates and acknowledges in this paper) that this increase is due to the greatly reduced effect of natural selection on industrialized human populations. --JHunter 12:27, 20 May 2012 (EDT)
JHunter, you haven't convinced me that you believe natural selection, mutations and other natural processes can achieve the astounding feats you purport and your unwillingness to debate the 15 questions for evolutionists with Shockofgod tells me you are just another evolutionists who is afraid of being embarrassed before a large audience. Hence, you evolved into a chicken. Conservative 18:08, 20 May 2012 (EDT)
?--JHunter 01:44, 21 May 2012 (EDT)
It is an established pattern with evolutionists and skeptics - see: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates and Atheism and cowardice. I have come to the conclusion that most of the defenders of evolution/atheism/agnosticism are merely posers and not confident. Conservative 03:58, 21 May 2012 (EDT)
Rather than just simply quote-mining a source, it would probably be best if you read the whole thing first. For instance, the essay you cite, by Eugenie C Scott, goes on to explain why "the evolutionist debater is never going to be able to counter all of the misinformation that a creationist can put out in a lengthy debate format." Similarly, the paper you cited above by Michael Lynch does not present any primary research, it simply presents a hypothesis which is explained, in the text of the paper, to be a potential byproduct of modern technology removing selective pressure from industrialized human populations. Neither of these sources corroborates either of your deliberate misinterpretations of them. You have illustrated why I (and I know that I speak for many "evolutionists" when I say this) am not particularly open to debating the "15 questions"; it is extremely unlikely, given past creationist behavior, that such a debate would be academic and focused on objective discussion of available evidence. --JHunter 17:14, 22 May 2012 (EDT)
JHunter, you know you can't survive in a equal playing field. Your "excusitis" as far as not debating Shockofgod and/or other Question evolution! supporters here in a recorded debate that will be distributed to his 20,000 plus subscribers is not fooling anyone. You should just admit you are a chicken when it comes to debate like Penn Jillette did. Conservative 21:16, 22 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, by the way, I do find your allegation of the improper use of quotes rather humorous. I say this because Eugenie Scott whom you quoted about creation vs. evolution debates engaged in a short internet radio debate with Andy Schlafly on the creation vs. evolution issue. So she is not the most consistent person. Plus, if time were really the issue, evolutionists would ask for longer debate formats like the Lincoln-Douglass debates for example and not merely make excuses why they lost debate after debate with creation scientists.

But time is not really the issue as evolutionists don't need a lot of time as they have no bona fide evidence which makes them extremely vulnerable in debates. If Eugenie Scott were confident in her evolutionary beliefs she would ask for a series of long debates with leading creation scientists similar to the Lincoln - Douglass debates in format and the debates could be videotaped and widely distributed. Since she certainly would benefit from such debates if the evidence were on her side. But of course, she knows it is not and would never agree to such a thing. Conservative 22:09, 22 May 2012 (EDT)

User: Conservative, I generally stay away from the creationism-evolution thing here but "Darwinism can't even obtain strong traction in its homeland of the UK among the populace after 150 years" is just plain wrong. There is little debate about evolution and its various theories because its a given; its taught in schools - private and public, religious and secular - its the standard in museums and books. Darwin even appears on our banknotes. Rafael
The general "party line" among most people in the life sciences is to not engage in such a debate. It is an unspoken agreement that exists not out fear of losing, but out of the pragmatic realization that the "evolutionist" debater would have to expend too much energy (not to mention, debate time) explaining many fundamental concepts (each of which usually occupies several hour-and-a-half long lectures in a college-level introductory biology course, because of the abundance of evidence) to an audience without adequate background in the life sciences to understand the nuances of the arguments presented. This turns into a pretty significant disadvantage when debating an opponent who is free to fabricate facts, misrepresent evidence, and argue with glaring logical fallacies (as creationists are apt to do) to an uncritical audience. To illustrate this point, I need only reference the above discussion on "genetic entropy", in which a certain right-leaning user freely and repeatedly argues using non sequitur and argumentum ad populum arguments.
I listened to the discussion between Andy Schlafly and Eugenie Scott. My impression after listening to it was that Eugenie Scott had "won" (it wasn't really a formal debate), or at least made a more articulate and academic case, even if she was too busy providing background information to the interviewer to directly respond to any of Andy's rather inane arguments (that bit about the "open-mouthed bear" couldn't be further from the truth--and, yes, the first link talks about both the evidence and the relative abundance of transitional whale fossils!!!).
Regardless, most of us "evolutionists" in academia are of the opinion that if a person truly wants to learn about evolutionary theory (even if it's with the intended purpose of refuting evolution, a task for which a basic understanding of evolution seems logically required), they are more than welcome to attend a public lecture on the topic or audit an introductory biology course at a local university or community college (at many public institutions, this can be done free of charge or, if not, at a nominal fee). If, having done so, they are prepared to participate in an honest intellectual discussion of the evidence, most of us academics in the "evolutionist" camp would be more than happy to debate them. --JHunter 09:08, 23 May 2012 (EDT)
JHunter, your word to substance ratio was very low in your last post. :) Of course, this is not surprising since the internet content of atheists/agnostics has been a tremendous failure. When you lack proof and evidence that atheism/agnpsticism is true and you face a tremendous amount of evidence for Christianity, failure is the inevitable result. Conservative 02:28, 24 May 2012 (EDT)
I'm probably going to regret doing this but, after giving it a some thought, I have decided to agree to debate shockofgod on the 15 Questions, so long as he agrees to follow the following conditions:
1. The debate will take place in a format similar to a Lincoln-Douglass debate, but modified to accomodate addressing each of the questions individually. (I have an idea of how to do this in mind, but I would like to coordinate this with shockofgod directly before the debate.)
2. In true Lincoln-Douglass style, neither party is allowed to interrupt the other one while the other one is speaking. Both parties shall address the other with respect and decorum, refraining from the use of ad hominem attacks.
3. The entire debate will be recorded and published in its entirety, regardless of how it turns out for either party.
4. A fifteen minute Q&A, with both parties answering additional questions from listeners in the chatroom, will follow the main debate (this too will be recorded).
If he can agree to these conditions, I would be more than happy to coordinate a debate with him. Obviously, determining things such as time and format will require me to communicate with him directly, ahead of time. If you, User:Conservative, could tell me how to get in touch with him, or if you could at least tell him that he has a willing debate opponent, that would certainly expedite things; shockofgod never seems to be in that chatroom you keep linking to. --JHunter 20:55, 24 May 2012 (EDT)
JHunter, Shockofgod has a free chat room HERE as noted above. If memory serves and it may not, he usually arrives between 8 PM PST and 9pm PST USA time in his chat room on weekdays, but perhaps it is earlier. I don't know his schedule in terms of the chat room as far as the weekends, but I believe he pops into the room on weekends too. His YouTube channel has a YouTube email, but you are going to have to send a friend request first as I believe he has friend lock in terms of his YouTube email. Here is Shockofgod's YouTube channel: Conservative 07:19, 25 May 2012 (EDT)
JHunter, one other thing. I believe in one or more of the recorded debates on the 15 questions for evolutionists which involved Shockofgod a creationist with fairly extensive biology knowledge under his belt participated (If you listen to the debates, I believe you will find this to be true also). In case the debate format is a debate team format, you might want to start searching for a debate partner. If you want the debate audience to be large in terms of the recorded debate, I would suggest finding the most prominent evolutionist you can find as a debate partner if the debate is a debate team format. Conservative 08:39, 25 May 2012 (EDT)
Thank you for telling me how to get in touch with shockofgod. I will send him a YouTube e-mail later today. --JHunter 09:07, 25 May 2012 (EDT)

Consider contacting Michael Shermer to be a debate partner. Here is his contact information as I am guessing he will be the most approachable and better known person on the atheist/agnostic side of the aisle: Michael Shermer at mshermerATskepticDOTcom or 626-794-3119. Dan Barker has done debates in the past as well and recently debated Kyle Butt, M.A. in the last couple of years or so. Here is Barker's contact information:

There seems to be a growing trend of the more prominent atheists/agnostics/evolutionists not willing to debate and having a bunker mentality while global atheism/agnosticism shrinks, but if you are persistent and ask the more approachable ones, you may get one or the more well known atheists/agnostics/evolutionists to be a debate partner. The trend of cowardice when it comes to debates started in the 1970s after evolutionists lost so many debates (see: Atheism and cowardice). Conservative 01:30, 26 May 2012 (EDT)

Thank you, but I am confident that I can fly solo on this one. For professional reasons (some of my co-workers, notably my boss, are quite religious), I do not think that it would be prudent for me to recruit any of my colleagues who have more name recognition than I do, as doing such may require revealing my true identity; anonymity is the order of the day.
Anyhow, shockofgod is proving to be quite difficult to contact. If you, user:Conservative, are in direct contact with him, could you please ask him to e-mail me at ? --JHunter 18:50, 27 May 2012 (EDT)

It should be easy to contact him through YouTube mail after you send friend request and he accepts it. Did you do that? However, next time I am in his chat room, I can do that for you.

Lastly, I would suggest asking an evolutionist at Conservapedia or at one of the creation vs. evolution forums to be a debate forum to be a debate partner: [13] Alternatively, you can ask a YouTube atheists or evolutionist to be a debate partner. I really would like "Viva" in shockofofgod's chat room to participate in a team debate as I think he brings some additional things to the table. If you are amenable to it, shockofogod should be able to find someone knowledgeable without being famous to be a debate partner for you as there are a lot of atheists/evolutionists who frequent his chat room plus there are a lot of internet atheists/evolutionists (Of course, you would have to find the debate partner to be satisfactory). Conservative 22:24, 27 May 2012 (EDT)

By the way, if there are any Conservapedia evolutionists who want to be a debate partner for JHunter, please offer your assistance. Conservative 22:44, 27 May 2012 (EDT)

Did Obama Lie To Harvard Law School To Obtain Fraudulant Loans Or Grants? Or Was Obama Born In Kenya?

This is story says so much about the mainstream media, and quite possibly so much more about Obama: Barack Obama Literary Agent From 1991 - 2007: 'Born In Kenya And Raised In Indonesia And Hawaii' DerekE 22:38, 17 May 2012 (EDT)

Only liberals are capable of doing something as stupid as THIS

Obviously the Duffys are upset. But the state officials have a point, too:

DCR Commissioner Edward Lambert said, "Nobody wants to close an ice-cream stand and certainly not on Mother's Day weekend. It's unfortunate the timing was such. But I didn't want the story to be that some kids ate asbestos-laden ice cream."
The interior of the stand, which is inside a barn built in 1910, was expanded in order to show tour groups a video about the dairy-farm industry. Lambert said he was concerned the barn could contain hazardous materials, such as lead and asbestos, because of its age.
Tests have been conducted at the site in recent days, and Lambert said the results are likely to come in Friday. On Thursday afternoon, state officials gave the Duffys a list of steps they must complete before the stand can reopen.

AugustO 23:20, 18 May 2012 (EDT)

Wimpy atheist alert

Wimpy atheists whine to Creation Ministries International (CMI), but it doesn't look like CMI or its supporters are going to shut down their creation evangelism and Christian evangelism efforts.[14][15]

Atheists, are you upset that global atheism was shrinking by 400 atheists a day in 2011 and now it is shrinking by 800 atheists a day while global Christianity is seeing explosive growth?[16][17] Atheist crybabies, would you like some cheese to go with your atheist whines?[18][19] Conservative 07:46, 19 May 2012 (EDT)

Very nice, Mr. Conservative. Very classy. You certainly do know how to maintain the intellectual level of debate around these parts. JanW 18:54, 19 May 2012 (EDT)
Question: Since when have atheists been intellectually edifying in terms of having a coherent and evidentially based worldview? Answer: Never. Atheists have excelled in mass murder, immorality/lying and spouting irrationality though (See: Irreligion and superstition and Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism and Atheism and mass murder and Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception and Atheism and Christian apologetics and Causes of atheism) Conservative 19:05, 19 May 2012 (EDT)
JanW, have you seen THIS and THIS yet? :) Conservative 23:05, 19 May 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative, I followed the link to the article at "Skeptics who refuse to reveal their name — do they have something to hide, or something to fear?" Could you as an evolution-skeptic answer this question? AugustO 08:36, 22 May 2012 (EDT)

I don't think User:Conservative has anything to fear, so he must just be hiding. Then again, why hide if you're not afraid? WilcoxD 02:17, 23 May 2012 (EDT)
I have a hunch that the answer to this may be something to do with Sun Tzu.--CPalmer 04:56, 23 May 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, unlike some atheists, I don't send whiny, anonymous emails to the opposition. Conservative 16:59, 26 May 2012 (EDT)
Hello user:conseravtive, can you please explain your comment above? What are the emails that you claim AugustO have sent to the 'opposition'? Who is this 'opposition' to which you allude to? Why don't you use a proper name as per conservapedia regulations? EJamesW 17:21, 26 May 2012 (EDT)
EJamesW, I believe this resource will help you better understand the current state of affairs. Conservative 20:02, 26 May 2012 (EDT)
Conservative, you have answered how you manage to hide behind pseudonym, but (really) why do you do it? Please excuse me for playing the devil's avocate, but I'm also curious whether you can see any level hypocrisy in an anonymous user criticising others for hiding behind anonymity?
If you look at my post, you will see that I was pointing out the wimpy, patheticness of their whining which is very understandable given the great abundance of evidence for biblical Christianity as can be seen HERE and HERE and HERE. I really think that atheists/evolutionists need to evolve a spine (See: Atheism and cowardice) and man-up to their error and defeat because global atheism is burning which must be quite a source of embarrassment to them! [20][21] Conservative 01:44, 28 May 2012 (EDT)
Conservative, I'm not sure if you read too fast and missed the first part of my question so, again, why do you hide behind a pseudonym? ;) WilcoxD 03:26, 28 May 2012 (EDT)

WilcoxD, I/we like the username that I/we picked. If you object to the username, I/we suggest taking the matter up with the owner of this website. Conservative 05:18, 28 May 2012 (EDT)

(I am speaking as a Conservapedian, and not as someone with special privileges for the purposes of this discussion.) I find Conservative's behavior regarding his/her/its/their/my anonymity very much exemplifying the bad aspects of Wikipedia (see Essjay controversy) that we are trying not to replicate here at Conservapedia (see Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia, especially point 17 [in the current numbering]). Without turning to the contents of Conservative's edits, I can say that his/her/its/their/my behavior about which persons Conservative may be seems to be entirely contrary to the intellectual atmosphere for which we strive at Conservapedia. Of course, I know that Conservative is a valued veteran administrator. However, I would say that if a new account were to engage in the sort of behavior Conservative has engaged in regarding the user's anonymity, I would not hesitate to block this user (with permission to create a new account) on account of the username policy. For the record, my understanding of MediaWiki allows usernames to be changed, and if Conservative wishes to avail himself/herself/itself/themselves/myself of this opportunity, User:Conservative can be redirected to the new userpage reflecting the user's (or users') real name. GregG 17:28, 29 May 2012 (EDT)
EDIT This would allow User:Conservative to keep the same signature reflecting his/her/its/their/my chosen pseudonym. GregG 17:30, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

New news: NC Teacher yells at students saying that it's criminal to speak badly about Obama

[22] This is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard about schools. This should go on the Main Page news. JonnyAmerican 10:07, 21 May 2012 (EDT)

Sounds like a poe to me. brenden 23:08, 21 May 2012 (EDT)The thought police!
The student is trying to pick a fight? Are you kidding me? The student is asking a question calmly and engaging in reasonable political discourse in an academic setting. The teacher appears to be chimping out and making false assertions about law. For the professor to have made such an asinine comment about the student shows why he is teaching at a community college. Capitalist 00:50, 27 May 2012 (EDT)

I listened to the audio recording. The teacher is clearly trying to impose her own political views on the class. At issue is whether Romney alone, or both Romney and Obama, have engaged in bullying. She repeatedly told the student to be quiet (or that he was wrong) when he asked, "Didn't Obama bully someone too?" Note that this is not some random comment he made, but is directed to the "fact of the day". --Ed Poor Talk 22:52, 6 June 2012 (EDT)


你知道吗, 世界上 的 语言 来自非洲? 我不知道 什么 CMI 说 的, 但 我 知道 语言 哪里 起源.brenden 22:26, 21 May 2012 (EDT)

What is widely considered the "cradle of civilization"? Was it HERE? Of course, this is perfectly in accordance with where the Bible indicates man was created in terms of proximate location.
You might as well face it, many evolutionists such as yourself have a poor grasp of the social science of history. If evolutionists/atheists/agnostics such as yourself understood history better, you would better understand the importance of trends and would see that resistance is futile.[23][24][25]
Because the members of your ideological camp often have such a poor grasp of history, often they have a poor grasp of their place in history in terms of historical context and poorly understand your opposition as well.
知彼知己,百戰不殆;不知彼而知己,一勝一負;不知彼,不知己,每戰必殆 Conservative 20:59, 22 May 2012 (EDT)
你的中文太可怕了! 你應該學習一些中文前说这些笨蛋话. 我不知道你在说什么怎么说服我们.brenden 13:56, 23 May 2012 (EDT)
你在哪里学的中文?brenden 01:01, 27 May 2012 (EDT)


I had read the article cited from the news page. At the very end of the article it says exactly what I was thinking, "...Of course, it’s not Facebook’s fault it’s being dragged through divorce court, he says, “It’s the people who use it.” Blaming facebook is like blaming the gun and not the owner of the gun. Facebook isn't forcing anyone into adultery. --DanJG 17:58, 22 May 2012 (EDT)

A very good point! When used in moderation, Facebook and other social networking sites can be a great way to stay in touch with old friends/classmates/co-workers and even conveniently communicate (the Facebook message being more casual than the e-mail) with people whom you see regularly. If some people abuse this resource, that's their prerogative, and they'll have to live with the consequences of doing so; but Facebook is hardly to blame for their selfish impulses. --JHunter 08:27, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Facebook is liberal trash that should not be used: it has resulted in suicides, bouts in divorce court, and lower grades for students in school. This is shown by the plummeting of Facebook stock, despite all the hype from the lamestream media. --James Wilson 11:12, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Facebook is to blame for suicides, divorces and lower grades? How does plummeting stock show this? I figured plummeting stock was due to the Facebook's unknown income sources. As for blaming a website for one's personal choices.. seems like we need a little bit of accountability on our own end. The website didn't force you to cheat. The website didn't put the gun in your hand and the website didn't tell you not to study. Those are all personal choices. Blaming a website, with such venom, for your poor personal choices seems like a childish thing to do. That's just my opinion. --DanJG 13:38, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Reading Speed

I want to say two things about this:

1) I got 33% faster than average after a couple tries

2) Why would reading speed show if you went to public school or not? Everyone has different reading speeds. Both of my parents went to public school as kids but my dad can read pretty fast and my mom reads slowly.

JonnyAmerican 11:04, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

"I got 33% faster than average after a couple tries". Of course. Also, public schools have many illiterate students and students who do not read well, thanks to liberal insistence of removing phonics and support of memorization. --James Wilson 11:13, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

I got 2% over average without any other tries. I guess it would make sense that my parents would be better of since they did school in the 80s and 90s, not the 2000s JonnyAmerican 11:22, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

On that same topic...

The majority of high school graduates in the United States graduate having attended public schools (most with unionized teachers) for their entire K-12 education, and it has been this way for almost a century. From this pool of graduates, the United States has drawn many of its most brilliant scientists, entrepreneurs, artists, and innovators. Many of whom came from family backgrounds where, without public education, they would have had no access to any formal education at all--much less the opportunity to contribute to this country in the ways that they have.

While it is true that the public educational system in the United States is very far from perfect, nationwide public high school completion rates have remained on a steady upward trend since at least the early 1970s, as well as a a steady upward trend in the number of public high school graduates who go on to earn a college degree (same source as before). And while it is true that educational achievement and educational attainment in the United States are lagging behind that of other developed nations, neither teachers unions (which are ubiquitous, and more influential, in every country that outperforms us in any metric of student achievement) nor the teachers are to blame. If anything, the internecine politicization of education and lack of adequate funding for essential programs (e.g. free or reduced price lunches for students with indigent parents) and resources, especially in poorer public school districts, are the root cause for the United States' achievement gap.

Let's not forget that the United States pays its teachers less and works its teachers more than every country outperforming us in student achievement. Teachers in this country are expected to do more work (more hours and, due to budget cuts, larger class sizes) with fewer resources than they are in any other first-world country. People who object to a public school teacher making 100k a year (which happens so rarely, it's newsworthy in and of itself) should remember that said teacher almost certainly holds an advanced degree--schools pay more for more qualified teachers--and at least a few decades of teaching experience (the one teacher at my public high school who made >80k/year had a PhD in his field and had been teaching at my school for almost forty years--he retired the year after I graduated). Far from "gouging the taxpayers", this is a way of fairly compensating the men and women tasked with the vital job of preparing the next generation for their adult lives. Not to mention that teacher pay is positively correlated with student achievement; implying that paying teachers fairly (which is one of the major objectives of teachers unions) may be the surest way of investing in the future so that current and future generations may continue to enjoy American prosperity.

Sorry for posting such a lengthy rant, but I'm going into work late today and I found the "putting liberals to the test" section on the main page to be terribly offensive and disparaging to a hard-working and hugely under-appreciated profession; thus, having the time, I felt compelled to comment. --JHunter 11:17, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

I agree with you, even when I'm not liberal. JonnyAmerican 11:22, 23 May 2012 (EDT)
The passage I got was from Alice in Wonderland, so I clicked the button after six seconds and got all the questions right, giving me a score of 1000% faster than average. Forget reading speed, there's no substitute for being well-read and knowledgeable.--CPalmer 12:08, 23 May 2012 (EDT)
Yeah. I did that too with a Wizard of Oz passage and I got a score of 16,189% above average! JonnyAmerican 12:13, 23 May 2012 (EDT)
I was in Shockofgod's free chat room located HERE and an atheist/agnostic libertarian discussed literary rates before public schools in the United States. If anyone wants to do a little research on this, I and no doubt others would be interested in this. Also, I think one can plausibly declared that the more Bible centered a particular Western country has been in a given era, the more literate a country was because in order to understand the Bible it certainly helps to be able to read it. Conservative 12:41, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Here is the book that the libertarian in Shockofgod's free chat room cited and I take it from a forum at from a user by the name of Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

"In The Transformation of the American Economy, Robert Higgs touches upon the subject,

In 1870 about 90 percent of adult white Americans could read and write; by 1910, 95 percent possessed these basic skills. For obvious reasons, literacy was much less prevalent among the nonwhite population - predominately blacks - but improvement was rapid. In 1870 only about 20 percent of the adult nonwhite population was literate; by 1910 the proportion had increased to 70 percent. (p. 34.)

The determining issue was the increase in leisure hours, made possible by the vast improvement in productivity between 1879 and 1910."[26]

HERE is a brief history of public school education in the United States. Also, the Emancipation Proclamation occurred in 1863 in the United States and the American Civil War ended in 1865 to give some additional perspective. Also, the Reconstruction Era of the United States was from 1865 to 1877 following the Civil War of the United States to give some further historical perspective.

I do understand that literacy is merely a basic skill, but it seems as if many public schools in the United States are presently failing to instill this basic skill and are drop out factories. Conservative 12:55, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Here is an excerpt from a 2009 USA Today news story: "A long-awaited federal study finds that an estimated 32 million adults in the USA — about one in seven — are saddled with such low literacy skills that it would be tough for them to read anything more challenging than a children's picture book or to understand a medication's side effects listed on a pill bottle."[27] Conservative 13:34, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

JHunter wrote: "Let's not forget that the United States pays its teachers less and works its teachers more than every country outperforming us in student achievement." I have no problem with teachers getting paid well as long as they are performing well. And with that being said, is this true? Does Norway for example, pay their teacher's more and have a higher literacy rate? Here is a listing of countries by literacy rates: CIA fact book - literacy rates. Also, never was it declared that teachers were the sole issue in terms of America's underperforming schools as a schools ability to teach is presently the result of federal/state governments, the parents and communities, administrators, teacher unions and teachers.

One thing that appears to be happening is that education seems to be funded more in the United States by government than in the past, but achieving less results which suggests that how the money is allocated (administrative/school cost vs. teacher cost) and/or content/manner of teaching and/or the readiness of students entering school is a problem in the United States.

Personally, I agree with John Stossel that the money following the students via money given the parents and parents can freely decide which school to send their kids to (public or private) like in Belgium is better than how things are being presently done is America so there would be more competition. According to John Stossel most countries which allow more school choice outperform the United States (the money attached to the students). Conservative 14:19, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

From an article here:
In Puritan New England this seems to have been particularly evidenced. In The Intellectual Life of New England Samuel Eliot Morison notes that Boston Latin was "the only public school down to 1684, when a writing school was established; and it is probable that only children who already read were admitted to that . . . . they must have learned to read somehow, since there is no evidence of unusual illiteracy in the town. And a Boston bookseller’s stock in 1700 includes no less than eleven dozen spellers and sixty-one dozen primers." [3]
Robert A Peterson[5] argues,
For two hundred years in American history, from the mid-1600s to the mid-1800s,...America produced several generations of highly skilled and literate men and women who laid the foundation for a nation dedicated to the principles of freedom and self-government. The private system of education in which our forefathers were educated included home, school, church, voluntary associations such as library companies and philosophical societies, circulating libraries, apprenticeships, and private study. It was a system supported primarily by those who bought the services of education, and by private benefactors. All was done without compulsion. Although there was a veneer of government involvement in some colonies, such as in Puritan Massachusetts, early American education was essentially based on the principle of voluntarism.[6]
Some contend that in colonial America literacy rates were as high or higher than they are today.[10] Ruth Wallis Herndon, in Literacy among New England's transient poor, 1750-1800, states that by using different sources, a number of "historians have discovered a nearly universal literacy among New England men and varying levels of literacy among New England women in the latter part of the eighteenth century."[11]
Also of note is the place the Bible had in early American education, regardless of the angst that produces among those who hold to extremes views on the Separation of church and state Glory to God. May i read and meditate it upon more. Daniel1212 07:26, 24 May 2012 (EDT)
I've come across this fascinating aspect of US history before, but its always been made clear that the literacy statistics did not include slaves or indentured servants. It is therefore difficult to draw direct comparisons between then and now. Rafael
Rafael, I think this material should be considered as far as indentured servants: "William Tyndale was a truly amazing man who had one burning ambition - to translate the Bible into English, so that the British people could read the truth of God's Word for themselves....An unquenchable passion developed in his soul - to make the Bible available in English to every Englishman, regardless of their status, whether scholar or labourer. He was determined to give the English people a translation of the Bible that even a plowboy could understand."[28] I think the Geneva Bible was very readable at the time too and my guess is that the KJV was readable to the people during its era and many people still prefer the KJV today.[29] Conservative 22:35, 27 May 2012 (EDT)
The growth of public and grammar schools in the sixteenth century meant that quite a few English people - as many as 50% of men in London, for example - could not only read English but had a smattering of Latin, Greek, Rhetoric and Maths. However, access to education was limited to people who could afford it; the translations of the Bible, prayer books, the English mass etc were not meant to be read and understood, they were meant to be heard from the pulpit and understood. Moreover, the concept of reading to oneself in silence was considered eccentric until the seventeenth century! Although access to education improved among radical dissenters in the 1640s and 1650s - the kind of people who migrated to the New World after the restoration of the monarchy - it was still largely limited to land-owning men and their families.
BTW, the King James Bible was commissioned by King James I, who came to the English throne after the death of Elizabeth I in 1603. His was the Jacobean period, not the Elizabethan! Rafael

Syrian Violence

"Are the lamestream media teaming up with the Obama Administration to interfere with another nation again?" Is this really the angle Conservapedia is going to take? Pro-massacre in Syria? --PaPatriot

It's less "Pro-massacre", and more "Anti-Obama at all costs". I'm only surprised as how par-for-the-course it's become. EricAlstrom 11:44, 28 May 2012 (EDT)
It's not even as if the Obama administration has taken any serious action on Syria. I'm begging someone in charge to remove this, just out of Christian decency. --PaPatriot
Given that Romney said that Obama "can no longer ignore calls from congressional leaders in both parties to take more assertive steps in Syria", I wonder how long until Conservapedia calls out the obvious Lamestream Media (the most ridiculous phrase every invented) collusion with Romney... EricAlstrom 18:55, 28 May 2012 (EDT)
Except if Romney advocates action in Syria it's probably because he knows what he's doing, rather than NObama who is terminally misguided. And "lamestream" media obviously isn't an academic phrase, but it's still quite clever and witty nonetheless. Parzival 19:09, 28 May 2012 (EDT)
But isn't the whole Syrian government killing its people a big hoax perpetrated by the media?? Obama is having the media drum up fake news to support his decision to not do anything...while Romney is falling for it, and thus he knows that he's doing? And "lamestream" media is equivalent to when I used to call my friend Elliot from elementary school "Smelliot". EricAlstrom 20:19, 28 May 2012 (EDT)

Can we please remove this item from the MPR? I know it's buried pretty far down, but I can't help feeling taunted by its ridiculousness. (Although, kudos to Mr Schlafly for removing that bit about Hillary) EricAlstrom

Here's the thing as to why this is staying: first, from the very first year of his administration, Obama has sought and/or succeeded in getting political unrest in several Muslim nations in the Mideast. Egypt and Libya now have the Muslim Brotherhood seeking power and about to get it; Algeria and Morocco are having problems now. Al Qaida now is operating in most of these countries. Egypt is tossing away its peace treaty with Israel and has authorized attacks on its Christian Copt population. Iran is close to getting a nuclear bomb, and has made no secret about what it wants to do with both Israel and the U.S. And the doctor in Pakistan that gave us Osama Bin Laden? He was tossed under the bus by Obama and given thirty years for treason.
Second, the mainstream press has failed to hold Obama accountable for his actions; in fact, the press has gone out of its way to portray Obama in as much of a favorable light as possible. He slips on a banana peel, the press would demand the head of the offender that placed it there; if Bush slipped on one, the press would make sure the laughter was front and center on page one for a month. There's your difference. Karajou 17:03, 29 May 2012 (EDT)
Did Bush ever succeed in getting political unrest in Muslim nations? --TheodoreS 17:34, 29 May 2012 (EDT)
That's not the issue, Mr. Troll...the issue here is whether or not the lamestream press will hold Obama accountable to the same standards that they held Bush to.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by karajou (talk)

Update: Seems that the facts point to Sunni rebels and not the Syrian govt as the cause of the massacre. 90 Alawi and Shia were the victims. [30] --Jpatt 23:08, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

American Idol

I would suggest changing the wording at the end of the "news" part to "real answers are ... not on reality television". Real answers can be found on the right television networks and programs. American Idol is not one of them.

User Deletions

What is with all the User deletions lately? Some of them had not edited for months and suddenly just got mass-deleted. Is Conservapedia trying to restrict its editors to a few now that it thinks it has enough material? I was very surprised to see all of the deletions going on lately. --Jzy 09:55, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

I don't like some of them too. Conservative 12:58, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for the chuckle, User:Conservative

(Usually, I'd put such a remark on the adequate page, but User talk:Conservative is sadly protected)

Dear Conservative, your comment Greg, do you often write long screeds on things that are never going to happen? Conservative 04:51, 30 May 2012 (EDT) really made me chuckle: this coming from the author of Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will see a significant decline and similar oeuvres! But unfortunately you have already shown in the section Wimpy atheist alert above that you are strangely unable to apply your own standard to your own actions.... AugustO 09:16, 30 May 2012 (EDT)

American atheism has already started the process of sliding from a squeak in society to half a squeak. [31][32] :) Second, I/we do not send whiny emails to the opposition. :) Conservative 09:43, 30 May 2012 (EDT)
Yes, instead you/you prefer to anonymously post slanderous "satires" in a public environment which you/you tightly control. This is a much less wimpy thing to do :) WilcoxD 00:19, 31 May 2012 (EDT) (also I know the correct term would be libel, not slander, but I enjoy aliteration)
WilcoxD, I noticed you were completely vague about the libel charge. Is it because you lack machismo or is because the allegation lacks merit or is it both! Conservative 00:28, 31 May 2012 (EDT)
Firstly, only one of you noticed? Secondly, thank you for providing this example to the readers who may not be aware of the essays I was alluding to. Finally, since you haven't actually refuted any of these allegations we can all assume you have no comeback, so good on you for making that clear (albiet indirectly) :) WilcoxD 00:45, 31 May 2012 (EDT)
Are you the barrister of Richard Dawkins? Bring on the libel lawsuit son! Unless of course, you know your client lacks machismo! :) Conservative 00:58, 31 May 2012 (EDT)
Conservative, you appear to have completely missed my point ... how embarrassing for you. WilcoxD 01:24, 31 May 2012 (EDT)
Do I have machismo? 你不能说他们没有男子气概如果他们的话没有说你的男子方面.brenden 01:32, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

WilcoxD, I banned you for 2 weeks for 90/10 (excess talk) and lack of machismo. Maybe when you return, you will do less talk, talk, talk and be more the "strong and silent type" of editor! :) Conservative 08:30, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

How convenient that the 90/10 rule exists. Otherwise you'd have to actually answer the questions people ask you, and that would be awkward, wouldn't it?--PaulCharters 21:16, 1 June 2012 (EDT)
It would be if most internet atheists formulated good questions. Unfortunately, many Conservapedia atheists haven't even mastered how to spell the words atheism, atheist and atheists! Conservative 21:30, 1 June 2012 (EDT)
Actually, looking at Wilcox's edits he was well within the 90/10 rule, especially if you exclude minor edits like word changes. Lucky for Conservative, though, he is able to make up whatever rules he likes to avoid an awkward question
His last 10 edits were talk, talk, talk. Plus, I gave a second reason as well. :) Conservative 17:54, 2 June 2012 (EDT)
Please excuse me - I was not aware of the "ten in a row" rule or the macho-man rule. WilcoxD 20:58, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

Sistine Madonna

What a great idea to mention the German postage stamp celebrating the 500th anniversary of this masterpiece! However, I would make two changes to the text (I tried to do it myself, but found out I was unable to):

1. The final sentence. It currently reads:

"The text on the stamp reads, '500 anni della Madonna Sistina' (500 years of the Sistine Madonna)."

That is incomplete and even confusing, because it amounts to saying that a German postage stamp is written in Italian. I would change it to read:

"The text on the stamp reads, '500 Jahre Sixtinische Madonna - 500 anni della Madonna Sistina' (500 years of the Sistine Madonna in German and Italian)."

2. I would add a second external link, to the German Post web page about the stamp [33]

This could be the start of a new regular feature in Conservapedia: mentioning new developments in the fascinating world of Christian-themed philately. Congratulations to the editor who mentioned this postage stamp on the main page!--Ty 15:01, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Done. --Joaquín Martínez 15:13, 31 May 2012 (EDT)
Thank you!--Ty 15:14, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Face Chewing

I suspect you all saw this, right?brenden 22:26, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Barack HUSSEIN Obama

Why is it that Barack Obama's name is so often written in full in the news section? I've never once seen "Willard Mitt Romney" or "Richard John Santorum" appear there in full. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidMM (talk)

I hear ya brother. His full name was frowned upon and became tool to bash the opposition in 2008. Then he was sworn in using his full name. Neither Mitt nor Rick have entered public office utilizing their full name. Besides, those that follow Conservapedia appear to enjoy being reminded who exactly has the highest office in the land, a fake Christian. --Jpatt 22:30, 1 June 2012 (EDT)
Conservapedia is inconsistent in this regards. For first and last names, see Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Harry Truman, Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, Woodrow Wilson, James Garfield; but see George W. Bush (disambiguation), George H. W. Bush (disambiguation), Ronald Wilson Reagan (unclear why full name is used here), Lyndon B. Johnson (disambiguation), John F. Kennedy (common name), Dwight D. Eisenhower (common name), Franklin D. Roosevelt (common name), Warren G. Harding (common name), William Howard Taft, Chester A. Arthur, Rutherford B. Hayes (common name), Ulysses S. Grant (common name), James K. Polk (common name). (I am ignoring John Quincy Adams due to the fact that there is no common way to distinguish this President from John Adams without using the full middle name.) The general practice seems to prefer using middle initials instead of middle names, where they are used (the only exceptions are Reagan and Obama). I think using Obama's full name (which is not in common use) to refer to him generally on Conservapedia, when only Reagan is treated the same way, comes off as gratuitous. GregG 22:46, 1 June 2012 (EDT)
You found our weakness, inconsistency and gratuitous. This angle doesn't amount to a hill of beans. In fact, it means nothing in the scheme of things. Let's talk about how Conservapedia's logo uses the flag improperly.--Jpatt 22:53, 1 June 2012 (EDT)
I do think the logo could use an update. Of course, I am not a graphic designer, but I trust that if some of our resident artists put their efforts into making a new logo, it will definitely improve Conservapedia's image, especially to visitors. GregG 22:58, 1 June 2012 (EDT)
That's going to take more than a logo, I'm afraid. The banning of User:Conservative would definitely help though. No other encyclopaedia has flying kitties, which is maybe why this one has unfortunately become such a laughing stock. --LiamCaldicott 19:11, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

"An atheist declares..."

I saw this item on your news section about an atheist saying "Seems like we just can't get ahead no matter what we try", added by user:Conservative. I decided to investigate and followed the link provided, which took me to the 'Question Evolution! campaign' page. From there, a link took me to the source of the quote. The source was a Yahoo! answers page, with a user called 'Theatheist' linking to ShockofGods website and saying, quote "Video showing the decline because of birth rates in secular countries dropping while religious birthrates are increasing. What can we as atheists do to stop this. Seems like we just can't get ahead no matter what we try". (The link to ShockofGods website does not actually link to a demographics study or a statistic on the decline of atheism, so the source of this statement cannot be found.)

The strange thing is what the same user, 'Theatheist', later put on the same page: "I think you are right wheatley atheism is an epic fail. This just in!! Richard Dawkins has left atheism and now admits he is agnostic see the news article here above". This quote, full of grammatical errors and random irrelevant points, feels rather similar to the style of user:Conservative, the very person who put this up on the CP news section.

Call me picky, but is allowing a news article where a user quotes himself as a source with no apparant data, under the guise of the opposition 1) Deceitful, and 2) Harmful to the sites credibility? AdamG 13:55, 2 June 2012 (GMT)

Adam, like nearly all atheist allegations about Christians, the one thing you are missing is convincing proof. In short, you have no convincing proof concerning your claim that I am "Theatheist" at Yahoo answers. The devil is called the "accuser of the brethren" due to his many false accusations against Christians. It looks like you are a chip off the old block!
Second, I certainly have better things to do with my time that post hundreds of answers and questions as "TheAtheist" at Yahoo answers. Son, I have bigger fish to fry! I am quite jealous of his 1,135 points Yahoo answers points though. :) If he gets 1,365 more points, he moves to the next level! :) [34]
When you actually have proof and evidence of your claim that I am "Theatheist" get back to me. But not before then! Conservative 10:06, 2 June 2012 (EDT)Conservative 10:06, 2 June 2012 (EDT)
I put this on the front page: "Update: It was probably a kid riling up atheists about global atheism shrinking as part of a prank." Conservative 11:35, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

Sorry for the late reply. The library is closed on bank holidays.

I already said that he has the same style of writing, and the strange need to add irrelevant points to the posts he makes, which is something that you seem to do. These are some more questions by Theatheist: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]

Notice how, like your own posts, most, if not all of them mention ShockofGod. And since no one else besides you is this obsessed with him, I find it strange that Theatheist talks about him as much as you do.

Also, quotes like these... "As you know Shockofgod has been defeating atheists left and right in debate.", "Shockofgod has defeated 54 atheists in a row and is looking for atheists with a spine to debate him.", "Atheism is dumb as h*ll" and "SO my question is, since atheism contradicts itself how do we as atheists address this problem of the contradiction of atheism? Are we doomed?", "ROFL wow you atheists seem terrified of shockofgod lol"... Make it quite obvious that this person is NOT an atheist. I could find more, but I think that's enough.

Need more? He links to CP a lot ([44]), praises ShockofGod as if he were the second coming (much like you do) and links to him at every opportunity, and he has the ability to put up several posts saying exactly the same thing (much like you do).

I am not the only one that is suspicious. One user posted: ""Conservapedia" is your source. Why would an atheist go there for information? Unless you`re a christian trying to see what we atheists "have up our sleeves". Christian posing as an atheist has been outted. You would suck at the CIA." ([45])

I see that before I even gave you this post, you changed the headline to say that it probably wasn't an atheist. Soon after, you got rid of it entirely. Perhaps you should find some machismo and tell us why you first backtracked, then removed it completely.AdamG 15:28, 6 June 2012 (GMT)

AdamG, Shockofgod has about 20,000 subscribers and many of them are young people and kids. It is certainly plausible that one of his young fans is yanking the chains of atheists using the Yahoo Answers username of the "theatheist". Secondly, liberals/atheists have on several occasions spuriously asserted various things about "writing styles" and document authorship even then the evidence did not warrant it. For example, Documentary Hypothesis proponents claimed at one time that Moses did not write the Pentateuch because writing did not exist at that time. We now know that writing did exist at that time. Bottom line: Your little fishing expedition failed! Conservative 11:21, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

Diamond Jubilee

It's the 60th year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II! A celebration of conservatism is underway in the usually atheistic England. What a fine spectacle. --TMarlow 07:51, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

The Queen is the head of the Anglican Church. The Anglican church holds liberal positions on women priests, homosexuality, abortion and the Occupy movement. It has also, during her reign, been a prominent part of the anti-Apartheid and, more recently, the anti-invasion of Iraq movement. What's more, our ten pound notes feature her face on one side and Charles Darwin's on the other. She has the right of veto but did not use it.
Go figure, as our US cousins say. Rafael
Re: celebrating... pf you're into that sort of thing... Personally, I can't get all that excited about celebrating the continued existence of a profoundly undemocratic institution that has helped perpetuate the power and privilege of a hereditary ruling elite for most of the last thousand years. If that is what you believe conservatism is about, you can keep it.
As for "usually atheistic England" (actually, it's called Britain), I don't believe there is a switch you can flick to turn atheism off. And while there is going to be a church service tomorrow to commemorate the event, to the vast majority of Brits this is purely secular occasion, and I doubt more than a passing few have paid any attention to anything beyond having a jolly good time.MarkJW 17:09, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
I highly recommend this video: The Difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England, which can be viewed here [46]. I've noticed that several members of this site have difficulty distinguishing England from the United Kingdom, especially Andy Schnafly, and I hope that this video (which is narrated by an American) will help to clear up any misunderstandings. HumanGeographer 08:42, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

Gallup Poll headline is misleading...

The numbers just reflect a correction after a slight decline in believers from 2008-2011. The number of believers is not significantly different then what it was 20 years ago in 1982. And it's not much higher than it was even 4 years ago. In fact, the number of believers was higher in the nineties. In short, you're not "defeating evolution" (which is up 6 points from where it was 20 years ago), but seeing polls fluctuate based on the populace that was polled. JackHamm 20:05, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

You're right! In fact, what it really shows is a significant increase in evolutionary belief in the last ~12 years. Here is the link ScottC 22:12, 3 June 2012 (EDT)
You can behave like an ostrich and hide your head in the sand and engage in atheist and evolutionist denialism all you want. But global atheism and American evolutionism hasn't done well in the last 17 months as can be seen HERE and HERE. Keep hiding your head in the sand evolutionist denialist! Ostrich fricassee, atheism fricassee and evolutionary belief fricassee are quite delicious! You might as well face it, atheism and evolutionism will be grind up into a fine pulp and atheists and evolutionist cowards are impotent to stop this matter. Conservative 05:24, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
The Gallup survey on creation vs. evolution never saw more than a estimated 3 percentage rise in public opinion in a given period and when a 3 percent estimated upward shift did occur, it took several years. On the other hand, the Gallup organization recently estimated that young earth creationism saw a SIX PERCENT jump in merely 17 MONTHS. Engage in denialism and complacency until your hearts content evolutionists and declare that nobody will ever breach the evolutionism Maginot Line. However, keep in mind that history is littered with failed ideologies whose misguided and/or stubborn followers/proponents were complacent. Here is a great example of the complacency of the evolution camp. Some sloppy thinking evolutionist recently claimed that Carl Gallups influenced the Gallup poll because they have the same last name. Of course, they don't have the same last name. They merely have similar last names. :) Conservative 07:19, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

On a side note, it appears Christianity is losing ground, showing a dramatic decrease in interest since 2004 [47]. Creationism seems to be hit by a similar lack of interest [48]. Game over Creationists.

Care to show us how internet trends don't mean anything? AdamG 15:37, 6 June 2012 (GMT)

Obama encourages truancy

[49] Might be fun to put that on In the News--CamilleT 21:29, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

I don't see anything meaningful in that story. Our criticisms of Obama are more substantive than directing folks to that silly article.--Andy Schlafly 22:15, 3 June 2012 (EDT)
There are substantive criticisms to be sure. Unfortunately, from a policy (that is, the policies they've enacted, all campaign rhetoric aside) standpoint, Obama and Romney are virtually indistinguishable. We can poke fun all we want, it's not going to change the FUBAR two party system. --JHunter 01:57, 4 June 2012 (EDT)


Could you please provide evidence that the majority of American atheists actively groaned and/or were dismayed by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union? JackHamm 14:51, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Atheists loved communism, especially Soviet communism. You can tell that by the fact that the Soviet Union was the epitome of questioning dogma, encouraging freedom of thought, and demanding evidence for extraordinary claims. </sarcasm> EricAlstrom 15:40, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
Nice sweeping generalizations. Soviet Communism was indeed NONE of those things, it was a totalitarian, dogmatic dictatorship, a theocracy in everything but religion. Again, please provide evidence of American atheists supporting the soviet union. This means not just singular cases of radicals, but a long-standing trend and comprehensive poll data. JackHamm 15:52, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
Hm, sarcasm really doesn't come across well in typed media. I fixed my post. EricAlstrom 16:02, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
I thought it might have been, but considering how many people who edit this wiki dance around Poe's Law, you can never be sure. JackHamm 16:07, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
Karl Marx said communism begins with atheism/materialism. Lenin said the atheism of communism must be militant. Stalin razed a ton of churches and killed a ton of Orthodox priests and believers. Traditionally, atheists have tilted left in their politics when it comes to social issues. I know in recent times atheists have tended to tilt left when it comes to economics which is not surprising since the atheists Karl Marx was a founder of Marxist-Leninism communism and communism in general. See: Atheism and communism and Atheism and mass murder and Liberalism and atheism. Conservative 16:19, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
Actually, Eric, that's a logical fallacy. Although all Communists were atheists, that does not mean necessarily that all atheists were Communists. (Another example: All squares are rectangles, but that does not mean all rectangles are squares.) So we can't say for sure that "most" American atheists bemoaned the fall of the Berlin Wall. CWest 15:03, 5 June 2012 (EDT)CWest

Saying that because US atheists lean to the left on social issues, they bemoaned the fall of the Berlin Wall, is like saying that because US conservatives lean to the right on social issues, we would bemoan the fall of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. That argument is incredible specious. EricAlstrom 16:37, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

At a tangent, Richard Dawkins has always said he is an agnostic. Its the core idea of "The God Delusion". The stories in the British Press about his "conversion" to agnosticism only ran in the two or three newspapers whose science correspondents hadn't bothered reading the book. More an embarrassment than a scoop. Rafael

I thought of a good example about the whole communism thing for you, Conservative. The Crips street gang makes their members wear the color blue, almost exclusively, and sometimes on pain of death. Today I'm wearing a blue shirt. Does that make me a Crip? EricAlstrom 17:10, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Eric, you are dodging a central point and as long as you dodge this central point, your argumentation can be readily dismissed. One of the core precepts of communism was atheism. Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin were largely the principle architects of communism. That is why communism is often referred to as Marxist-Leninism. Karl Marx said communism begins with atheism/materialism. Lenin said the atheism of communism must be militant. Communism has historically been militant when it comes to atheism and this is no accident of history. You can dance around this issue all you want, but it is not going away. Conservative 06:47, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

I'm not meaning to dodge the central point. In fact, I'll agree with you, communism actively and violently forced atheism upon its population. So we are both on the same side; communists are atheists.
However, that's not really what your post was about. You were making the point that American atheists are Soviet communist sympathizers. I think that is false. For example, one of the main principles of Nazi dogma is the militant advancement of the Nordic races. But, don't you think it would be a little absurb to say that American's of Nordic decent were upset by the downfall of the Third Reich?
The bigger, deeper point, though, is that Jesus has called us all to be fishers of men. As Matthew says, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". The absolute most important thing to me, and hopefully to all Christians, is bringing as many souls to Christ as I can. And I don't think the most effective way of doing that is by calling them Soviet communist. In fact, I think that hurts, rather than helps. </my-two-cents> EricAlstrom 10:16, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
American atheists have always been the camp in the United States most sympathetic to communism. Plus. American atheists and European atheists tend to be on the left side of the political spectrum. There is a term for them: The Secular Left. And the Secular Left has wanted to grow government bigger and bigger and bigger. I rarely, if ever, hear members of the secular left ever wanting to cut a government program except for defense but even that is weak as seen by the general lack of war protesting on the left during the Obama administration. It is true, however, that not all atheists are socialists/communists. Conservative 11:50, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
Rafael, you didn't do your due diligence. Richard Dawkins is a former militant atheist. Conservative 12:20, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

Apart from reading The God Delusion among others,attending one of his lectures and a brief e-mail correspondence with him ten years ago, I guess not. He has always made it clear that the existence of God can never be scientifically proven therefore it would, in his opinion, be as irrational to be an atheist as a believer. However, he has also - conveniently - separates the idea of religion and God. In his mind, all religions are evil and all practicants either stupidly mistaken or evil themselves ; using the kind of ontological reasoning favoured by St Jerome, among others, he concludes that any god they claim to represent cannot be God . From your own source: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in".
Its important that we understand the ideas that Dawkins et al present so we can confront them effectively. Misrepresenting their ideas, attributing straw men arguments to them and generally calling them poopie heads won't work.
Thanks for the link, though. I'll watch after the kids have gone to bed! Rafael

Well, Conservative, I guess we just have different thoughts and opinions on this issue. But reasonable men and women can amicably disagree. I do wish you all the best. EricAlstrom 12:25, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

Eric, can you cite one instance of a member of the American secular left ever wanting to significantly cut a non-defense federal government program? Conservative 14:09, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

Yes, I certainly can. Maybe the most influential proponent of cutting government. She's not in the left, per se, but she is certainly an atheist, and definitely socially liberal. EricAlstrom 14:29, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

She's dead and she wasn't a member of the secular left. I rest my case. Conservative 16:05, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
Even if she's dead, you still asked for any instance "ever," so the fact that she's dead does not detract from Eric's example. I concur, though, that she was not part of the secular left. CWest 16:26, 5 June 2012 (EDT)CWest
He didn't have an example. She was not a member of the secular left. My case is still rested! Conservative 17:19, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

[50] It isn't a federal government program, but it is cutting taxes. And although Sweeney's stated religion is Catholic, this should illuminate his secular agenda. CWest 17:47, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

I'm not entirely sure what the "Secular Left" actually is. Is it anyone affiliated with the Democratic Party? If so, Alice Rivlin, Ann Fudge, John Spratt (D-SC), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Jim Cooper (D-TN), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) all voted for or supported Simpsons-Bowles, which would have cut discretionary spending, cutting the federal work force by 10%, reduced farm subsidies, federal pensions, student loan subsidies, and raised the Social Security retirement age. Does that count?

If not, if the "Secular Left" is a Democratic/liberal who is also an atheist, I think there is only Pete Stark from California, and I honestly don't know much about him. EricAlstrom 21:12, 5 June 2012 (EDT)


I'm new here, but I've noticed that User:Conservative seems to be being really unhelpful on all the pages I've seen him edit. He just deletes stuff he doesn't agree with, and forces his opinion onto pages, even when it's obviously shown to be incorrect. Should we ban him? Enidblyton8 20:01, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

It would make the place far less fun if we did. Besides, he's part of the Conservapedia pantheon. --Esseph 20:21, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
While I'm not sure about your claims, Enid, I did notice that he is technically in violation of the 90/10 rule, as his last 20 edits have all been to user or talk pages (he actually blocked someone for two weeks that posted on this very page a few days ago because "His last 10 edits were talk, talk, talk." Does this mean Conservative should be blocked for a month, twice as long, for his last 20 consecutive edits being talking? Either way, it would be difficult to block/ban him anyway, because he is a sysop. CWest 20:31, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
Esseph, the reason you are unsure of his claims is atheists are not into providing sound evidence. Conservative 21:11, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
CWest I have created considerably more content to Conservapedia than my detractors. Second, policeman are allowed to surpass the speed limit in their patrol cars. :) Conservative 21:11, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
The police are allowed to do that because they actually do something useful. AdamG 15:31, 6 June 2012 (GMT)
Lets not use this page for griping about admins, pleasebrenden 12:05, 6 June 2012 (EDT)
Even when the admin in question is almost single-handedly destroying what used to be a good wiki? --LiamCaldicott 19:14, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

Huge victory for Creationism in South Korea!

At last, the teaching of Creation, as an alternative to evolutionary science, is beginning to spread outside the American South. South Korea will now follow the lead of Tennessee and Louisiana in preventing the teaching of science in schools! See --Esseph 09:18, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

Wikipedia Porn

I don't think Fox News is really researching this. Any idiot can tell that wp:notcensored and wp:porn specifically targets those problems. Furthermore, WP or WM doesn't host porn, but may contain images of a sexual nature - anatomy images, etc. This seems too ridiculous to take it seriously.brenden 12:37, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

You are way too forgiving. The only major property on the web that doesn't filter explicit images is Wikipedia. A co-founder is concerned but Fox is the bad guy. The top guys in the cabal will talk about the issue but any idiot that questions them can't be taken seriously. I say we can agree to disagree.--Jpatt 12:50, 6 June 2012 (EDT)
See: Wikipedia on bestiality Conservative
When I was in 11th grade, I was doing a school project on Nixon. There was a link in a Wikipedia article on Watergate to "Deep Throat", which was supposed to go to the whistleblower's page. However, at the time, the main "Deep Throat" article was about the porn film, and there was a note on top saying "For the Nixon informant, see 'Deep Throat (whistleblower)'" or something like that. Fortunately for students researching Nixon, the main Deep Throat page is now on the informant, with a note at the top for those trying to find the porn flick. So they are, at least, improving from a few years ago. It's by no means perfect, though. Gregkochuconn 19:49, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

Serious Question

Is this site supposed to be taken seriously? If so, by who? What types of readers is this site trying to attract? It seems that this site is nothing more than an angry and sad attempt to blame liberals for all society's ills. SeriousQuestion 16:33, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

You're an editor now. If you think something can be better, make it better. If you have a suggestion, suggest it. Nobody's getting anywhere just by throwing stones. EricAlstrom 16:48, 6 June 2012 (EDT)
Unfortunately, all this clown can do is throw stones, as demonstrated by previous attempts. Karajou 16:54, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

Public School Student Forced to Remove Anti-Gay T-Shirt on Gay Awareness Day

Read the article at,0,3463806.story When even the liberal ACLU (who is a strong supporter of same sex marriage) is criticizing the school for its political correctness (aka censorship), something is obviously wrong. I say add it to the news page, and be sure to point out that even the ACLU said the school was wrong. Gregkochuconn 19:44, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

Unfortunately, the ACLU is probably in the wrong here. One could argue, notably from the precedents set by the supreme court in Morse v. Frederick and Bethel School District v. Fraser, that the school has the right to suppress any speech determined not to be conducive to the maintenance of a safe learning environment. In this case, a t-shirt that LGBT students and teachers may find potentially threatening (or, in the very least emotionally distressing) does undermine the "safe learning environment", so the school is well within its rights to ask the student to change his t-shirt. --JHunter 21:59, 6 June 2012 (EDT)
Your knowledge of the law is impressive, but not persuasive. It is unconstitutional for public schools to pick and choose what they want to censor based on political correctness. There is no plausible safety issue with respect to one student's protest t-shirt in this context.--Andy Schlafly 22:07, 6 June 2012 (EDT)
  • JHunter, if you regard a threat as similar to emotional distress, then I think I better start checking your article edits. The first is forbidden for the same reason assault is. The second (if it's a reaction to constitutionally protected free speech) is totally different.
  • The use of hate speech rules to censor ideas is at the core of this. Gay rights activists are trying to make it illegal for anyone, anywhere, ever to say they think homosexuality is wrong. "It hurts me to hear him say it." Well, too bad. There's no other way to have political and religious freedom. --Ed Poor Talk 22:32, 6 June 2012 (EDT)
Liberals find reality to be emotionally distressing and try to build liberal cocoons to shield themselves from reality. Within 2-10 years the liberals will feel the financial pinch when it comes to funding their programs through the federal government (like what is happening in Europe) and then the states will start asserting their rights more as the feds will no longer be holding the financial purse strings. In addition, the liberal media will keep shrinking and conservatives will keep gaining more mastery over garnishing more web traffic. Liberals, say goodbye to your liberal cocoons and say hello to emotional distress! Conservative 23:13, 6 June 2012 (EDT)
Andy, I agree with you somewhat. However, I do not believe that this is an example of "picking and choosing" to advance a particular political agenda. I will concede that without knowing exactly what the t-shirt said, or the behavior of the student in question, it is hard to really make an objective call. But if the message on the t-shirt could be reasonably construed as intended to harass LGBT students or staff, then it is not protected speech at a public school. This is entirely independent of the group targeted by the message on the shirt; indeed, a t-shirt with an inappropriate or antagonistic message directed at any group of people would not be protected speech in a public school. --JHunter 01:19, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

The Bible says homosexuality is perverse and it is a sin (see Romans chapter 1 in the Bible). An American student's free speech and religious expression rights do not end at the school doors. With the growing religious conservatism in the USA and in the world, liberals get used to emotional distress concerning your immoral and errant views.[51] It's coming! Conservative 04:30, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

The Koran says pretty much the same about homosexuality. If conservative Christians and Muslims get together, homosexuals and liberals won't have a chance. Esseph 08:45, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
It doesn't matter whether you think homosexuality is right or wrong. Everyone has a right to free speech, even if we find it repulsive. See Virginia v. Black for proof. And free speech does not end at the school doors. The ACLU admits they find the student's opinion detestable, but even they admit he is right in that he is allowed to express it. So whether you're for gay rights or against them, the student was well within his rights. "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". - Evelyn Beatrice Hall Gregkochuconn 09:37, 16 June 2012 (EDT)

Source information for File:Internet.JPG

I noticed that the uploader of this image did not include any information about where the image came from or who created it. These data would be quite helpful in evaluating how solid a case of fair use we at Conservapedia have in using this image to decorate and illustrate the main page. Thanks, GregG 01:11, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

EDIT: Based on a TinEye search, it appears that Getty Images has offered this image at one time (although it appears to no longer be available). My understanding is that they believe that their images have commercial value and therefore patrol the Internet for use of those images. GregG 01:15, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
Put the source below the pic. See source given here: Conservative 03:58, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
Thanks. Could you please take a look at my comment at File talk:Internet.JPG and make appropriate modifications to the file page that I can't do because the file page is protected? GregG 11:49, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

RW article

Here is an RW article that could help our efforts at Conservapedia; could even be put on the front page. CWest 09:35, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

Liberals, say goodbye to your evolutionary belief cocoons!

An online Question evolution! campaign course is being developed with the assistance of a Texas creationist leader plus others. [52]

The online course will feature a lot of content in various formats and for different ages.

Evolutionists, the Question Evolution Campaign will be "loaded for bear" when it comes to having an online presence and having online promotion of that content.[53] Conservative 11:03, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

Again, will defer to the lawyer/site operator, but how does the use of this commercially sold clip art qualify as fair use? GregG 11:51, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
GregG, thanks. I did some initial investigating and found the photos were royalty-free which is not the same as public domain which is totally free. Sometimes free does not mean totally free. :) Conservative 16:48, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

"Even liberals tire of their own claptrap" not the only reason

Actually, there are over three times more active Republicans than Democrats on Facebook. Source here. It shows that Republicans overwhelmingly receive more "likes" (unique people on Facebook that support them) than Democrats, with the exception being Barack Hussein Obama. So liberals actually comprise a minority of Facebook users. This also means that stating "even liberals tire of their own claptrap" as the sole reason for Facebook's predicted demise is incorrect. CWest 15:12, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

That just shows that liberals comprise a minority of "Likes" given, and says nothing about the underlying distribution of actually total users. EricAlstrom 15:28, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
If there's more conservative Facebook users than liberal Facebook users, I'd say that's because there are more conservatives in the world than liberals. However, Facebook is run mostly by liberals, and the conservative users of the site are tiring of the constant liberal changes that are being made to the site, for example, a lot of people don't like the new "timeline" style of Facebook profile, and people are tiring of the inconveniences caused by Facebook's constant efforts to preserve the apparrent privacy of "private" profiles (which aren't really private at all anyway) and enforce its most unpopular of rules, while these changes fail miserably at stopping real threats on Facebook, like spam/scams, viruses, pedophiles, etc. I have seen many people delete their Facebook profiles in the past two years due to the micromanagement and drama. DMorris 16:03, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
Timeline is liberal? And so is user privacy? Fascinating.--RogerW 16:21, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
Phony privacy is liberal. Much of the content on Facebook is also liberal.--Andy Schlafly 21:23, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

Proof and evidence

I’m a bit concerned that User:Karajou dismissed this [54] as ‘silly’. I’m quite sure that if a Creationist claim was backed by the same weight of scientific opinion as this one about evolution it would make world-wide headline news!

I’m curious, as a member of the opposition (Liberal, Atheist, ‘Evolutionist’) what kind of proof would you accept that would convince you that evolution is fact? EJamesW 17:10, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

Ditto, that's ridiculous. What about "Answers"? Is that serious?brenden 18:49, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
Something like heat flowing to a hotter location -- which of course never happens -- would be illustrative of an evolutionary-type of process.--Andy Schlafly 20:46, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
With regards to the first part of your statement, I think you left out the word "spontaneously", as refrigerators and air conditioners, through work, cause heat to flow from cooler to hotter areas. Regardless, your statement about heat is the second law of thermodynamics and has nothing to do with evolution. GregG 22:37, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
Good point about the need to add "spontaneously", as that was the intent of the statement. One could say that refrigerators and air conditioners extract heat.
Evolution claims precisely what does not happen in real science: disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state. It's contrary not only to science, but to logic.--Andy Schlafly 22:49, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
The Earth's biosphere is not a closed system, it is constantly receiving energy from the sun. Therefore the second law of thermodynamics does not apply. Besides, nature abounds with examples of order arising spontaneously in chaotic open systems due to natural forces. --JHunter 01:19, 8 June 2012 (EDT)
Growth of a crystal (say CuSO3) out of a solution is a beautiful example. --FrederickT3 02:04, 8 June 2012 (EDT)
Disorder can change to a more ordered state via input of free energy, which is not in conflict with what evolution claims. Surely nobody disputes that living beings use free energy? CWest 09:38, 8 June 2012 (EDT)

EJamesW, haven't you heard? Internet atheism: The thrill is gone! The thrill is gone for good! It's pointless to resist. The thrill is gone for good. Conservative 02:21, 8 June 2012 (EDT)

Hey User:Conservative. Have YOU heard?

"As the graph below shows, the percent of Americans who believe in creationism has increased slightly by 2 percent over the last 30 years. The percent of Americans who believe in evolution has also increased by 6 percent over the last 30 years while the percent of Americans who believe in theistic evolution has decreased by 6 percent over the same time period." -mikeswann

Mr Schafly, Greg, are you talking about heat or temperature? Heat will flow from an object with a higher temperature to one of a lower temperature irrespective of how much heat they contain. Rafael

Mike, creationists may have pulled people from your camp in the last 17 months in their estimated last big growth spurt as your camp's estimated numbers went down. Thanks buddy, keep them coming our way with your inability to satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists! You do know we are going to keep gobbling up your market share, don't you? Good to hear your camp is complacent though. Keep it up! Conservative 16:48, 8 June 2012 (EDT)

MY camp's numbers went down? First of all, it's not my camp. I'm just making light of your ridiculous claim. Secondly, that believers in atheism went down 1% is ignoring the growth over the last 30 years and is a far cry from "800 less atheists per day, 1,100 less non-religious (agnostic) people per day and 83,000 more people professing to be Christians per day," as you like to claim. You can keep ignoring reality all you like. Nobody's buying. - mikeswann

Meeting with Atheists

I'm sorry. How does the President's aides meeting with a group of Atheists make Obama weak? I thought this site was supposed to be fighting for truth, not just trash talking anyone they don't agree with. This is lazy writing. So when Romney becomes president, if he were to meet with atheists, or talk to evolutionists, would that make him weak as well? --DanJG 19:03, 8 June 2012 (EDT)

Atheism is weak. Haven't you heard? [55][56][57] Second, if Romney were elected, you are delusional if you think he would meet with atheists at the White House. Romney already has already shown he is afraid of incurring the wrath of religious conservatives.[58] Get used to politicians being afraid to offend religious conservatives in the United States because there is going to be a lot more of it. [59] Conservative 02:58, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

Can it be put on main page?

Can this article All Transcript Combined Timeline of Attack and Rescue Mission be referred to on Main page? It really is, as they say, a block buster, being the all sources transcripts of the stalking and shoot down of KAL 007 by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983. They also contain the transcripts of the Soviet secret rescue missions to Moneron Island. I was the one to chronologically combine the Soviet military transcripts that the Russian Federation handed over to International Civil Aviation Organization and have reproduced the unified transcript in a few places. This September 1 will be the 29th anniversary of the shootdown, and I would like these little known transcripts to have a run before that date. There will be great interest (hopefully!) in the year coming in preparation for the 30th year anniversary. Cong. Larry McDonald, of whom there has been survival evidence, was a passenger on Korean Airlines Flight 007. BertSchlossbergBert SchlossbergBertSchlossberg

I can do it. However, it needs a more descriptive article title. Pretend you wrote a newspaper article and then have to pick a descriptive title for the newspaper readers. Conservative 09:11, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

Thanks! How's this? KAL 007: the Soviet real-time stalk, shoot down, and rescue mission orders transcripts BertSchlossberg

This is a very interesting to read. I saw a program on the history channel about this incident a couple years ago. It is unusual that the Soviet pilots did not see any running lights on a commercial airliner. However, that they positively identified it as a 747 very strongly implies that they had reason to believe it was a commercial flight. I wonder, were the Soviet officers responsible ever reprimanded? --JHunter 19:32, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

Bert, I changed the name to KAL 007: Soviet stalk, shoot down, and rescue mission orders transcripts so it would more neatly fit as a title and put it on the main page on the left side. Conservative 08:54, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

Bert, I found a way to include it in the "In the news" section too which is located at main page - right. So now it is on the main page twice. Conservative 09:05, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

Thank you!BertSchlossberg

I think this might be obvious but...

The reason so many liberals prefer dressing like women is that a number of them are women :) DavidVilla 13:16, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

Duly noted and clarified. Conservative 14:04, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

You guys don't follow tennis do you

Rafa is going to win. He has owned the French since he went pro. His mobility is unmatchable and clay is one of the worst surfaces to maximize Djokovic's biggest strength: his return game. And while Djokovic has beaten Rafa at home, Rafa's performance at this French has been masterful to say the least. Rafa is probably going to win. Wait for the U.S. Open, Djokovic is unstoppable on hard surfaces. DavidVilla 20:34, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

At the point of suspension of play, Nadal was up 2 games to 1. I find it hard to disagree with you, considering his prowess on clay. WesleySHello! 20:50, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
Actually, Djokovic is up 2 game to 1 in the fourth set. Nadal is up 2 sets to 1. I can't see Nadal losing three straight sets with as good as he has been, even to Djokovic. Just wait until the US open and Wimbledon. DavidVilla 21:00, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
Djokovic would have clearly won if the umpire did not interfere and suspend play. Nadal was getting demolished -- having lost eight of the last nine games -- and was down a break in the fourth set. Is it possible the umpire who stopped the match is a liberal?--Andy Schlafly 21:06, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
...I REALLY doubt the ump's political leanings had anything to do with stopping the match for rain. The conditions were getting rather absurd. While I don't doubt Nadal was in trouble, as I said, I can't see Djokovic winning three straight on Nadal (who has never dropped three sets in a row on clay before), especially seeing as how Nadal cruised through the first two sets. All it takes is one break back for Nadal and Djokovic is done. DavidVilla 21:16, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
Nadal has to break Djokovic's serve twice in the fourth set to win it. So it seems a fifth set is highly likely, and Djokovic may be able to continue his momentum to win at that point. Will the ump intervene again if it looks like the conservative will win?--Andy Schlafly 23:02, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
I really hope you are joking. French chair umps don't usually call matches between Spaniards and Serbians based on American views of conservatism. DavidVilla 23:07, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
Not sure the French establishment likes Djokovic's Cross. Sounds like this could be Tim Tebow all over again: people say there is no bias against him, but then Denver seems desperate to trade him away for almost nothing in return, after Tebow leads Denver to a much greater success than anyone imagined.--Andy Schlafly 00:06, 11 June 2012 (EDT)
Peyton Manning is almost nothing? He holds over 30 NFL records and is a four-time MVP. CWest 10:53, 11 June 2012 (EDT)
I wasn't going to mention this...but yeah, comparing Tebow to comparison. One is an unproven commodity that had a very mediocre year, the other is probably one of, if not the, greatest QB of his generation. Tim Tebow completed less than half his passes, threw for 12 TDs in 13 games with 12 fumbles (3rd in the league), and the Broncos had the second fewest passing yards in 2011. Tim Tebow's scrambling, improvisational style is like Mike Vick before him: it's exciting to watch, but won't win the championship. DavidVilla 11:27, 11 June 2012 (EDT)
Please don't take this the wrong way, but that kind of thinking is rather paranoid. There is almost no evidence of a bias against Djokovic and even if there was, I have never seen evidence of matches being called against someone based on their religious affiliations. I have a feeling you are just joking though. :P DavidVilla 00:41, 11 June 2012 (EDT)
Well, the match is over and Rafa broke back (and broke again) to take the fourth set and the title. Well done Mr Nadal!--CPalmer 08:51, 11 June 2012 (EDT)
One last word on this: Djokovic may be a man of faith but I'm not sure he is the best role model. Earlier in the tournament he got so angry he kicked in a plastic bench - giving another, less admirable meaning to "Djokovic's cross"!--CPalmer 05:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

Nicolae Paulescu

Isn't it possible the reason he was not awarded the Nobel was because his 'pancreatine' was extracted from bovines and, therefore, unable to be tested, clinically, on humans? It's hard to believe this to be a liberal/atheist/evolutionist conspiracy considering that, at the time, Darwin's theory was still fairly controversial and 'creationism' wasn't looked down upon as it is now. Banting and Macleod simply beat him to a more finished, and tested, product. Although, Paulescu has received some measure of recognition for his findings since then. (Willingham)

No, it is a pattern - see this and this on Dr. Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanner. Also, see these examples of Darwinists suppressing intellectual freedom: source 1 and source 2. In addition, you have to be fool to believe that Barack Obama deserved a Nobel Peace prize at the time it was awarded him. Obama has not lived up to getting the Nobel Prize too.[60] The liberal bias is very clear in terms of Nobel Prizes. There is a clear liberal bias when it comes to Nobel Prizes in notable cases.
But the folly of men in various matters has a way of imploding on itself and the fall of naturalism/evolutionism is most likely not going to be an exception as can be seen HERE and HERE and HERE.Conservative 09:47, 11 June 2012 (EDT)
Just for clarification, I do not think Obama deserved the Nobel prize either. However, I don't think it is accurate to assume that whatever Liberal bias that exists now with the Nobel, existed then. Even a cursory look into Nobel history would produce people such as Anthony Hewish who felt strongly that science and religion were complementary and wrote: "The ghostly presence of virtual particles defies rational common sense and is non-intuitive for those unacquainted with physics. Religious belief in God, and Christian belief ... may seem strange to common-sense thinking. But when the most elementary physical things behave in this way, we should be prepared to accept that the deepest aspects of our existence go beyond our common-sense understanding." And he won the award in 1974.
That is just one person. Please explain why the post 1960s Culture War would not have an effect on the decision making process of the Nobel Prizes being awarded in a country that leans to the left side of the political spectrum.
Please explain why the Darwinist intellectual freedom suppression instances which I cited are not relevant? Did the author of the Privileged Planet have a distinguished career for example? If not, why not? Please explain why Caroline Crocker who never found it difficult to get work before criticizing Darwinism, found it difficult to get work subsequently to criticizing Darwinism. Is she black balled? If not, why not?
Also, where are the countless millions of expected missing link fossils? Also, please explain the abundant Christian success in science before the imposition of methodological naturalism in the scientific community when it comes to historical investigations within science. Also, was the founder of the scientific method an atheist or a theist? Conservative 15:50, 11 June 2012 (EDT)
How are missing link fossils relevant to the Nobel Commission's liberal bias? CWest 20:40, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

Why is the irrationality of liberal evolutionists not relevant? Conservative 20:46, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

I was asking about fossils, not irrationality. Liberal bias is not irrationality; it is simply manipulation and censorship to achieve deceit. (Evolutionists' claims about the theory of evolution, however, are obviously irrationality.) I have no issue with any of your other questions in that response, but I don't understand what fossils have to do with the Nobel Commission's bias. Evolution has already been shown to be a lie, so why ask about it if the point is not about disproving evolution, but proving the Commission's bias? CWest 20:56, 11 June 2012 (EDT)
The fossil record comment was somewhat gratuitous. I do enjoy bringing up the fossil record with evolutionists. ;) "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. Conservative 21:14, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

Why do evolutionists so often engage in childish fantasies and pour forth with so much childish bunkum?

I'm a bit confused by how this is an item "In the News" that "the MSM isn't fully covering." If it does belong on the main page, it should be on Main Page Left, which seems to be the place where feature links to external sites end up.

Also, I might get to work on redesigning the main page to more prominently feature Conservapedia content. You can follow along at User:GregG/New Main Page and leave comments at User talk:GregG/New Main Page. GregG 13:15, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

Is this a suggestion to move the item to the left side? --Ed Poor Talk 14:12, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
Yes, I think it would be more appropriate there. In my opinion, the "In the News" section should be reserved for headlines that are, in fact, news. GregG 14:30, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

I'm not sure why engaging in thought experiments is considered "childish." Everyone engages in flights of "what-ifs" every once in a while. The article hardly discredits evolution, it's merely the work of one person. If one person engaging in a flight of fancy is considered discrediting, then I suppose C.S. Lewis portraying Christ as a lion rather than a human means that Christianity isn't reliable either. DavidVilla 17:12, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

DavidVilla, the burden of proof for historical claims is always on the claimant. Unlike the resurrection of Jesus Christ, evolution has never met this standard. Its hard to discredit something which was never reasonable in the first place. Evolutionism has a long history of folly and this latest episode is more icing on the cake. Conservative 00:52, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
You make the claim that evolution has never met this standard....ok then, prove it. Sorry, but a little imagination, even if it really is folly, is essential to opening up new avenues of pursuit in science. If these imaginings end up amounting to a hill of beans, the scientific method will uncover why...however it could also turn up something of interest as well. It seems that the only people who take issue with these "follies" are those who do not understand how science progresses. [User: Willingham] 0931, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
Willingham, if you are confident that evolutionary belief is warranted based on the evidence, then engage in a recorded public debate at this free chat room with one or more supporters of the Question evolution! campaign (You can find a debate partner for a team debate). The debate will be posted on a YouTube channel with about 20,000 subscribers. The previous evolutionists were soundly defeated in these debates and the thrashing they received was quite embarrassing for evolutionists. Of course, this is not surprising: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates. I do find it quite humorous that Darwinists lose debate after debate and for 150 plus years have struggled to gain widespread public support for their folly. :) Given how badly evolutionism is struggling for support in the world plus the world is growing more and more disinterested in stale evolutionary dogma while global Christianity is exploding in its number of adherents, you should be very willing to engage in a such a debate if Darwinism is true. Conservative 10:20, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
Just out of curiousity Conservative, do you have any arguments besides directing people to links on your own wiki and to a SoG controlled debate forum? DavidVilla 18:55, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
What's wrong with directing people to links? Do you think there is anything new in this discussion? All the arguments about evolution have been made and rehashed 100000 times, so why waste time going over it again when the case has already been made elsewhere?--CPalmer 10:12, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
To me, directing users to links having material on various conservative positions is helpful, but at the same time, it also indicates material that Conservapedia should have but doesn't. I trust that experienced editors can rewrite (without infringing copyright) helpful material into essays and articles available on Conservapedia. GregG 13:45, 15 June 2012 (EDT)
Quoting is also possible, provided it's fair use. --Ed Poor Talk 16:58, 16 June 2012 (EDT)