Talk:Main Page/Archive index/117

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Creationism friendly schooling GROWING[edit]

Creationism friendly schooling GROWING worldwide

Reaching more young people with biblical creation

How quickly and dramatically will this affect evolutionary belief?Conservative 12:44, 26 August 2012 (EDT)

Not at all, probably. Evolutionary belief isn't going to go away because of this sort of idiocy. Try actually teaching the science instead of endlessly promoting the chidish question evolution blog. --RotWein 12:56, 26 August 2012 (EDT)
RotWein, claiming something is idiocy is a far cry from showing it is. Please elaborate. Please show why the information and arguments given are in error. When doing so please use opposing facts and arguments. Also, your modus operandi indicates you may be an atheists as you merely claim things without demonstrating them. Are you an atheist? If so, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true? See also: Evidence for Christianity. Conservative 13:31, 26 August 2012 (EDT)
No, I am not "an atheists." I am a young Earth Creationist. I'm just fed up with this stupid campaign you're promoting. It isn't achieving anything. Nor will "creationism friendly schooling." The key to replacing evolutionary thought is to do real science. Pointless debates and idiotic questions aren't going to work. Especially questions that are as easy to answer as those put out by the QE! campaign, which have been answered all over the place. In fact they're not just easy to answer; they're laughable and make the campaign look ignorant. As a Creationist I'm embarrassed by it. --WolfgangC 13:36, 26 August 2012 (EDT)
WolfgangC, you claim to be a young earth creationist. Yet, you are in opposition to a campaign by a leading young earth creationist organization (an organization with multiple P.h.D. scientists). Seems rather fishy to me. Please point out significant anti-evolution work you have done in the past. Also, please respond to my post which I directed to RotWein. Show me where the material is in error. Conservative 13:43, 26 August 2012 (EDT)
Yes, I am in opposition to it, because it's a bad idea. The 15 questions are pathetic. As for the question you directed to RotWein, that was me; I recreated my account with a different user name as requested by aschlafly. I didn't claim that the links you posted were in error; I just said that "creationism friendly schooling" won't achieve anything, and it won't. Charles Darwin went to a "creationism friendly" school and look how he turned out. The key is doing proper scientific research to prove the Creation story. Nit-picking about evolution and producing lists of questions for biologists to laugh at is an embarrassing waste of time. --WolfgangC 13:48, 26 August 2012 (EDT)

I am afraid then I am going to have to declare victory since you offered no opposing facts or arguments to the blog posts cited. Conservative 13:58, 26 August 2012 (EDT)

That's exactly the way I feel about you running away with your tail tucked between your legs when I asked you why you demanded an editor provide you with a study that included regression analysis when the truth is you just didn't like the numbers he was showing you. Nate 22:56, 26 August 2012 (EDT)
Well, user:C, since you requested citations to refute that blog, I'm afraid I must give you one.

You are aware we have our own rebuttal to those arguments, right here? I regret I had to spend the time refuting your questions, instead of making more substantive contributions.brenden 23:55, 26 August 2012 (EDT)

Brendon, if you think evobabble allegedly satisfactorily answering the 15 questions for evolutionists can withstand cross-examination, then feel free to debate VivaRamones/Shockofgod at,89538844 and the debate will be recorded and distributed to 20,000 plus people. If you are not confident, I would not be surprised about this matter. Conservative 12:03, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
SoG doesn't seem to know you or CP. Neither do his mods.brenden 13:04, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

Featured in Conservapedia[edit]

Why is it that almost everything listed under "Featured in Conservapedia" is a link to either the Question Evolution! blog or Conservative News and Views? Doesn't this site produce any content of its own any more? --RotWein 13:00, 26 August 2012 (EDT)

Neil Armstrong has passed away[edit]

We lost an American hero yesterday. This should be a news item on the main page. --JHunter 13:20, 26 August 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, yes it should. Unfortunately the main page is too full of links to personal blogs to cover important news like that. --WolfgangC 13:49, 26 August 2012 (EDT)
The management of this website is too concerned promoting their QE! campaign and whatever new blog post has been posted on the conservativenewsandviews website to cover real stories such as the death of an American icon and, arguably, one of the greatest conservatives in American history. Jpope14 15:21, 26 August 2012 (EDT)
You mean you're not interested in the fact that Question Evolution Botswana is moving into phase three out of seven by starting to put together a rough outline of their pamphlet? And you'd rather hear news about one of the great American heroes? Pa-shaw. PaulRP 17:11, 26 August 2012 (EDT)

Lovers of QEC plus UK, evangelical Botswana immigrants and evolutionism[edit]

There is evidence suggesting that people are becoming enamored of the Question evolution! campaign and the other work of Creation Ministries International.[3]

Location of Botswana.png

Evangelical Christians from Africa and other areas are significantly changing the religious landscape of the UK due to immigration and they have higher fertility rates than secular women in the UK.[4] The evangelical church in Botswana has grown by about 400% in recent history.[5]

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kauffmann using a multitude of demographic studies argues in an academic paper entitled Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth? Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century the decline of atheism in terms of its global adherents is an established trend that will persist for the foreseeable future and the rate of decline will accelerate.

Will the global decline of atheism affect the Western World? Yes, it will. Kaufmann wrote: "The trends that are happening worldwide inevitably in an age of globalization are going to affect us."[6]

European immigration will pour Christian creationists into Europe.[7] Conservative 22:11, 26 August 2012 (EDT)

“The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.” - Jesus Conservative 22:25, 26 August 2012 (EDT)
I actually giggled a bit at this, Conservative. Well done.
And, for the record, I have absolutely no problem with the QE! blog. It's a good project and I wish you the best! But is a blog post about the web traffic statistics for the really "In The News"? And I don't mean to single you out. I don't think "Are we Pilgrams or Puritans?" from CNAV is a news item. They seem particularly extraneous when it causes Conservapedia to forgo real news, like the death of a conservative hero. PaulRP 22:30, 26 August 2012 (EDT)

I am guessing Roman Empire Herald readers the same thing about the early Christians.

Second, you are not mentioning this:

"For example, we contacted a Christian internet evangelism organization which is committed to creating an international network of internet evangelism organizations and individuals. The purpose of this network would be to share ideas and best practices within Christendom....

Recently, someone who used to do internet outreach for major corporations said he wants to get involved in what we are doing. We are very excited to work with him." [8]

I hope you recall what the troops for Executive Outcomes did in Sierra Leone.

It is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog! Conservative 23:02, 26 August 2012 (EDT)

I disagree, consider a Chihuahua versus a Labrador...the Labrador will win, I promise. --JHunter 02:46, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

JHunter, evidently, you have not see this video. Also, let us not forget THIS and THIS. By the way, have you debated VivaRamones and Shockofgod yet on the 15 questions for evolutionists? Conservative 04:30, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

Yes, this is all great, and again, I wish you all the best! But these items get posted in the news section, and for users like me who come here for the news that they can't get elsewhere, it seems to dilute that section. Could there perhaps be a section on the main page for "Contributors interests" or "Outside projects" or the like? PaulRP 08:37, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

PaulRP, you should be ashamed of yourself. The creationist community hacking away at evolutionism through the Question evolution campaign does interest people. [9]

Here are a few of the advocates of the Question evolution! campaign:

1. "This is a grand movement and I’m glad it has begun. Our youth are indoctrinated very early to believe every word spoken about evolution without questioning. Creation Science has so much to offer and new discoveries are being made almost every day in this exciting new field of science."

2. "Congratulations to CMI for promoting such an excellent initiative. All Christians should get involved in some way as the reliability of Genesis is foundational to our common faith."

3. "Love the questions — game changers"

4. "I am a lecturer in the Physics department of … University. Last year I put a few copies of the Creation magazine in our tearoom. The next day I found it lying in the rubbish bin! I removed it, dusted it off and put it on the table again. The next day it was in the rubbish bin again!

I dusted it off, and put it on the table, etc …

This happened three days in a row!

Then I got a better idea. Every week I paste copies of the articles in Creation mag on my door, and since my office is next to the tea room, everyone who goes there has to walk past the office door! Now everyone will get to see the articles whether they want to or not! Since it is on my door, no one (so far) has dared to remove it! Thanks so much for this list of 15 questions. It will be on my door very soon! God bless!"

5. "Defending biblical creation and the science that supports it is very important and necessary. Yet, history teaches us that to bring down false ideologies it is crucial to go on the attack. The early church father Irenaeus and the early church relentlessly attacked Gnosticism until it no longer posed a significant threat to the church. For example, Irenaeus's work Against Heresies was widely circulated by the early church. The wide distribution of the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer which are the center of the Question evolution campaign will be a big boon when it comes to showing people that evolutionists do not have the answers when it comes to actually explaining the history of life on earth.

Never before has there been a worldwide grassroots campaign that has confronted the false claims that are the center of evolutionary dogma. It will take a lot of work, but we are willing to do that work. The group of creationists who are willing to aggressively take on the evolutionists through a grassroots effort will destroy evolutionism and throw it in the graveyard of failed ideologies where it belongs . We are willing and we are energetically moving forward with this campaign and there is absolutely nothing the evolutionists can do to stop us.

We have contacted 500 plus churches in Texas plus we created this helpful resource for people who want to spread the campaign on the internet: Powerful tools to spread and multiply the Question evolution! campaign. More tools will be developed to spread the campaign. In addition, we are in the midst of contacting Christian websites and organizations to spread the campaign."

Conservative, I am afraid your whole point is moot. Paul RP didn't question whether people might be interested in your items, but whether these belong in the news section. And by the way, no one should be ashamed of himself for making a valid remark. Baobab 10:01, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

Thank you Baobab. As I've said, I think the QE project is very interesting, and a good read (I look at a article probably once a day). My point is simply that it shouldn't be in the "In the News" section. And I don't mean to single you out; this has been happening for a while now, and I miss the days of getting good, hard hitting news that I couldn't find on CNN or Fox. For example, the last 12 posts on the "In the News" section are;
Editorial blog post
Editorial blog post
Editorial blog post
Editorial blog post
Editorial blog post
Editorial blog post
Editorial blog post
Editorial blog post
Editorial blog post
Again, I have nothing against these opinion pieces! Most of them are good reads, and make good points. But opinion pieces are not news, and I think the "In the News" section should be reserved for news. And right now, only 1/4 of it is news. And I miss having a one-stop-shop for the real news. PaulRP 10:46, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

Let's take a look at the latest QEC blog post put on the main page. If new website of Richard Dawkins failed and went defunct, why isn't that news? Why isn't the main website of Richard Dawkins spiraling downward in traffic news? Are you saying that evolutionism/secularism/agnosticism failing isn't news - especially if other prominent secular websites are failing too? [10]
Why isn't the lack of innovativeness of the evolutionist/atheist/agnostic communities news? The website was called "Innovating for a secular world". :)
I think you are going to have to get used to atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism failing and the explosive growth of Christianity and biblical creationism being in the news. With all the bad news in the news, isn't it great to have some good news - especially since atheism/evolutionism has spawned so much mass murder and racism (see: Atheism and mass murder and Evolutionary racism and Western atheism and race and Social effects of the theory of evolution)? Conservative 11:10, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
You really are an utter dolt, aren't you? PaulRP wasn't defending atheism, he wasn't defending Richard Dawkins and he wasn't even criticising your blog. He was just pointing out - rightly - that you making another blog post is not news. Are you honestly so incapable of just giving a straight answer rather than regurgitating yet another of your inane, cliché-riddled rants about obesity and the global decline of atheism? You and your constant link-spamming on the main page are making what used to be a credible conservative wiki into a laughing stock. Go away and take your stupid QE! campaign with you.--DHarry 21:20, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

I think if a new poll comes out about religion, or an influence member of atheism makes a comment, or dies, or converts, that's probably a good news story. But a broken link on a second-rate blog? Or daily traffic from a third-teir website? How often do you see a CNN news story entitled "Small time blog posted a link to a Google site that doesn't exist" or a Fox Business News story called "Daily fluctuations could mean a downward trend for Paul McCartney's Fan Site".
As I've maintained; you're blogs posts are great, and I tend to agree with most of them, at least in spirit. But they aren't news. PaulRP 14:26, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

I agree with User:PaulRP. It's not the content of the blogs that we take issue with, but rather the fact that they are being given priority over major news events, like the death of an American hero like Neil Armstrong. Quite frankly, the work of a few dozen bloggers, however dedicated and conservative they may be, doesn't interest me by comparison to the major news events that are being reported elsewhere - even in places that are disparaged on this website, like CNN or FOX. Could you at least explain, User:Conservative, why there has been no coverage of the death of Neil Armstrong? He is true American hero, a symbol of American success and innovation, and one of the biggest names in the history of mankind. Why is his death being overshadowed by the QE! Campaign? Jpope14 16:27, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
Here are some stories that are news that CP should cover:
  • A trial started today where South Carolina is trying to receive the right to enforce its Voter ID law
  • Pennsylvania's Department of State is rolling out new voter IDs that do not require a birth certificate or a Social Security card, and Applewhite (which was never covered on Conservapedia despite being a big conservative win) is being appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which will hear the case in September.
  • Tropical storm/hurricane Isaac
  • The jury verdict in Apple v. Samsung that was handed down this past Friday.
  • Neil Armstrong's passing
I do think that many visitors (including myself) appreciate having a collection news items that are relevant to conservatives but not necessarily easily found elsewhere. There is value in blog posts and opinion pieces, but the best of those should be featured in moderation elsewhere on the main page. I also resubmit User:GregG/New Main Page for whatever use you see fit. (By the way, how does a non-admin user suggest news picks for the main page?) GregG 17:11, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
Non-admin users don't suggest news picks for the main page. That's the problem. The front page is for the exclusive editorial use of Mr. Schlafly and the management of this website, rather than the best of the public. I'm sure if it were opened up to include more users' opinions, we would see legitimate news and valuable stories, instead of the most recent blog post from Also, it should be noted, while this discussion has been going on, yet another blog post has been given front page status. Does the management just not care about what the public says, or do they have legitimate arguments to back up their insistent use of this material on the front page? We're waiting. Jpope14 17:36, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
How about creating a page where users can suggest news items that should be featured? That will probably find more good conservative news stories than just the sysops can manage, so it will help the site. In return, links to and CNAV should be banned from the "In the news" section of the main page.--DHarry 21:24, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

JohnRP, since you are the expert on blogs and websites, why don't you show us a first tier blog or website that you created.

Second, all evolutionist web properties are third tier by definition as good websites have to have good content. Creationist blogs reporting on the decline of atheism/evolutionism and the rise of biblical Christianity and creationism and grassroots anti-evolution movements, now those are newsworthy! If you don't believe me, then ask Joseph Farah who LINKED to the Question Evolution! blog in question. Conservative 17:48, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

GregG, the main page news section commonly covers news story not covered by the mainstream press. Conservative 17:51, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
I'm not JohnRP, but in addition to User:GregG/New Main Page, I have also created a website for a competition that happens on a board that I am a member of: see [11] (I hope this isn't considered spamming; please redact if this constitutes spamming). Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "evolutionist web properties" with regards to news stories. Finally, I think conservatives readers should be able to find outlets that treat important news stories from a conservative perspective on our main page. GregG 17:56, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
Blogs are opinion-based, so you're correct in saying that they are not news stories. However, it isn't just us writing opinions on various subjects which concern us; we post opinions in the news section from WND, the Tea Party Nation, Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else we feel reflects our views. Even mainstream newspapers publish opinions and editorials; does that make a newspaper less a newspaper and more a blog when they do so? Karajou 18:29, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
Newspapers generally keep opinion pieces to clearly-marked pages of the newspaper (although, I must say that the NYT blatantly violated this practice when they ran a front-page screed against Citizens United in January 2010). GregG 21:03, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

Karajou, PaulRP wrote: "influence member of atheism". As you can see, he has little insight. A poorly maintained and rudderless, sinking ship in the doldroms with no plans has no superior officers. :) Conservative 19:05, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

What Obama and Romney were like as college students[edit]

Interesting article in my student paper saying what Obama and Romney were like as college students at [12] or in PDF form you can view the whole paper at [13] on Page 4 (above my own article). Gregkochuconn 06:12, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

Wondering if ASchafly Believes This is Backed Up by Medical Science[edit] -chicagotony

This article is from a satirical news source. Akin has not made this claim. SJCootware 23:03, 27 August 2012

Sticking with logic rather than the media is always a good choice.--Andy Schlafly 23:12, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

@SJ: I know! Just checking. -chicagotony

Atheism growing internationally[edit]

User:conservative, as we all have seen, has been daily posting redundant "news" items about the decline of atheism and the growth of Christianity, despite evidence to the contrary. When called on this, he dismissed the statement for lack of evidence, then blocked the editor in order to prevent him from supplying any. Well, here is a source (I believe Newsmax is favored here, is it not?). This says nothing of the tediousness of conservative's incessantly posting the same material over and over, citing nothing but low traffic blogs. But I guess that's how things are done here. ToddF 10:34, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

Please tell me why these articles do not offer valid criticism regarding the validity of that poll and fully support your view: In addition, without using logical fallacies such as the genetic fallacy, please tell me why the Gordon-Conwell/World Christian/Religions Database (WCD) collection of data and analysis is not of higher quality. Conservative 10:52, 28 August 2012 (EDT)
It is certainly fair to be skeptical of any poll, but you should apply that skepticism to all polls. The problems with this one seem to be that it isn't done by the American Gallup pollsters (not terribly relevant), that it didn't poll anyone is Israel (.1% of the world's population), that it defies anecdotal evidence about Jews in Israel and Christians in China, and that it didn't sample enough people. Well, 52,000 isn't a terribly relevant proportion of the world's population, sure, and the margin of error in the poll will reflect that. But tell me, how many people did your favored poll survey? Was it more than that? How was their methodology better? Why blindly accept the numbers you like but work so hard to dismiss the ones you don't? ToddF 11:04, 28 August 2012 (EDT)
Feel free to build a case against the Gordon-Conwell/World Christian/Religions Database (WCD) collection of data and analysis and don't neglect to address this article which was cited: Conservative 11:26, 28 August 2012 (EDT)
Well, I can't build a case against the WCD data if they don't release it. I'm curious as to why you are so keen to embrace it. Certainly the WIN/Gallup survey isn't perfect, but at least we know how they got their numbers. If you can show me how WCD got theirs I'd appreciate it, as I think it deserves the same scrutiny. ToddF 11:38, 28 August 2012 (EDT)
Please show me that the WCD does not sufficiently release their methodology in order for a fair analysis to be made. Also, please tell me why I should ignore the effects of the house church movement and the recent rapid growth of the "third church" (urban church) in China in terms of the atheist population in China. See: When doing so, please also address the Georgetown study ( and this information as well: and Conservative 12:44, 28 August 2012 (EDT)
First of all, it would help if you'd link directly to the studies in question opposed to some random blog; it would save some needless clicking. As for the WCD methodology, I don't know that it isn't released, but I can't find it. If you can, I'd appreciate a link, if you can't, it makes little sense to assume it's sound, especially when you nit pick studies that contradict it. The Georgetown study (also using a small sample size) simply says that people raised atheist are more likely to change beliefs than those raised religiously. That really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. In fact, the article states "What these findings reflect is that in the U.S. atheists are for the most part 'made' as adults after being raised in another faith," so most atheists are people who were raised religiously, but have since rejected that upbringing. Since the number of people raised religiously in this country is far, far greater than those raised as atheists, religious upbringing would need a retention rate in the high 90%s to keep their proportion the same or higher. Instead, the best of them still lose 40%, which, in whole numbers, dwarfs the 70% of atheists, a much smaller group.
Atheism and secularism are certainly on the rise in the USA, I don't think even you deny that, which is why you seem to concentrate on world demographics, and China in particular. I also don't know what this has to do with the "15 Questions"; undoubtedly almost no one in China is familiar with them, so they can hardly be relevant to any increase in Christianity in that country. Basically, much of this says what we all already know: forcing religion (or lack thereof) on a population doesn't work in the long run. Countries which try to force atheism on their populations will find it doesn't actually make them atheist, likewise countries that do the same with Christianity or Islam. Undoubtedly when the theocratic regimes of Iran and Saudi Arabia start to lose their grips, secularism, atheism, and, yes, Christianity will increase in those countries as well. Ina ny case, the point remains that you can't supply any hard statistics indicating the decline of atheism; all you have is some numbers stated by the WCD, not backed up by any data either of us can find. Other than that, you have anecdotal evidence that Christianity is growing in China, which does not necessarily mean a decline in world atheist numbers. North America and Europe, at least, are seeing a significant growth in atheism and secularism. ToddF 13:32, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

It's ironic that one of the main arguments for atheism is that faith is ridiculous. Yet believing in the nonexistence of something or (Someone) requires a tremendous amount of faith. I'd like us to expand our Faith article to include non-religious and anti-religious faith: for example, scientist have "faith" that the laws of the physical universe do not vary. --Ed Poor Talk 13:01, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

One of the main arguments for atheism is not that faith is ridiculous. And do you need a tremendous amount of faith to believe in the nonexistence of the flying spaghetti monster? I rest my case. Richman 13:29, 28 August 2012 (EDT)
I've heard the argument that not believing in God takes a lot of faith, but I've never heard a satisfactory explanation for that assertion. The "faith" that scientific laws do not vary is based on observation, not blind faith. The entire field of science relies on observation and facts. Besides, people who believe in God presumably also believe in the laws of physics as well. Presumably, when you drop something, you have "faith" that it will fall down and not up, and you have your religious faith on top of that, meaning you have more net faith than a atheist. ToddF 13:37, 28 August 2012 (EDT)
ToddF, please break up your above wall of text into paragraphs. Conservative 15:10, 28 August 2012 (EDT)
ToddF, you chose to ignore the house church movement and the third church movement information which was provided. Please do so. Conservative 15:14, 28 August 2012 (EDT)
ToddF, addendum: Given the Georgetown study, you failed to address the issue of the weakness of the atheist religion and why the Chinese religion of atheism will prove to be more robust. Also, you made a claim that atheism is growing in America. Please support it. Conservative 15:33, 28 August 2012 (EDT)
Page 5. Nate Nate 16:37, 28 August 2012 (EDT)
I wasn't aware that long paragraphs made reading text impossible, but I have broken up the paragraph into two smaller ones, in that you may read them better.
As for the house church movement and third church movement, I'm not sure what you want me to address. You're the one who introduced the topics, in an apparent effort to change the subject. Again, it would help if you linked to the Economist article directly instead of to some random blog which links to it, if you want me to read it. Right now my internet connection is on the fritz and pages are taking a long time to load. In any case, citing various Christian movements in China does not mean atheism is shrinking.
If I failed to address the "weakness" of the atheism "religion" it's only because it's another thing you just brought up in order to change the subject. Nothing to do with international demographics.
The WIN/Gallup study I cited above supports the notion that atheism is growing in the USA. Given the sources you cited picked the survey apart as well as they could, but didn't refute the statistics in the US, we can assume they are basically accurate. If you think they aren't, cite a study contradicting it. I'll find some other statistics supporting this when my connection is working better.
None of this has anything to do with the fact you cannot produce the data behind the WCD study you so often cite. They should release the data so we can all examine it, as you did with the Gallup survey. ToddF 17:51, 28 August 2012 (EDT)


Two things:

1. If you want Gordon-Conwell's methodology in terms of their research that global atheism/agnosticism shrinking and global Christianity is expanding, I suggest reading this article as it gives the relevant books to examine: "Scholarship relating to global atheism and agnosticism shrinking and the growth of Christianity plus additional related information" at:

2. Have you read this article: If you aren't willing to honestly acknowledge and address the Georgetown study (weakness of atheism in many adherents raised atheists) and the Chinese house church and third church movements and its implications for Chinese atheism, then I would suggest that you are not being intellectually honest. See: Atheism and deception and Atheism and satanic deception. You seem to be a chip off the old block! Conservative 18:27, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

Speaking of honesty, did you write this letter? --JohanZ 18:40, 28 August 2012 (EDT)
I just read that "Anyone for Tennis" article, and I find it ironic that this editor posted it. The premise seems to be that in a discussion one should not move on to another topic until the first has been dealt with. Then why are you, Mr. Conservative, repeatedly bringing new topics into this discussion on demographics? Whether certain Christian groups are making progress in parts of China is, at best, anecdotal and tangentially related to the topic at hand. Alo, I believe the Georgetown study was already addressed, and the numbers don't mean what you think they mean. Assuming atheists are 2% of the US population, and Christians are 70%, and the population is about 300,000,000 (we're using very round numbers here), we have 6 million atheists and 210,000,000 Christians. If atheists are retaining 30% and losing 70% of those raised so, while Christians are retaining 60% and losing 40%, we have a net loss of just over 4 million atheists and 84 million Christians. If even 5% of those former Christians have become atheists (a low estimate) that more than makes up for the loss of the raised atheist population (an additional 4.2 million). So you see this does not equal a decline in atheism. SamuelD 14:31, 29 August 2012 (EDT)

Virus warnings[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up about the "Poison Ivy" thing, but it appears to be based on a self-serving blog post. I haven't found any confirmation from the usual anti-virus experts. Let's not jump on the bandwagon until a reputable source like Symantec pipes up. --Ed Poor Talk 17:11, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

Symantec on "Poison Ivy." MattyD 17:39, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

Superb analysis[edit]

The posted analysis and link concerning today's events at the Republican National Convention are particularly superb.--Andy Schlafly 18:23, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

Call for authors, revisited[edit]

Ed Poor recently requested--it's now in archive 116--that people write material, either by improving existing articles or starting new ones. I think it would be good to consider the intended subject matter and the intended audience.

As far as the desired subject matter, it would be really good if there were examples, on the front page, of the kinds of articles that are wanted. This should be on the left side. But the left side is mostly blog-type material about atheism, young earth denial, creationism, and evolution denial. This material occupies prime real estate. Below that, there is a section on popular articles. Is this meant to be a list of suggested topics to work on? It looks more like a list of articles that the admins would like people to read. There's nothing wrong with that, but a list of topics to write on would also be a good thing to have. Do you want articles on math, physics, chemistry, earth science, literature, music, art, drama, and so on? You should say so. I see very little of that in the list.

I am told that the left side of the page used to have a "featured article", as well as a "featured masterpiece" and a Bible quote. What happened to those? The Bible verse is still there, but the others are gone. If you had a featured article, it would give visitors an idea of what kinds of things you are looking for.

Then there's the audience. Posting this on Main Talk suggests that it was aimed at existing contributors. That's preaching to the choir. We can do much better than that. Casual visitors don't know about Main Talk; they only see the front page. This request should be on the front page, as some kind of banner "Conservapedia is looking for new contributors. Improve an existing article, or start one of your own."

It would also be good if Conservapedia held on to its existing contributors better by being a little less quick to block them. A number of people have gotten into trouble that could have been avoided if the administrators assumed a little more good faith.

JudyJ 22:00, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

I'm not sure what the status is regarding the adoption of User:GregG/New Main Page, but you are welcome to take a look there and comment. I think it would definitely better highlight the sort of great content that distinguishes us from other websites. GregG 22:56, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

RNC Convention[edit]

This is redundant; the "C" in "RNC" stands for Convention. GregG 12:18, 29 August 2012 (EDT)

I find this very confusing. The "RNC" usually stands for "Republican National Committee." For this brief time period, "RNC" stands for "Republican National Convention." Sometimes people deliberately pick initials to blur important differences. For example, in 2008 and 2012, "OFA" stands for "Obama For America", which is Obama's Presidential campaign, but in 2009-2011, "OFA" stood for a distinct separate legal entity called "Organizing For America". By using the same initials for both, the difference was hidden from all but the most careful political observers. Without context, I can't tell what you mean by "RNC." Thanks, Wschact 09:14, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

so, no comment on the discovery of gravity waves?[edit]

Maybe relativity is true after all? JuanMotame 18:58, 29 August 2012 (EDT)

Thats coolbrenden 23:51, 29 August 2012 (EDT)

AUSTRALIA'S richest person Gina Rinehart tells Australians 'start working harder and cut down on drinking, smoking and socialising'[edit]


and lots and lots of other coverage in the Australian media.

Just Wondering[edit]

Yesterday I saw a post by a user named A True Conservative. His post was severely critical of the Main Page content and the dominance of it by certain administrators of this site. Some of those users like to tout that conservatives do not censor. Today, the post by A True Conservative is gone from the Talk Page, all traces erased as far as I can tell. I'm just wondering about the hypocrisy evident here. While the tone of the post was a little over the top, the criticism could be seen as valid. So is it that conservatives don't censor unless criticism is directed at them? -chicagotony

Mr. Schlafly knows what peoples criticisms are and he deals with the ones that he wants to. It's not like nobody's paying attention they just don't agree with you as much as you want. But they don't completely disagree either! People are already talking about sprucing up the front page. Just take it easy and see where this goes is my advice. I don't think removing that post was about censorship but heading off another nonsense discussion about nothing and everything and then something new and Asian ladies oh look something shiny. Nate Nate 09:08, 30 August 2012 (EDT)
In addition, posts signed with names "A True Conservative" are not likely to remain, because they are against user name policy. (There is no way to confirm if such a loaded name is appropriate or misleading, for example.)--Andy Schlafly 10:51, 30 August 2012 (EDT)
I appreciate I may be stating the bleeding obvious here, or just pointing out that the emperor is naked, but I don't see in principle how the username "A True Conservative" differs from the username "Conservative". --DHouser 16:55, 30 August 2012 (EDT)
He showed a lack of decorum in his fluff post whining about Conservapedia having material about the global decline of atheism, the rise of creationism and critiques of evolutionism. Why should Conservapedia host the rantings of deceitful faux conservatives? I suspect this particular post came from an atheist website which often labels various things pseudoscience in the health care field, yet appears to have a rather portly website owner. :) Conservative 11:24, 30 August 2012 (EDT)
[personal attack removed]
By the way, it is hard to pull the wool over the eyes of creationist detectives.[14] Another case solved by a Conservapeia admininstrator who is a law and order conservative! Move along evolutionists, there is nothing to see here! Conservative 11:58, 30 August 2012 (EDT)
Hi. Did you write this letter? --JohanZ 12:16, 30 August 2012 (EDT)
Apparently, you are not aware of me/us having a longstanding, general policy of not discussing my/our activities outside of Conservapedia. 微乎微乎,至于无形;神乎神乎,至于无声;故能为敌之司命。 :) Conservative 12:21, 30 August 2012 (EDT)
Thanks for the quick response. I'll take that as a "yes", then, until you say otherwise. :) --JohanZ 12:28, 30 August 2012 (EDT)
Nah, it wasn't him. The writer is from Springfield. Ken Conservative lives in Buffalo, NY.--DHarry 17:46, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

Nate, I have to respectfully disagree. Deleting a post is censorship. There's no other way to see it. There are plenty of posts directed at Andy that he doesn't respond to and if Andy didn't want to deal with this particular one, he simply didn't have to reply. For those of us who value this website and want to see it improve, constructive criticism is valuable and can only help the site improve. Simply deleting a post like that smacks of fear. It is censorship. DHouser is right. Andy, how is "A True Conservative" any different than "Conservative?" Conservative, how do you know this person is a "deceitful faux conservative?" Because he finds fault on the Main Page? Because his criticism was directed in part at you? As I said, his post was over the top but there were valid points. Why can't there be more contributions from other users on the Main Page; more "news?" I suspect that there are other users on this site that would agree with what A True Conservative said, but they'll never know exactly what he said because it's gone. It seems to me that the admins didn't like what he said because it was too close to the truth, so it was deleted. And now without any evidence, he's demonized as a fake conservative and an atheist. Where have I seen this before? - chicagotony

Tony, you are not being consistent and/or reasonable. You wrote "his post was over the top" and "how do you know this person is a 'deceitful faux conservative'." Second, atheists/evolutionists/liberals can continue to believe they have an inalienable right to post whatever they please at Conservapedia regardless of its merit/propriety, but their cries will continue to go unheeded - especially given their attempts to shut down the website. Feel free to engage in your fantasy that I was quacking in my boots, but your speculation is certainly not grounded in reality. Conservative 20:49, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

Yes, that's what I wrote. What does being over the top and deceitful have to with one another? Maybe he/she/they were emotional. Just because someone uses language they should think better of doesn't mean they were lying(?). Second, how do you know ATC isn't a conservative? There's a distinct possibility that this person is REALLY a conservative who cares about what this website looks like to the casual observer and was voicing a genuine concern. When I wrote "over the top," I meant maybe he went too far in the language he used, nothing more. In any case, deleting his post is suspect. So Conservative, how do you know? Are you so afraid of incisive criticism that you are unwilling to let it stand? Try to answer without referring to the 15 Questions or anything else that has to do with atheism or evolution. Thanks, - chicagotony

I enjoyed deleting the post written by that uncouth liberal. I wouldn't trouble my conscience to do it again. Conservative 00:18, 31 August 2012 (EDT)

News pick: Three-judge panel blocks Texas's Voter ID law[edit] GregG 15:40, 30 August 2012 (EDT)


Given this site's coverage of the Olympics, I was wondering if any Main Page space would be given over to the Paralympics, arguably a much better source of living role-models, especially as many of the athletes are former servicemen.--CGrande 07:54, 31 August 2012 (EDT)

Leftists Fuming At How Clint Eastwood Humiliated Obama[edit]

Are leftists really fuming at this? From what I've read, I am under the impression that most leftists have just been ignoring any valid points Eastwood made, and actually think that Eastwood humiliated himself with his performance Thursday night. --AaronT 08:40, 1 September 2012 (EDT)

Liberals have protested far too much. Clint Eastwood seems to have a touched a raw nerve on the Left.--Andy Schlafly 09:36, 1 September 2012 (EDT)
Maybe that's true, but out of all the various reactions I've seen from all political sides, I haven't seen anything to indicate it. It appears liberals are bemused, but not upset. --AaronT 11:46, 1 September 2012 (EDT)

Link between shrinking editor base and pro evolution/atheism[edit]

I doubt this is correct - it certainly doesn't hold true for this site. Should we tell someone at QE?

If event X occurs, will an editor recruitment plan commence? Is the probability of X occurring increasing? Is the probability of X occurring increasing at an increasing rate? Can you guess what event X is?
Second, how is the EvoWiki editor recruiting drive going?[15] Has the master planner of EvoWiki been "weighed down" with a personal problem which has precluded him/her from moving forward with a editor recruitment drive?
Third, does the atheist Jimmy Wales have a master plan to stop the decline of global atheism? Does any atheist have a master plan to reverse the decline of global atheism?[16]
Fourth, did this work? Is it still working?
Fifth, has CP's global market share increased in the last 2 years? Has Wikipedia's English version of their wiki increased its global market share in the last 2 years?
Sixth, a clue to a future initiative: Who is Mr. McNair?
"Let your plans be as dark as night, and strike like lightning." - Sun Tzu
"When torrential water tosses boulders, it is because of its momentum. When the strike of a hawk breaks the body of its prey, it is because of timing." - Sun Tzu
"It is swift as the wind in that it comes without a trace and withdraws like lightning. It is like a forest in that is orderly. It is rapacious as fire across a plain, not leaving a single blade of grass. It is immovable as a mountain when it garrisons". - Sun Tzu, Art of War describing an army
"To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence." - Sun Tzu Conservative 12:05, 1 September 2012 (EDT)
..... What in the name of Christ are you babbling about? --DarrenO 13:45, 1 September 2012 (EDT)
Ken, you think that we hate you. More than anything we would love to see you better yourself. Get help. You need it. Your lifestyle is seriously hurting you right now.--DarrenO 17:02, 1 September 2012 (EDT)

Darren, setting aside the fact that no true skeptic knows my name, do you know the difference between being reactive and proactive? How some obsessive atheists endlessly ruminate about me certainly is of no consequence to myself. Why do you folks keep coming around here to post? I certainly don't have a need to post at your website.

By the way, are you familiar with what is expected to happen in the years 2012, 2020 and 2021 to 2050 and beyond?[17][18]

Has a plan been drawn up yet by atheists/evolutionists to stop the global decline of atheism and rise of global Christianity and creationism?[19] Is your plan to continually post at Conservapedia? If so, I don't think that plan is going to work! :) Although creationists are certainly not going to be complacent, there is certainly an air of inevitability about the global decline of atheism/agnosticism/Darwinism and the rise of global Christianity/creationism for the foreseeable future. So it really doesn't matter what you folks do at this point, does it? Conservative 17:43, 1 September 2012 (EDT)

Well I'm not sure what the editor base here has to do with all those other things, but at least it's encouraging to hear that there are plans in place to turn your shrinking numbers around. Can't wait to see how it goes.
The web traffic tracking company Alexa, shows a major increase in web traffic for Conservapedia between September of 2010 and September of 2012.

And your active editors? How's that been going recently?

By the way, there are two plans which have been well received among several Conservapedians which would increase traffic even higher. I thought some obsessive atheist busybodies might want to know this. :) Conservative 06:24, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

Can you explain this, User:Conservative?

From:Conservative Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:03 AM
To: group
Dear Conservapedians,

I unexpectedly came across some information on homosexuality and obesity so I whipped together a pretty good article.

I am going to be doing other projects for a while, you might want to keep an eye on the article and add material to the article. I did not protect the article.

Here is the article:

I am not an experienced Navy man like Mr. MCDonald, but I believe I just scored another direct hit against liberalism.

You can see what I mean here:

[Link to idiotic Argentinian propaganda video]


"...the burden of proof, for any historical assertion, always rests upon its author" - Historian David Hackett Fischer. [20] Conservative 00:30, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
I do hope you're not denying the authenticity of the email, because there are more where that came from.--BobbyMiller 13:34, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

You do realise, User:Conservative, that these people are getting a kick out of winding you up ... right? They enjoy seeing you squirm and try to avoid questions with all your counter-questions, FatAtheist-ing and SunTzu-ing. Why do you continue to fan these flames? Have you heard the saying "Do Not Feed the Troll"? WilcoxD 20:10, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

Arguably, given the way he splatters stupid pictures and links to his blog all over the place, Kenny is the troll.--DHarry 20:30, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
WilcoxD, How do you know I am getting wound up? Could my counter responses have a purpose or purposes? If so, what purpose or purposes? If I decide to stop responding, could that have a purpose or purposes too? Do I feel a need/wish to post comments at a certain wiki? If not, why not? Why do they feel a need to post comments here? Who's obsessed with whom? At this point, is there anything they could do to stop: the global decline of atheism and the rise of biblical Christianity and creationism? If not, why are they so impotent and helpless and why is atheism/evolutionism so weak? Where is the atheist plan to stop the global decline of atheism/agnosticism and the rise of biblical Christianity/creationism? Does the lack of a plan reflect a lack of creativity/resourcefulness and a general impotence among fervent atheists/Darwinists? Conservative 20:43, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
Ken, people like to poke you to hear you squeal. There's something hilarious about your QE! campaign and the way you constantly try to convince us (well, more yourself I suspect) that atheism is declining. It isn't, unfortunately; it's becoming increasingly common and by making Creationists look like fools you are not helping.--DHarry 20:54, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
Would you like a spade, User:Conservative? Your reactions - whether you think they are wound up or not - are what keep them coming back at you. Then again, you probably know that, so in the end I guess everyone's just having a good time. WilcoxD 21:09, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

DHarry, atheist assertions without adequate evidence do not impress me. Your lack of credible evidence showing global atheism is not shrinking is telling. Second, perhaps atheist/evolutionist complacency and denialism can be used by Christians/creationists as well at this point. One thing for sure, the decline of atheism/evolutionism and the rise of biblical Christianity/creationism has an certain air of inevitability at this point. One could easily argue that atheist/evolutionist responses are largely irrelevant at this point. Feel free to keep running on your atheist/evolutionist hamster wheel though and engage in last wordism. Conservative 21:14, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

Did you even read my comment before randomly choosing another piece of drivel from your list of canned replies? I an not an atheist. I am a Christian and a Young Earth Creationist. If I was an atheist I would approve of your linkspamming and constant deluge of childish, badly illustrated "articles," because it makes Conservapedia look ridiculous. I'd suggest that you take a look at how many Conservapedia users are criticising what you do on the main page, and by way of contrast see how hilarious the clowns at RW find it. People who have genuine questions about evolution are going to be put off investigating the truth by your blog, your constant melodramatic declarations about upcoming pamphlets and super-secret strategies, and the 15 Stupid Questions That Evolutionists Have Answered All Over The Place. You are not helping.--DHarry 21:30, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

The Daily Telegraph and Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan[edit]

There's a piece today on the main page:

Leftwingers at Britain's esteemed The Telegraph: Both British and U.S. interests would be best served by a victory for Mitt Romney. "Whether Mitt Romney can eliminate the deficit is not clear. What is beyond doubt, though, is that Mr Obama cannot."

The link provided is to a personal opinion piece by politician and journalist Daniel Hannan.

People au fait with British politics will immediately spot the error. The Telegraph is a newspaper famous for its conservative editorial stance, and Daniel Hannan is quite famous as a right wing Conservative MEP. Indeed, in 2009 Eurosceptic Hannan made the front page of Conservapedia itself, described then as a conservative, when a YouTube video of his attack on the fiscal policy of Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown went viral.[21]

In the piece you cite today, Hannan enumerates his impeccably conservative reasons for supporting Mr Obama in 2008:

I was distressed by the Republican Party’s abandonment of free markets for crony capitalism. I thought that Mr Obama’s election would wipe away the stain of segregation. And, frankly, I enjoyed his speeches.

--TonySidaway 12:43, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

At this point Conservapedia would regard Hitler as a leftwinger. This site jumped the shark long ago. Its sysops really aren't aware that most viewers only come here to laugh.--DHarry 17:43, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
I didn't realize that a Tory would be considered rightwing. Sorry for the confusion. So British conservative sources, which leans left to American conservatives, has at least two conservative media outfits; Daily Mail & The Daily Telegraph? You can learn something new everyday. --Jpatt 21:48, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
You didn't realize a "Tory would be considered rightwing"  ????? Come on JPatt, if you don't even know that then you shouldn't be commenting anything about British (or frankly any non-US) politics. --DamianJohn 22:31, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
Oh dear Damian, you might love this comment: the Unionist Party (Tory) has much of the same ideology as the British National Party. C'mon, frankly, is there any conservative party in Britain to begin with? More like conservative in name only, making my original statement "leftwingers" correct. P.S. I can comment without being a British political expert. You on the other hand, contribute little to nothing here. That makes you unqualified to comment on anything Conservapedia related. --Jpatt 04:01, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
Yes but only if you define "leftwingers" as anything to the left of yourself. --DamianJohn 07:10, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
If it's a help, the Telegraph is sometimes referred to as the 'Torygraph'Cmurphynz 08:00, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
Seriously Damian. Are you embarrassed for me? Do you think you can rub my nose in it from your keyboard? Explain this to me, a Tory writes an opinion piece saying that he supported Obama's campaign in '08. Obama was voted the most leftwing liberal member of Congress. Now either the Brits are king of stupid or they are not as conservative as you claim. Which is it? --Jpatt 10:10, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
Of course the average conservative in the UK is not as conservative as the average conservative in the US. That's not in any serious doubt. But they are still a long way from "leftwingers" as you say, on any sensible definition of the term. The only point I was making was that you appeared to think that the term Tory was a left wing term when in fact it is a mildly derogative term for a right winger. --DamianJohn 18:39, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

First, one Tory is not all Brits, particularly Daniel Hannan who is such a political maverick that his own party prefers out of the country. Second, how can you seriously say the Daily Mail is a conservative newspaper? It may support certain factions of the Conservative party, but as a newspaper its a hodgepodge of new age ideas, celebrity gossip, true crime and sensationalism. If Brits want to know what flavour of ice cream Kim Kardashian has been eating, they go to the Daily Mail. If you don't believe me, look at their website [22] Rafael 13:29, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

There is a sense in which one could say that all British politics is considerably to the left of all American politics. On the kind of social issues that are often discussed on this wiki, for instance, only a tiny and insignificant contingent of the Conservatives, the BNP and UKIP, would agree. But in terms of UK politics, the Conservatives are considered to be a broad alliance of parties on the right.

Newspaper allegiances tend to be fixed, and the Daily Mail is a strong ally of the Conservative Party. This is even more true of the Telegraph. The Times, too, has broadly Conservative allegiances.

Of the rest, the Guardian is left-liberal, tending to support either Liberal Democrats or Labour, and the Independent is the only other major paper that could ever be considered left wing.

Hannan's right wing free market credentials place him squarely on the right of British politics. He is almost certainly no social conservative, but such a feature is exceedingly rare in British politics. This is a country where the social issues that rage through American politics were decided long ago. It's a country whose Conservative Party, in coalition with Liberal Democrats, is actively seeking to introduce full marriage equality. --TonySidaway 14:16, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

Reverend Moon of the Unification Church Dead at 92[edit]


Is this man in Hell? I very much believe so. OnionPatch 16:01, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

Who can know for certain? We don't get to decide.--Jpatt 21:50, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
  • Barring a near death repentance in faith toward the Lord Jesus, indeed he is, and will suffer greater damnation due to misleading his multitudes and his accountability. See Unification Church Daniel1212 12:24, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Obama Distorting History[edit]

Something that bugs me lately is Obama's trying to distort what happened, accusing the Republicans of having been obstructionist. Well, he locked them out of the healthcare and stimulus bills, ignoring their protests and the protests of millions of Americans, which is why they stopped cooperating. At one point, Democrats even - literally - locked Republicans out by changing the locks on the doors.[23][24][25] As Nancy Pelosi put it on the Stimulus when Republicans protested about not being allowed a voice on the bills, "We won the election, we wrote the bill."[26][27]

Some quotes:

"The partisanship that marked the House fight over President Obama’s $819 billion economic stimulus plan carried over to the Senate Thursday, with both Democrats and Republicans insisting the other side needed more flexibility.

Senate Republicans appear to be on the same page as their House colleagues, all 177 of whom voted against the massive package of new spending and tax cuts that passed Wednesday. A group of Republican senators Thursday slammed congressional Democrats for shutting them out of the process of writing the Senate’s version of the bill.

'There is a growing and grim recognition within our conference that there’s very little likelihood of a significant change in this colossal spending bill,' said Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican. 'And so we need to resist this package with everything that we have.'"

-Washington Times, January 2009 [28]

"I'm one of 22 House freshmen. We didn't create this mess, but we are here to help clean it up. You talked a lot about this deficit of trust. There's some things that have happened that I would appreciate your perspective on, because I can look you in the eye and tell you we have not been obstructionists. Democrats have the House and Senate and the presidency. And when you stood up before the American people multiple times and said you would broadcast the health care debates on C-SPAN, you didn't. And I was disappointed, and I think a lot of Americans were disappointed.

You said you weren't going to allow lobbyists in the senior-most positions within your administration, and yet you did. I applauded you when you said it -- and disappointed when you didn't.

You said you'd go line by line through the health care debate -- or through the health care bill. And there were six of us, including Dr. Phil Roe, who sent you a letter and said, "We would like to take you up on the offer; we'd like to come." We never heard a letter, we never got a call. We were never involved in any of those discussions.

And when you said in the House of Representatives that you were going to tackle earmarks -- in fact, you didn't want to have any earmarks in any of your bills -- I jumped up out of my seat and applauded you. But it didn't happen."

-Jason Chaffetz, January 2010 [29][30]

"House Republicans are accusing 'the White House' of being the first to break the bipartisan spell.

A statement from House GOP Whip Eric Cantor alleges post-vote recriminations, and also cites TV ads targeting vulnerable Senate Republicans on the eve of Senate debate on the stimulus.

'In his Inaugural Address, President Obama promised to put an end to the petty politics that have come to dominate Washington. Yet, today that message is threatened as the White House and their allies are making political threats rather than crafting a bipartisan economic stimulus plan,' Cantor said. 'Yesterday's vote was only the beginning of the process and House Republicans are committed to working with President Obama to find real economic solutions. We should not allow politics to destroy this process. Threats from unnamed White House sources undermine our national spirit of bipartisanship.'"

-NBC, January 2009 [31]

As Jason Chaffetz pointed out, Obama campaigned on willingness to go line by line through the healthcare bill with Republicans. Chaffetz was one of 6 Republicans to contact Obama offering to do so. Obama never responded or made any effort to keep his promise. Obama is now promising a "Line by line review of federal spending".[32] I bet supporters believe him on this too, huh? If the lie worked once, might as well re-use it.

Obama campaigned on being able to fix the Bush mess, but now wants to deny responsibility by saying "Bush did it". Obama is trying to blame Congress for his own failures. But why is it okay to blame Congress for Obama's term, but not for Bush's term? How can you say a President can't do everything himself to say Obama shouldn't be held accountable, but then say Bush should be held accountable and not Congress during his term? Democrats ran Congress since late 2006,[33] and many Democrats, including Obama, voted for the Bush agendas. Obama for example voted for 10 of the 11 Iraq War funding bills to cross his desk.[34] He voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act three different times.[35][36] He voted for Bush's budgets including 19 spending bills.[37] He voted for the Bush bailouts.[38] Yet now he wants to blame Bush for the same things he and other liberal Democrats voted for.

--Joshua Zambrano 22:17, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

Furthermore, Newsweek accused Obama of a war crime for taking credit for the return of troops from Iraq.[39] It was actually the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement signed by George W. Bush that set two timelines for troop withdrawal, one in 2009 of combat forces from cities, villages, and towns, and a complete withdrawal of all troops by the end of 2011.[40][41] Even though Obama campaigned on having troops out within 16 months, he reneged on the promise once elected and sought to keep troops there past the Bush deadline.[42] Obama contacted Iraq's government trying to keep first 10,000, then 3,000 troops past the Bush-set deadline, and was rejected.[43]

Frankly, I did not like Bush or Obama in 2004, and I do not like them now. But Obama is the more obviously dishonest. A lot of his liberal supporters aren't holding him to the same standards of accountability they held Bush to. Bush passed a major healthcare expansion in 2003 for those who've forgotten, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act.[44] It was the biggest expansion of Medicare since Medicare was created in 1965 and one of Bush's main pieces of legislation - Republicans passed it using similar tricks to those used by Democrats during Obamacare.[45] Their emphasis on healthcare is just one of 20 different similarities between Bush and Obama pointed out by CNN in 2008.[46] If Bush were in Obama's shoes making all the same policy moves, you know liberal Democrats would be screaming bloody murder. But the same decisions on Iraq and the Patriot Act by Obama have them purring with contentment. The hypocritical double standard is disgusting. --Joshua Zambrano 22:38, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

No protestant...?[edit]

Can someone help me here? I've been away a bit but there's an item about 10 places down on the right-hand side of the Main Page (at the time of writing) that says that no protestant is on the ballot for President or VP. I guess you mean Romney is a mormon, and Ryan and Biden are both catholics, but surely Obama is protestant? I mean, he probably goes to the golf course more than he goes to church but when he does go, he goes to a protestant one. Surely...? Stacey x StaceyT 02:41, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

He did attend Rev. Wright's church for twenty years. Does going to a church that teaches Black Liberation Theology considered Protestant? United Church of Christ does claim to be Protestant.--Jpatt 04:11, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

I would bet that Obama is a person who believes there are many roads to salvation/God and that he is a hodgepodge of various worldviews based on his words and actions: cling to guns and religion - secular elitist; ask for cross not to be in photo ops - secular elitist, etc. etc; bows to a Hindu idol[47]; Rev. Wright, -liberal "protestantism"; and also Obama did not protest when some were making a messianic figure of him before the election (narcissist - self-worshipper).
He doesn't seem much of a churchgoer now. Maybe his religion was merely show and he is am agnostic/atheist (see secular eltist above).
Next, Obama has repeatedly shown hostility to biblical Christianity which was the foundation of Protestantism. [48]
I think Obama's theology/religion is like his economics - intellectually lazy. Conservative 11:04, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
Good point about the guns and religion comment. His disdain for Pennsylvanians clinging to guns and religion is strongly suggestive he's atheist if anything. As mentioned by CNN, he joined his church for political reasons originally, to help with his community organizing.[49] --Joshua Zambrano 11:30, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
Here is Obama saying something a Christian would never say where he displays the Muslim part of his hodgepodge theology: "All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when … the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer."[50] Mohammed and Jesus, "peace be upon them", joined in prayer? I don't think so! Conservative 11:43, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
"Mohammed and Jesus... joined in prayer? I don't think so!" You do realize, Ken, that Jesus is considered utterly holy to Muslims, was born of a virgin birth, was a Messenger of God, performed miracles, ascended into Heaven, and that he will return to Earth to judge Man and defeat the Antichrist? Also, his name is mentioned in the Qu'ran more times than Mohammed himself? It would not be considered the slightest surprise that he and Mohammed would break bread together and pray for Peace upon this Earth. Wonders 17:28, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
Yes, but Christians consider Mohammed to have been rather misled and totally on the wrong track, and would therefore not find it very likely that Jesus (who is God in Christian theology) would pray with essentially a false prophet. On the subject of Obama though, I feel that 'protestant' tends to be a very broad term, and that if the church he belongs to is more or less mainstream Christian, but not Catholic or Orthodox then it would usually be considered 'protestant'. Remember of course that the Church of England is protestant, and that 'wishy-washyness' alone is not really enough to technically disqualify people as protestant, particularly if they self-identify as such. Cmurphynz 04:42, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
"Christians" may have that opinion of Jesus, but you can be sure that Jesus, with his preachings of tolerance and universal love, would have prayed with Mohammed. Wonders 10:49, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
You know what, you could be right there. I didn't really think about it that way.Cmurphynz 04:40, 2 October 2012 (EDT)
There is nothing Christian about bowing to a Hindu idol and having Muslim theology which is incompatible with Christianity. These are two cases that can be used to show that Obama is a heretic and not a Christian. I know its uncomfortable for the secular left (atheists/agnostics) and so called "liberal Christians" to admit that Obama is not a Christian, but he obviously isn't. I could self-identify as being Napoleon, but that doesn't make it so. Conservative 06:32, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
Why would it bother atheists to "admit" that Obama isn't a Christian? Do you think atheists want a Christian president? You really do say some strange things, don't you?--BobbyMiller 13:36, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Slightly at a tangent, I'd like to quote from Article IV, Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

It's easy to get into these silly debates about whether this or that person is or is not "our" kind of Christian/Muslim/Sikh/Buddhist/Jew or whatever. The point of that clause is that it is not material to whether a candidate is fit for office. --TonySidaway 12:34, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

There is a difference between having an official religious test and a voter not wanting to vote for someone who is totally clueless about important matters such as religion, economics, etc. In fact, Obama has shown hostility to biblical religion. [51]
And it is even worse than that.
Obama is known for:
1. He did not pick a single economic advisor who predicted the 2008 economic crises. To do that would have required Obama picking someone from the more conservative school of economics which is more free market oriented such as the Austrian school of economics.[52][53] Instead Obama relies on clueless people like Ben Bernanke and Larry Summers. [54][55][56]
2. Racked up huge deficit spending via his lazy and uninformed thinking about economics so now the debt is nearing 16 trillion dollars. The Democrats haven't even produced a budget in a long time. He racked up more debt that any other American president and he has not appreciably cut government spending.
3. Again, he is hostile to biblical Christianity.[57] He is certainly not neutral.
In short, Obama is a lazy (prolific golf playing, uninformed about economics, etc.), shallow thinking screw up and so far he is the worst president the United States has ever had. He has not helped young people as now young Americans have a bigger debt piano on their back. Conservative 12:59, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
He did not get to pick Bernanke until after the 2008 economic crisis! Bernanke was already in office, so that's a specious argument I'm afraid. Wonders 10:51, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

Black Liberation Theology is definitely not Protestant based overall on its core distinctives, and Ed Klein on Hannity said Wright said that, "I made it easy for him to come to an understanding of who Jesus Christ is and not feel that he was turning his back on his Islamic friends and his Islamic traditions and his understanding of Islam,” []

Yet the President cannot be said to hold to Nation of Islam theology either, which is so far out that it may be said to be theologically akin to Scientology or Swedenborgism in fantasy.

Rather, the liberal "religion" is much that which began with the original "occupy movement," that of the devil seeking to "climb up some other way," (Is. 14; Jn. 10:1) and occupy the throne of God, presuming he had an unmerited right to sit in the throne which only God is worthy of, but who will say "come up hither" to those who have abased themselves before God and overcome by faith in Him who died for them and rose again. (Rv. 3:21)

In contrast, the idea of earning rewards is antithetical to the liberal ethos, and thus the first (western) liberal sought to infect Eve with the original victim/entitlement mentality, that she was being treated unfairly by the Lord, and instead He should "share the wealth," that being a Divine attribute so she could be as God, and thus disobedience was justified in order to attain it. (Gn. 3) However, "the wages of sin and thus the need for salvation at God/Christ's expense and credit.

This victim/entitlement mentality was later employed by Communism, and in the 60s the liberal ethos was seen in casting off the idea of basic moral absolutes and restraints, and in college students taking over admin buildings. Which moral decline finally led to enough of the public being seduced to vote (though this means is only tolerated) for such rebels, who basically promise hope and change toward a Garden of Eden without God and His good moral laws (esp. as regards sexual intimacy being reserved for those who enter into the life-long covenant of monogamous marriage), but one in which the government is as God, whose welfare "tree" supplies all their wants without earning any.

But as such must be paid for, this fantasy, which was fostered by drugs, results in a Haight-Asbury experience when the escapist Woodstock high wears off. And as the infrastructure that once rescued them now is headed by those liberal elites who lust for power, sitting where they ought not, it progressively works toward an autocratic demonic dictatorship, fostering the devil's to be will be done on earth as it is in Hell, being the opposite of what the Pilgrims and Puritans sought.

However, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death," (Proverbs 14:12) "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. " (Psalms 9:17) "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. " (Psalms 33:12)

"Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. " (2 Timothy 2:7)

If you're going to criticize Obama, fair enough - but at least criticize him for actions for which he was responsible, and not the actions of others. As you know, Bernanke was a George W. Bush appointment in 2006, and the financial collapse happened in August 2007, almost a year and a half before Obama came to power. Bernanke was widely considered to have been tasked with cleaning up the bubble-economy mess left behind by Alan Greenspan - a fan of Ayn Rand-style economics, and an appointee of Ronald Reagan. From 1987 until today, the Fed has been run by Republican appointed chiefs, and the last vaguely popular one, Paul Volcker, was a Democrat appointee. With the economy in meltdown Bernanke was renominated in August 2009 with a 70-30 margin, and only 18 Republican dissidents. It was the lowest majority ever for a Fed chief, but it was still a significant majority. And that was two years after the crisis moment. As to the national debt, well, there's no denying it's too big - but when George W. Bush left office, it was nearly $12 trillion, higher than it had been in thirty-five years. Wonders 15:10, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
Thing is though, Obama wants to blame Congress during his term but not during Bush's - and he was part of Congress during the Bush era. During that time he voted for 10 of the 11 Iraq War funding bills he saw, for Bush's budgets including 19 spending bills, for the Patriot Act, for the Bush Bailouts, and for free trade agreements. So some of the reasons Bush's budget got so high like the Iraq War, Bush's budgets, and the Bailouts, were all things Obama voted for while a U.S. Senator. Democrats ran Congress since late 2006. And while the public debt grew about 3 times as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton, under Obama it was growing about 3 times as fast as it did under Bush, according to's Debt to the Penny calculator. Why is it okay to blame Congress during Obama's term, but not to blame Congress (including Obama) during Bush's term? --Joshua Zambrano 15:33, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Wonders, you are engaging in political doublespeak.

For example:

1. Obama reappointed Ben Bernanke

2. Obama has not called for an audit of the Federal Reserve nor has he called for its ending.

3. Furthermore, Obama has put additional strain on the system with a substantial amount of additional deficit spending so when the next recession/depression hits, it is going to be worse.

4. Pointing out various instances of Republican incompetence does not make Obama competent. The fact remains that he has not put competent people in economics around him. None of them predicted the 2008 crises, but people in the more conservative schools of economics did predict the 2008 crisis.[58][59] Obama hired none of these people. He is incompetent. Conservative 15:45, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

A very narrow view of "protestantism" seems to be being presented here. Would anyone like to justify the exclusion of, say, Quakers and Episcopalians from their definition of protestantism? Isn't this just another "no true Scotsman" argument? Not all protestants (not even a sizeable minority) agree with all of the ideas presented above as essential to protestantism. --TonySidaway 15:40, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
You are obscuring the issue. Does Protestantism allow for bowing (giving reverence) to Hindu idols? If so, why? Does Protestantism allow for embracing Mohammed as a prophet? If so, why? Conservative 15:51, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
In its broadest sense, protestantism allows for free study of the bible and personal revelation. To take one branch of protestantism of which I have some personal knowledge, the Quakers, a venerable protestant sect that can trace its roots back to the mid-seventeenth century, encourage recognition of divine inspiration in all things, and you'll often find a selection of different books in a Quaker library, all of which may be consulted and read aloud from during a Meeting for Worship. You could read from the Baghavad Gita and the Koran in the same Meeting for Worship, and nobody would object. There are even nontheist Quakers. Quakers have been active in progressive social movements for hundreds of years now, and most recently Quakers of the British Yearly Meeting were among several small sects recognising marriage equality and calling for the right to conduct same-sex marriage services on their own church property (which is currently forbidden during Civil Union services in the UK). Protestantism is a far broader movement than you think. --TonySidaway 16:50, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
Tony, you are being deceitful and purposefully obscuring the issues. I asked germaine questions relevant to Obama's behavior which you dodged. I will ask them again. Does Protestantism allow for bowing (giving reverence) to Hindu idols? If so, why? Does Protestantism allow for embracing Mohammed as a prophet? If so, why? Is there a reason why dodged my questions? If so, what is it? Conservative 18:10, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
I've told you truthfully about a protestant sect in which recognition of the sacredness in Hinduism and in Islam would be no problem. Thus protestantism does allow all of the things you enumerate. It is, as I have said, a truly broad church. Not all protestants would agree with all Quakers, but that's another matter. Quakers are protestants.
Perhaps I should illustrate using a Venn diagram. The set of all those who hold reverence for the Koran and the Baghavad Gita intersects the set of all Quakers, which is in turn a member of the set of protestant sects. --TonySidaway 18:16, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
Tony, is Protestantism a branch of Christianity? If it is a branch of Christianity, why should it embrace Hinduism and Islam? For example, Christianity is monotheistic and Hinduism is polytheistic. As far as your supposed nontheist Protestantism, if Protestantism is a branch of Christianity and Christianity is monotheistic, then why should Protestant Christianity embrace atheism? Why isn't so called liberal Protestantism just another example of undisciplined and confused liberal "thinking"? So called liberal Protestantism is essentially you make up whatever religion you want irrespective of logic and evidence (In short, you are God narcissistic type "thinking"). It is very New Age type "thinking". Conservative 18:25, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Why should Christians embrace Islam and Hinduism? That's not a question I can answer. Perhaps this page produced by the British Yearly Meeting (the main congregation of Quakers in Britain) will help:

Is this "undisciplined and confused?" Perhaps. But it is undoubtedly part of an ancient and venerable branch of protestantism. --TonySidaway 18:25, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Tony, liberal protestantism is not Christian. It is merely a reflection of undisciplined and unthinking segment of Western society which has caused $16 trillion dollars in American Federal debt (Eurozone crises, etc.), has significantly higher rates of divorce than the rest of the world and engages in other pathological/deviant behaviors.[60] I am not surprised that you are defending it as you engage in the strange behavior of homosexuality which is a lifestyle riddled with disease and other personal problems. See: Homosexuality and health. Conservative 18:37, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

I think this speaks to my earlier suspicion that this is a "no true Scotsman" argument. In case my words above have misled you in any way, I want to affirm that I am not a protestant, liberal or otherwise. --TonySidaway 18:56, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Back to the original question...[edit]

I understand from the above that Obama is protestant, even if the kind of protestant church he goes to (when he does go to church) is kinda different to the churches that most people here go to. (I'm really not very interested in hearing arguments along the lines of, "you don't believe exactly the same things as I do so I'm not going to let you call yourself protestant".) That's all from me for the moment 'cos I guess you've answered my question (i.e. no, it is not true to say that no contender in the 2012 Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election is a protestant. Stacey x StaceyT 18:34, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Protestantism is a branch of Christianity. Protestants don't bow to Hindu idols or embrace Mohammed as a prophet. Obama has done both. Conservative 18:39, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
Actually I was raised as a Catholic and made the sign of the cross before statues, particularly those representing Jesus's mother Mary. Indeed in May we had a procession in which we all carried a statue around the school yard singing hymns of praise to her. Now I'm aware that many protestants reject this kind of thing as idolatry, but it strikes me that you're on rather thin ground if you claim that all protestants do. Puritanism isn't the same as protestantism. --TonySidaway 19:10, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
Well Tony, according to "Conservative" you are an idolator. In fact I believe he also said that Catholics are pagans or something similar. So you can rejoice in never having been a Christian in the first place. "Conservative" couldn't be more wrong in the nonsense he keeps repeating. Here's the quote: "Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer." He's obviously being inclusive. I say "peace be with you" every Sunday and in the past when I served mass 3 or more times a week. It doesn't mean I'm "embracing" that little old lady or the priest as prophets. It means I'm wishing them peace and solace in their relationships with God. There's nothing wrong with wishing peace upon another person's prophet - you can at least acknowledge that someone believes something that you don't, can't you "Conservative"? He's not worshipping Mohammed, he's being conciliatory to the huge worldwide Muslim population. It's a smart move for all the criticism he gets on both sides. As for bowing to a "Hindu idol", "Conservative" is literally making up pure nonsense. Obama and the Indian man standing on stage with him are VERY clearly respectfully bowing to each other. Obama isn't bowing to any "idol". "Conservative", for someone who fancies himself such a scholar you ought to watch the video before you parrot what your idol Shockofgod says. You've got no business saying that man's not a Christian on the basis of these falsehoods and I'm sick to death of you passing judgment on who is and is not a Christian. It's just not your business. Nate 19:20, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
Tony, puritans are English Calvinists and therefore protestants. I think they are part of the English Separatist movement that drew from the Calvinist movement in Switzerland. The Calvinists split from the Lutherans after Luther's death. The Lutheran's split from the RCC. There are other splits from the RCC and Anglican Church that led to protestant churches. There's no one such thing as "protestant." There are some basic ideas they all share. My understanding is that they all claim salvation is through faith alone, and not through good works, also other things I don't remember. The RCC teaches differently. I think you'll have a hard time finding any protestant sect that permits icons of Christ, His Family, and the saints, or saints' relics. I am not aware of any theological reason they would since they believe all Christians are saints and therefore don't venerate the Catholic saints. Nate 19:41, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
I stand corrected about the bowing. However, Obama did light that pagan lamp which is designed to make the goddess Lakshmi feel welcome (Diwali) whereas Christianity teaches there is one God. Also, he did recognize Mohammed as a legitimate prophet in his Cairo speech whereas Christians do not accept Mohammed as a legitimate prophet. In addition, he is the most anti biblical Christianity president that the United States has ever had.[61] These three things are indisputable. Conservative 21:37, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

By the way Nate, the link you gave me says "The President Observes Diwali". No real Christian observes Dawli. Would Jesus have observed Dwali? No. Would Moses have observed Dwali? No. Would the Apostle Paul have observed Dwali? No. Face it, Obama lighting that pagan lamp designed to make the goddess Lakshmi feel welcome (Diwali) is just another nail in the coffin of him not being a Christian. Conservative 21:46, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

So was George W. Bush Christian? 09:28, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming[edit]

An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2." Daniel1212 13:44, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

I put it on the main page. Conservative 21:18, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

He is beating on the door of evolutionary belief[edit]

13 recent grim events for Darwinism.[62]

He is beating on the door of evolutionary belief. I don't think the door is going to hold up.Conservative 21:58, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Isn't this all a bit pointless unless the mountains of scientific evidence is refuted or a better explanation found? --TonySidaway 15:30, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
Would you like to write an article on Essay: Evidence supporting the theory of evolution? --Ed Poor Talk 17:23, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
You mean we don't already have one? Yes, I can produce a sparse but accurate outline in a couple of days. Even those who disagree with evolutionary thought need to understand what it is they disagree with. --TonySidaway 18:28, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
See Evidence of evolution while you're at it. --Ed Poor Talk 18:37, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

Thanks. That's a rather grim start because it even denies that species appear gradually in the fossil record, which was established long before the Origin of Species. It is not possible to write about the evidence for evolution if facts are ignored or blatantly contradicted. However for my own reference I may continue the project in a page in the userspace, if the site owners don't mind. --TonySidaway 09:00, 7 September 2012 (EDT)

Tony, where are these alleged mountains of evidence supporting evolution? Do you have a picture of you and a "boyfriend" standing next to one of these mountains? Have you ever heard of the informal fallacy of "elephant hurling"?[63][64] Conservative 20:01, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
That's uncalled for. Tony has a fair point - one can't argue against evolution without knowing where they are coming from. Name-calling and ad hominems convince nobody Rafael 11:24, 6 September 2012 (EDT)
Tony earned the derision. The historian David Hackett Fischer rightfully said the burden of proof when making a historical claim is on the claimant. Tony like many evolutionists claimed mountains of evidence without demonstrating it. If he wants to waste his time creating an essay with a mountain of evolutionary speculation so be it, but I am not going to respect it.
If Tony has mountains of bona fide evidence for evolution, I am sure he would want to debate the 15 questions for evolutionists in a recorded debate that will distributed to 20,000 people. Think of all the creationist he could reach if he had legitimate evidence. Tony can contact Shockofgod or VivaRamones at,89538844 to set up the debate. Conservative 12:34, 6 September 2012 (EDT)
20,000 people? Isn't this the tract that was supposed to conquer world atheism? That's a tiny faction of the population of the least populous state in the nation. And considering how many people actually read such things after they're distributed (certainly not a majority) that's an absurdly small number to take on millions upon millions of people. Jehovah's Witnesses distribute over 40 million copies of the Watchtower per month, and their numbers aren't exactly taking off.
Also, since you rightly say that the burden of proof is on the claimant, I was wondering if you could supply some proof of the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. And please don't link to Christian apologetics, I've read that articles numerous times and it doesn't have anything remotely resembling proof of anything. It's a mediocre article about the subject of Christian apologetics; it doesn't actually make an argument itself, it just covers some who apparently have. TomLK 13:28, 6 September 2012 (EDT)
Tony has already stated he is not an evolutionist. His post here is not a defence of evolution. He has clearly stated, as I have, that it is necessary to understand your opponent in order to confront and defeat him. I can't see how that is worthy of derision and snarky "boyfriend" comments, just as I can't understand the ya-boo-sucks name-calling strategy of winning secular hearts and minds. Rafael 14:20, 6 September 2012 (EDT)

For the avoidance of doubt, I should state here that in my opinion evolutionary biology represents the best scientific explanation of the development of life on earth. I'm sorry if anyone reading my words has been misled on my opinion.

As to the "boyfriend" comments, my wife of 27 years and my beautiful, grown up children will be most amused! --TonySidaway 08:35, 7 September 2012 (EDT)

TomLK, you wrote: "Isn't this the tract that was supposed to conquer world atheism". Can you please give me a citation for this claim or are you being a deceptive atheist? By the way, have you read this: Question Evolution! Campaign: A systematic approach to attacking DarwinismConservative 03:26, 7 September 2012 (EDT)

"in order for you to buy any of it you have to prove you're a bona-fide citizen"[edit]

I usually look at WND articles with a careful eye (as we should all do to any journalism), but the one linked on our main page has a mistake that is apparent on its face. The article makes the claim that one must be a US citizen to purchase a birth certificate button. The terms highlighted in an image above the article say that any buyer must confirm that they are "a United States citizen or a lawfully admitted permanent resident of the United States" (emphasis added). I would certainly hope that articles linked to on our main page would not be wrong on their face, at a minimum, and thus I request that this article be removed from our main page unless and until WND issues a correction. GregG 22:06, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Removed. Conservative 22:32, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Alarming stats[edit]

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. " (Psalms 33:12)

"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. " (Psalms 9:17) Daniel1212 09:46, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

Larry Klayman[edit]

Interesting chap, mentioned on the main page today. I have started an article:

Larry Klayman

Please expand. --TonySidaway 15:22, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps we ought to re-name Main Page Left[edit]

Looks more like Featured on Question Evolution to me ;) WilcoxD 03:10, 7 September 2012 (EDT)

Crush evolutionism like an aluminum can.jpg
It's not that prominent. It only occupies the top eight spots. Plus, if you start at the bottom, you only have to go up a couple spots to find Bible verses. RyanAg 08:03, 7 September 2012 (EDT)

Creationists have momentum in a key battleground.[65] Why should Christian creationists not capitalize on it and crush evolutionism like an aluminum can? [66] Isn't the creation vs. evolution issue a core issue for Christian religious conservatives? Is not the front page for conservatism? Conservative 01:34, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

Evolution/creation indeed is an important discussion that should be highlighted. But is it over ten times more important than the Bible? RyanAg 14:42, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

An evolution FAQ?[edit]

I wonder if it would be helpful to have an evolution FAQ. People with 15 questions, or 115,000 questions, could be directed to the FAQ. I'd be happy to produce such a list of scientific answers to questions. --TonySidaway 16:52, 7 September 2012 (EDT)

Tony, if you have mountains of bona fide evidence for evolution, I am sure you would want to debate the 15 questions for evolutionists in a recorded debate that will distributed to 20,000 people. Think of all the creationist you could reach if he had legitimate evidence. You can contact Shockofgod or VivaYahshua at,89538844 to set up the debate.
In the meantime, I would not get my hopes up re: your "FAQ". Conservative 01:22, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
The kind of document I have in mind would clarify the facts, identify common misconceptions, and illustrate why lists like the "15 questions" carry no weight in scientific thought. --TonySidaway 11:05, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
Not sure whether this is appropriate for Conservapedia, but here's a resource I found on the web: GregG 12:31, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
TalkOrigins: Talk is cheap and evolutionist propaganda is stale and boring.[67]
Stored under the right conditions, wine tastes better with the passage of time. Apparently, evolutionary speculation and evolutionary propaganda do not age well in the information age.[68] Conservative 22:20, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
Out of curiosity, do you have any specific objections to the FAQ I linked? Or are you just making a reverse argument from popularity? As you should know, the truth of scientific statements is not determined by web traffic (especially one that has little analysis, as in the QE! blog post). GregG 23:27, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

Did you look at the second footnote I cited?[69] Did you examine all the resources on that blog post?

Second, could you please send Ken Miller a second email and ask why he has not responded to your email about the 15 questions for evolutionists. I am assuming you wrote him a well written and cordial email. Conservative 23:33, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

Here is on transitional fossils [70]. Please let me know if you have any specific objections to the FAQ (or if they are already in a linked article and I missed it amid the other words. GregG 23:40, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
No thanks. You didn't respond to my above post. Conservative 23:54, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
Fine, then I'm not going to read any of your QE! articles digging for whatever nuggets of counterexamples or alleged analysis may lie therein. I will just accept that the overwhelming evidence supports evolution as fact and theory, even if I personally don't know all the details. GregG 00:00, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

Go Question Evolution! USA! USA! USA! USA![edit]

Creationist benchmark is hit and exceeded in the United States

Creation Ministries International breaks through key USA key benchmark! The first Question evolution! sound barrier has been breached. Watch the campaign grow faster and faster and faster. USA! USA! USA! Conservative 05:19, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

Sound barrier.jpg
Is it really necessary to post an item on BOTH Main Page/Leftand Talk:Main Page? Really? Wonders 12:07, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
Is it really necessary to engage in evolutionist whining? When are evolutionists, atheists and agnostics going to finally obtain some machismo! Conservative 12:16, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
If the agnostic/weak atheist Richard Dawkins finally agreed to debate Dr. William Lane Craig and a scientist at Creation Ministries International instead of making pitiful excuses, would Hispanic ladies finally believe Señor Dawkins has machismo? [1] Olé! Olé! Olé!

(photo obtained from Flickr, see: license agreement)
But is it really necessary to have the same item on the Main page, and here - it seems like simple duplication? Wonders 13:07, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
Would you like some cheese to go with your evolutionist whine? Conservative 15:04, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
But why is the same item posted on both pages? Wonders 01:49, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

Excellent article on Wikipedia[edit]

The JP Holding article on Wikipedia featured on the main page was excellent. I wonder how many editors Wikipedia will eventually lose to Quora. All human empires, whether on the internet or offline, which are hostile to God and the Bible will eventually fall.

The Wikipedia Jesus article contains a large section on the "Christ myth". A real encyclopedia would never devote such a large section to those who deny Jesus existed. Christ mythers are often atheist cranks/denialists.[71] Robertturkel 13:20, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

JP Holding's article dissent[edit]

I have to question the wisdom of prominently featuring JP Holding's indictment of Wikipedia on the front page. While some of his criticism may be valid, it generally holds true for Conservapedia as well. "Wikipedia is short on writers -- and keeps losing them" he says. Well, they have many thousand times more than Conservapedia, which also doesn't seem to retain most of them. He's critical of the "anyone can edit" system (as many are), but that is also true of Conservapedia, as is the idea that 13 year olds edit - something this site seems to be proud of; it was in fact started by homeschoolers of about that age. There's nothing wrong with that, but then why promote an article condemning that philosophy? Conservapedia even seems to think teenagers are more qualified than adults in many fields. One thing he points out about Wikipedia that isn't true here is that they have some 30,000 editors making 5 or more edits per month, whereas Conservapedia doesn't seem to have more than a couple hundred, if that (discounting vandals), and while Wikipedia doesn't promote many new sysops anymore, I don't even know when the last time this site did was. The entire articles seems to dismiss the very notion of the best of the public" in favor of experts (whose "expertise" is likely often unverified). PortlyMort 12:59, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

Not everyone can edit Conservapedia. Many irrational and quarrelsome liberals are politely asked to leave due to them not being among the "best of the public". :) The 90/10 rule is a superb rule for weeding out quarrelsome liberals. Conservative 15:07, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
Sure, but the same holds for Wikipedia, too. They have blocked many users for vandalism and bad edits, though not so often on ideological grounds. On both sites when edits are made that are a detriment to the project they are easily reversed, usually quite quickly. Wikipedia doesn't block people for too much talk, in fact they generally view discussing edits before they're made positively. I tend to agree; this site doesn't, but that's just a matter of opinion, and isn't something the article in question addresses. His point is that some 13 year old can get on Wikipedia and make edits of questionable merit, as they can on this site too. The only similar site I know of that doesn't take that approach is Citizendium (and even in their case there is no guarantee of expertise in their editorship) and that site has become a dismal failure, where Wikipedia has 30,000 edits, they have a few dozen. His quarrel seems to be with the wiki approach in general, and this site is a wiki. PortlyMort 15:32, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
Wikipedia has an article on "duh". Their quality control team seems to be sleeping on the job. Have you seen this: Wikipedia on bestiality. No real encyclopedia has a bestiality puff piece. Evidently, Wikipedia is still not a real encyclopedia! Conservative 15:53, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with what Holding is criticizing. (And if you want to critical of Wikipedia, it might be more useful to link to problem on Wikipedia itself, not a third party criticism.) If you actually read Holding's article he addresses only a few things: 1. loss of editorship - isn't really a significant issue for people who only read Wikipedia and aren't interested in editing it, and about which he can say the same thing about Conservapedia. 2. The difficulty of being made an admin these days, compared to the past - again, not really an issue for anyone except users who want to be promoted, it says nothing about the usefulness of reliability of Wikipedia, and another criticism which holds for Conservapedia as well. 3. They're working on making it easier to edit from mobile devices - since use of mobile devices for internet use has skyrocketed, this makes perfect sense, and if he's going to attack them for losing editors, it hardly makes sense for him to also attack them for trying to reverse it. 4. 13 year olds name Jason can edit it - unless you have some sort of way of detecting 13 year olds name Jason from editing this encyclopedia the same thing holds for for this site too. 5. Quora might take some of their business - maybe, but that's hardly an indictment of Wikipedia. It also seems unlikely to me, as from my quick glance at that site it seems to be a Q&A site, much more likely to steal users from yahoo answers and the like. If someone wants to, say, find out who I. K. Brunel is, they'll go to Wikipedia or Google (much the same thing these days), not some site where they ask a question and wait for a response. If Holding was critical of Wikipedia for their bestiality article, or for being too liberal, then yes, that would be a perfect thing to post on the main page, but he's really attacking wikis in general (probably because he doesn't understand them) and therefore Conservapedia as well. Not a great news item for here. That's my take anyway. PortlyMort 16:20, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

Au contrare, user:C, CP's policies hold that anyone can edit here, provided they do not vandalise, nor troll, or otherwise cause disruption. I think I know your M.O., and will oppose them, to uphold the policies, and to present a favorable, friendly conservapedia, to the public.brenden 17:43, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

It also strikes me that the entry at the top of this section (which was a reply to my post, not vice versa, as the timestamps show) is disingenuous. If you look at Robert Turkel here you see it redirects to J. P. Holding, the author of the article in question. I'm not sure why that is, but I don't think it's a coincidence, and I don't think any "Robert Turkel" made that comment. PortlyMort 18:26, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
WP is overall useful such as in info on places and things, and I myself have edited WP some, mostly in the past, usually in making it more objective as it is clearly liberal. One of the problems is that most any view of the Bible and things therein can be considered worthy of inclusion as long as they are substantiated by a reputable or scholarly source, which easily can be used to make conservative sources a lesser authority.
I remember problems i had 4 years ago, while more of a novice, in trying to provide some balance to the WP David and Jonathan, article, which is still on the talk page, which still places more space to sodomite "scholarship." While some criticism of my edits was warranted (references), among other things my reference to Robert Gagnon (Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, and author of many books) as a "scholar" was denied because he was an "annoying little self-publicist pushing a hate-filled POV, who has a post at a highly partisan and non-neutral religious institution." Yet he is not even a "fundamentalist" (Biblical inerrancy). Thus if you cannot get your work published due it being politically incorrect, or other reasons, and do not work at such "neutral" non-religious institutions as Harvard, and are hated by the Left due to exposing them, then you cannot be a scholar!

Reminds me of this insightful cartoon. Daniel1212 13:48, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

Andy Murray Makes US Open Final[edit]

Andy Murray of Britain has made the US Open final. Novak Djokovic, a Greatest Conservative Sports star, will get there if he beats David Ferrer. Both had an easy path there, since Roger Federer was upset in the quarterfinals instead of facing Murray in the semifinals, and Rafael Nadal was injured and did not participate. Djokovic should beat Ferrer, but as we saw in the Olympics, nothing is guaranteed. The final will be tomorrow, assuming weather does not prevent Djokovic-Ferrer from finishing today. (Given the forecast, that's certainly a possibility) Gregkochuconn 16:58, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

Due to severe weather expected in the NYC area in about 45 minutes, play has been suspended for the day and fans are being urged to leave as quickly as possible. Ferrer is up 5-2 in the first set, and will be serving for the set tomorrow when they resume tomorrow at 11 AM. The men's final will be on Monday. Hopefully Djokovic can compose himself tonight and do better tomorrow. The first set is a lost cause, I think, since Djokovic would need to break Ferrer twice in a row just to get on serve, and then either break him again or win the tiebreak, but it's best of five, so it's far from over. Gregkochuconn 17:16, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
Did God send the weather this time as he did before? AlanA 17:23, 11 September 2012 (EDT)

Julian Castro[edit]

Julian Castro's speech at the DNC was powerfully spoken yet devoid of meaning. Sound like anyone we know? He's going to be the next big thing in the Democratic Party - and by "next big thing" I mean mindless liberals will flock to him like they did to Obama. (Someone should save this revision so we can put it in Conservapedia proven right when the time comes) Gregkochuconn 20:06, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

Romney says he would keep parts of Obama healthcare law[edit]

Well that was to be expected: Funny how people think Romney is anything close to a conservative just because he is running in the Republican party.

Italy and evolutionism plus Roman Catholic theistic evolutionism[edit]

Italy location.png

Biblical creationism in Italy

Did a top Italian science agency help fund a creationist book in 2009?

Are biblical creation believing churches being planted in Italy? What is the future of biblical creationism and evolutionism in Italy? How will the changing face of religion in Italy affect the Roman Catholic Church's position on the creation vs. evolution issue? Conservative 03:17, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

As a Catholic, I think it's unlikely that the Church will abandon its long-standing position on Biblical interpretation. Thus, Catholics, in the context of the creation question, would continue to be able to believe that creation literally happened and the Earth is less than 10000 years old, or they can believe the modern evolutionary synthesis (subject, of course, to the caveat that God is the ultimate Creator and that He endows every human being with a human soul at the very moment of conception). GregG 07:25, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

GregG, I don't you know your history enough. The Roman Catholic Church started to become much and more liberal post 1950s and embraced evolutionism more and more. That is roughly a 60 period of embracing evolutionism to a significantly higher degree. No Roman Catholic pope has spoken ex-cathedra on evolution as it would be foolish to do so (the evidence is simple not there).

Let take another look at history: "The earliest record of a plenary indulgence was Pope Urban II's declaration at the Council of Clermont (1095) that he remitted all penance incurred by crusaders who had confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Penance, considering participation in the crusade equivalent to a complete penance."[72]

Post Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, which occurred in the 1500s, indulgences are no longer fashionable in the Roman Catholic Church. That was a 500 year "long standing" position which was abandoned or at least largely abandoned.

Also, you have demographics and a trend of biblical creationism growing in the world working in favor of creationism growing in the Western World.[73] For example, in terms of religious bodies Roman Catholic France now has evangelicalism arguably having the fastest growing religion in France and it is growing rapidly.[74][75]

In addition, who has a bigger commitment to getting out their message via the internet. The Roman Catholic theistic evolutionists or the the pro-biblical creation evangelical Protestants? The proof is in the pudding so let's take a look: Internet evangelism: Pro-biblical creation evangelical Protestantism vs. pro-evolution Roman Catholicism In addition, Kenneth R. Miller's commitment to getting out his message seems tepid as well. [76] Judging by the lack of enthusiasm he has so far demonstrated in responding to your 15 questions for evolutionists inquiry, I am not surprised.

The historical evidence and recent trends suggest that given enough pressure on the hose, the Roman Catholic Church will abandon its theistic evolutionismism.[77] Conservative 13:29, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

Sorry, I just got back and saw this, but I do want to correct some problems with your response:
  • "No Roman Catholic pope has spoken ex-cathedra on evolution": this is because evolution is not a matter of faith and morals; rather, Catholics are free to believe whatever scientific belief they want about diversity of life so long as it is consistent with the Catholic understanding of creation (see my response above for the details).
  • "indulgences are no longer fashionable in the Roman Catholic Church": this is simply false. Indulgences are still very much a part of Catholic belief. It is true that abusive practices in the past (such as granting indulgences based on monetary contributions) are no longer done today. One should also keep in mind that indulgences only remit the temporal punishment for sins already committed and forgiven. It does not grant license to sin in the future.
  • Also, your final points regarding popularity of certain beliefs in populations and on the Internet (which, to be sure, are in no way well-developed or well-reasoned) have no relevance to the truth of these beliefs. If I were the only person in the world to believe that evolution occurred, I would still believe it. If the Catholic Church became an unpopular church subject to persecution at every turn by a tyranny of the majority, I would have all the more reason to hold true to the Catholic Faith.
GregG 20:16, 10 September 2012 (EDT)
The origins issue is not a salvation issue but it is an important part of the Christian faith. The biblical record is part of the Christian faith. For example, issues such as the original "very goodness" of creation before the fall, original life, death, original sin, the first Adam, Eve are all important issues and they are mentioned very early in Genesis.
Second, maybe you hang around with a different crowd of people. None of the Roman Catholics I have ever known have received indulgences. Question: Have you ever received an indulgence? Have your parents or any siblings ever received an indulgence? Has anyone in your family period ever received an indulgence? The claim that indulgences are no longer fashionable is correct.
Third, the blog post does not commit the ad populum fallacy. It merely states that conservative protestants are making significant advances in getting their message out while the Roman Catholic theistic evolutionists are losing ground in terms of their global market share and/or web visitors for the English language. In addition, the article provides resources showing the folly of evolutionism. The article brings up other issues as well. Conservative 22:48, 10 September 2012 (EDT)
I beg to differ. Every Catholic who has taken communion at least once has received a plenary indulgence. Every Catholic who hears the Urbi et Orbi blessing at Easter receives a plenary indulgence. They can be earned at retreats and given as part of the last rites. So, chances are that many, if not all, of the Catholics you know have received an indulgence.
Whether they like to talk about it or not is another matter! Rafael 11:04, 11 September 2012 (EDT)
Gosh, I just found this [78]

Rafael 11:08, 11 September 2012 (EDT)

Other contrasts btwn evangelicals and Catholic can be seen here.

And indulgences are still indulged in, being given for such things as devoutly "visiting a cemetery between the 1st and the 8th of November and pray, even if only mentally, for the departed," it being the sale of them that is overall avoided.

As for Rome on young earth creation vs theistic evolution and freedom to hold various opinions, it holds that God created the universe out of nothing, but it does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time, likewise whether various life forms developed over the course of time. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. (

Thus RCs typically embrace theistic evolution, if that, though some of her apologists hold to a six day creation and some go so far as to hold to geocentrisim, contending that these are what their church officially historically held to.

Other RC sources, including the officially sanctioned study notes in the official RC Bible for America, see Adam and Eve, and many other historical miraculous accounts (Noah, Balaam, Jonah, etc.) as fables.

This liberty of variant opinions extends beyond the creation issue, as the reality is that despite the inference of RC apologists that the Roman magisterium largely eliminates disagreement and the need for private interpretation, the fact is that RCs must discern which teachings out of multitudes of candidates are infallible, and which category other ones fall into, and to various degrees their meaning, and how much dissent is allowed for non-infallible teachings, which make up the majority. In addition, Rome's parameters leave RCs with great liberty to interpret the Bible as they see fit in seeking to defend her traditions from Scripture, although that is not their supreme transcendent source (as is manifest in Scripture), as that authority is held to be the Roman church as she has "infallibly" defined herself to be so. Daniel1212 22:33, 11 September 2012 (EDT)

Travelling salesman paradox[edit]

Yes, I've heard of this. Interestingly, it is a hurdle for programmers, not computers, to efficiently create an algorithm for it. The algorithm that bees use resembles the following psuedocode:

  1. Drone 1 = new drone{
    1. drone.get(distanceToFlower);
  2. drone 2 = new drone{
    1. drone2.get(distanceToFlower);
    2. drone.share('drone2') (distanceToFlower).
      1. If {drone2.distanceToFlower <= drone.distanceToFlower(drone2.distanceToFlower = distanceToFlower}
      2. Else {drone.distanceToFlower = distanceToFlower}

} brenden 15:34, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

Theistic evolutionists vs. biblical creationists: Who will prevail?[edit]

Roman Catholic theistic evolutionists vs. Protestant creationists: Who will ultimately prevail?[79]

Has a Roman Catholic young man promoted the Question evolution! campaign to thousands of his supporters? Is the Roman Catholic theistic evolutionist Kenneth Miller a slothful laggard when it comes to getting out his message?

Nate, I am open to debating you. You just have to give me an offer I can't refuse! :) You are still going to have to bring a lot more to the table to spark my interest. Consider asking members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to participate in the debate. They clearly could use some help in getting out their message - especially in America.[80][81] I don't think that will help you though as they no doubt cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists. :) Conservative 17:09, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

Ok, then let's talk about a time, place and manner for debating. I'm not going to clown around with all these ridiculous conditions and comments you throw out. I literally laughed when you said I should bring Richard Dawkins or someone from the Pontifical College. My offer is to debate you on any subject any time any where. If you want to talk about literal Genesis that would be a good place to start. It seems like part of the reason you routinely trash talk the Roman Catholic Church. You don't have the background to justify one hermeneutic approach over another without simply regurgitating quotes and failing to say anything of your own. You couldn't even explain someone else's argument: you would just quote them and run away. If you can't concisely explain your own position in your own words, you have no business opening your mouth because you either don't know what you're talking about or you're not smart enough to justify it. I'm predicting your response will be more of the same cowardly distractions, switching subjects, taunts, lies, misunderstanding, etc. if so, I declare victory ole ole ole. :) My email address is on Karajou's usertalk page. I'm not bothering with any more "talk talk talk" with you. Put up or shut up. Nate 13:04, 11 September 2012 (EDT)
Nate, we have had exchanges before. You became angry because you lost them. For example, you took issue with my statement that conservative Protestants read the Bible more than typical Roman Catholics. I then provided statistics showing American Roman Catholics read their Bibles less than American evangelicals and other Protestants as a whole. But it was talking to a brick wall and you did not acknowledge my legitimate points such as these. I can do it again: "...I stumbled on a Rasmussen poll that had to do with Bible-reading in the United States, I couldn’t help but feel that my pessimism is well grounded. According to the poll, 25 percent of Evangelical Protestants read the Bible daily, as do 20 percent of other Protestants, while daily Bible-reading is done by only 7 percent of Catholics."[82] If memory serves I also said that many Roman Catholic scholars have a low opinion on the Bible and you took issue with that. I then showed leading Roman Catholic websites like and Roman Catholic scholars expressing doubt about the historicity of various New Testament passages.
You can alleged all you want about me supposedly not understanding hermeneutics, but you provided no evidence of that.
I don't see the point of me winning debate after debate exchange with you at this point. It is not challenging and you are an unreasonable hard head. Make it worth my while. Again, consider asking members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to participate in the debate. They clearly could use some help in getting out their message - especially in America.[83][84] You definitely need to make some kind of substantial counter offer to get me interested at this point.
Nate, we are no longer in the Middle Ages. We live in an era where conservative Protestants are getting out their message in a big way.[85]Conservative 18:17, 11 September 2012 (EDT)
For those of us unfamiliar lacking a bit of context (obviously this has been going on between you for a while), what are each of your terms for the debate? A brief reasoning or justification of each point would be interesting too, if you don't mind. Are you both actually open to this debate? I've seen debate challenges here before, but the tone this time seems rather more serious so I just thought I'd ask WilcoxD 23:26, 11 September 2012 (EDT)
No? That's a shame. WilcoxD 00:22, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

I already made my offer! Considering Nate's prior exchanges which went very badly for him and the foolishness of evolutionary beliefs, the terms are very generous. Conservative 00:34, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

Critical Analysis of the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist movement - Psychological analysis[edit]

I would like to briefly start a suggestion section where users suggest topics or what-not that should be added to Conservapedia to help improve itself as a wiki and establish credibility as a reliable source. Feel free to add as you wish.

SUGGESTED ARTICLES FOR CREATION: -The Venus Project -The Zeitgeist Movement -Libertarian Socialism -Co-operative Economics -State Capitalism

SUGGESTED ARTICLES FOR REVISION: -Atheism -Socialism -Anarchism -Leftism -God

-askeptic 7:46 PM September 10, 2012 (PST)

Please explain. Karajou 23:06, 10 September 2012 (EDT)
It's a suggestion list of articles that people would like to see on here or articles that people would want the staff to revise. It's like a request form for the staff of Conservapedia. A visitor's chance to request the creation of new articles and request the revision of old ones to have it closer to the truth rather than be blatantly biased. askeptic 7:46 PM September 10, 2012 (PST)
Instead of finding bias, go to the relevant talk pages and make specific suggestions for the improvement of the articles. Karajou 23:22, 10 September 2012 (EDT)
This is just a suggestion list. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a request to have the staff use their critical thinking skills and revise their articles to make it more attune to the truth. It's a fairly general request, which is why is shouldn't be under the talk pages of the articles. This is a general request list for the staff. Not a specific one. askeptic 8:53 PM September 10, 2012 (PST)
On this page you can say it in general terms, but if you do have some ideas for whatever subject is on your mind, it is best to take each one to the specific talk page, hash it out, provide sources and material, and so on. Karajou 00:11, 11 September 2012 (EDT)

This is a request for regular visitors and editors of Conservapedia to review and analyze the Venus project and the Zeitgeist movement, as well as a critical analysis of the 3 Zeitgeist movies as well as an analysis and critique of the Venus project's documentaries. This is for a psychological analysis, and I would really appreciate your participation in this psychological study. Thank you for your possible participation. Please e-mail the analysis and/or critiques to

I find the proposition that Jesus did not exist appalling, and their questioning of the American government blasphemous. It sickens me to see such good minds wasting their time with this useless jargon instead of using it to help aid God's cause for a just world. - arealconservative

9/11 "sacrifice"?[edit]

I don't think any of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack, or their family, would consider they "sacrificed" themselves. They were murdered in a surprise mass terrorist attack. To say anything else is to denigrate their memory., and to minimize the responsibility of the terrorists who committed that heinous crime. Please consider changing the wording of todays Main page item be a little more sensitive to reality. Wonders 15:55, 11 September 2012 (EDT)

Your point is interesting, but the memorial from which the picture was taken is in honor of one of many firefighters who did sacrifice their lives for others on that day.--Andy Schlafly 16:19, 11 September 2012 (EDT)
Yes - the emergency service members sacrificed themselves, but the vast majority of the deaths were entirely innocent victims of mass murder. I think we should favor the majority, or have wording which acknowledges both , e.g. "…say a prayer for those who were killed or sacrificed themselves to save others on that day"? Wonders 16:28, 11 September 2012 (EDT)

This was my immediate reaction too. Terrible choice of words! AlanA 17:19, 11 September 2012 (EDT)

Oh well, it's the the end of this special of day of remembrance. An opportunity to fix language that was misleading and insulting has been missed. The 3,000 people who died that day apparently did so in a sacrificial gesture to us all. Instead of being brutally murdered in the prime of their lives by terrorists. Wonders 00:11, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
Ten straight edits to ... talk pages, "Wonders". How about contributing more to content pages?
I did not think your suggestion for the front page was an improvement. Many of the people who died on 9/11, and not just the many firefighters, gave their lives in sacrifice for others.--Andy Schlafly 00:16, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
If you look at those Talk page edits, I think you'll find they were all reasonable comments. And I do think it's pretty awful that the wording on the Main Page framed 9/11 as something that the victims somehow chose, and that utterly neglects to mention the horrific act of brutal violence that it truly was. It was insensitive. If we disagree, so be it, but I retain my right to resoundingly disagree with you. Wonders 00:32, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

apologized to the Muslim mobs that did these deeds?[edit]

I'm not about to justify Obama's actions, but the statement issued by the Cairo embassy was posted BEFORE the violence broke out: Nine 13:38, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

The posted article is an example of poor research and should be removed from the news page. SJC12 20:42, 12 September 2012

Here's a possibly useful link about the riots, and embassy security and that. [[86]] Cmurphynz 09:12, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

New York Primary For State offices Tomorrow (Thursday): GOP Same-Sex marriage supporters all face more socially conservative challengers[edit]

Actually, 3 of the 4 GOP State Senators who voted to legalize same-sex marriage, because one of them isn't running for reelection. Stephen Saland of Poughkeepsie and Roy McDonald of Troy are considered frontrunners (and Saland will appear on the Independence Party line no matter what), but Mark Grisanti of Buffalo is in a very tight battle. Polls open at 6 AM in the New York metro area and noon everywhere else. They close at 9 PM, and then the primary process will be over across the country. NY's primary was originally scheduled for Tuesday, but they moved it two days because they didn't want to hold it on the anniversary of 9/11. Several other states held their primary Tuesday. [87] is a link to an article on the primary, and it mentions the same-sex marriage GOP supporters in the last paragraph. McDonald actually literally told opponents that if they didn't like his decision to support the bill, they could "take the job and shove it". Sorry for my language, he really said that. See [88] Gregkochuconn 22:47, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

The Independence Party endorsed all three of the Republicans. SJC12 9:39, 13 September 2012

Saland has no challenger in the Independence Primary. Grisanti has two, in spite of the State Party's endorsement, but he has 68% of the vote so far, and the two challengers have 22% and 10%. McDonald is unopposed in the Independence Primary, but there are two candidates in the Conservative Party Primary, one of which is McDonald's challenger and the other one I've never heard of. So McDonald will get on the ballot one way or the other. Someone besides McDonald (probably his challenger) will be on the Conservative line no matter what. Although nobody filed as a Conservative (the Party) in Saland's district, someone submitted an Opportunity to ballot petition, meaning voters can write someone in. Those all have to be counted manually, so it could take a few days. Yeah, NY's fusion laws are confusing. Gregkochuconn 21:50, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
Grisanti has won, surprisingly easily. Saland appears to have won by 42 votes out of almost 10,000 but it is unclear how many absentees there are, according to [89] although they apparently can't do math ([90] confirms they reported the totals right and just can't do math). With 64% of precincts reporting, McDonald leads by about 100 votes out of 10,000. Gregkochuconn 22:51, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
So the supporters of same-sex marriage are in the lead, albeit by small margins in two cases?--Andy Schlafly 23:55, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
Correct. McDonald is ahead by 122 votes and Saland by 42, but they have to look at absentees which won't happen until next week. Gregkochuconn 09:08, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
According to [91], DiCarlo (Saland's opponent in the primary), will probably win the Conservative Party nomination. There are 620 or so absentees to be counted, 550 of which are in Dutchess County and will be counted starting tomorrow. No word on when the ballots in Putnam County will begin. Gregkochuconn 17:52, 19 September 2012 (EDT)
Grisanti won easily, ironically he's the only one whose race was supposed to be close. Saland won the recount, although DiCarlo will still run on the Conservative Party line. They actually didn't have anyone listed in the primary, but someone filed an Opportunity to Ballot, meaning write-in votes were allowed. DiCarlo won that one, although Saland never contested that line. McDonald (the guy who told voters that if they didn't like his decision to support same-sex marriage, they could "take the job and shove it up your [bleep]") lost his recount, and declined the Independence Party nomination, even though Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo offered his endorsement. If I were the Democrat in that race, I'd be pretty slighted. Speaking of the Democrat, she's apparently a lesbian, which should make for a very interesting race. Gregkochuconn 20:32, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

Foolish atheist blogger[edit]

I looked up that quote, and it doesn't appear to be from a blogger, but rather an anonymous quote attributed to a friend by an anonymous commenter. Is it really in the spirit of Conservapedia? RyanAg 07:54, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

File:Gears animation.gif
The Question evolution! campaign will grind up atheism into a fine pulp.[2]
Creation Ministries International no doubt has the contact information of NeilW in Australia as far as the candid admission of the atheist blogger.[92][93]
Every atheist knee shall bow and every atheist tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. There is no point against struggling against the inevitable.
Atheism will soon be ground into a fine pulp by the Question evolution campaign and its 15 questions that atheists STILL cannot satisfactorily answer.[94]
Mr. Atheist/Evolutionist, as Pastor Carl Gallups said, "didn't your teachers teach you to question everything?"[95] We both know that you question evolution and for good reasons!
By the way, by the end of today, there will be 800 less people calling themselves atheists and 1,100 less people calling themselves agnostics and 83,000 more people professing to be Christians.[96] This trend will accelerate and there is a 12 point plan in place to help make it accelerate faster. [97]

So User:Conservative. The Ninth Commandment reads: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20:16). Like it or not, The Other Page is your neighbour. The website next to yours. We share a fence, peeking over at each other. We both watch each other. You pretend you don't (which is lying, again), but you do. Obviously.
Okay, so breaking the Ninth Commandment isn't the worst thing you could do, but there are six hundred and thirty odd commandments in the Bible and you broke #9. You committed a sin that's in the top 1.43% of all sins, which is pretty bad if you ask me. Moses had to write it on freak'n stone and you still disobeyed God's direct commandment of your own free will. That's pretty bad right there.
Oh, sure, you justify it by 'lying for Jesus'. We're evil sinners so it's okay to lie to us. Nope. Bible doesn't say "don't lie to other Christians", it says neighbours. Good, bad, indifferent. Even if we let our dog shit on your lawn, we're still neighbours.
So anyway. You're making up something you believe Atheists say all the time so that other Atheists will wail, gnash their teeth, rip out their hair and pledge their immortal souls to God after seeing the madness of Atheism.
Except that's not really what's happening. Your lie is so transparently obvious that everyone can see right through you. Even if it were 100% True and Correct(tm) and a genuine Atheist blogger really said that and the quote wasn't taken out of context or anything, who cares? I don't. That would just make that guy an idiot. Richard Dawkins himself could say it.
Some people pretend to believe in God even when they don't. Some people, rarely, believe in God but actively don't want to obey an all-powerful creator who basically created man with (in his eyes) severe flaws then punished them for not obeying 630 commands with no evidence that they were divinely inspired. I mean, let's face it. That God sounds like, as Whedon's Bruce Banner might put it, 'the other guy'.
But okay. Let's assume that Atheists are totally taking in your transparent deception and the wailing and gnashing etc. Isn't God and, by association, Bible Believing Christians(tm) supposed to be examplars of moral behaviour? Aren't you supposed to be better than us?
So answer me this. Why is it okay for you to break one of the Ten Commandments, committing one of the top 1.43% of all sins, User:Conservative? Do you pray for forgiveness for your trespasses, or is this one cool with Big J?
Is this what Jesus would do? Lie to people to get them to follow him?
If not, isn't the point of being a Christian to model yourself after the life of Christ? Why would you actively break one of his ten most important commandments, freely and without any kind of duress? Why would you spit on Jesus's name, on the Bible, on everything you claim to hold sacred (and judge others on) and judge others, when you yourself are such a deceitful, lying, immoral person?
If so, what else would Jesus lie about? Being the son of God, perhaps? --NinthCommandment 11:46, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

The prophet Moses
Ninthcommandment, it is you who are ignoring Moses and not me: Obsessive "atheists" should have listened to Moses. By the way, your word to substance ratio is very poor and a prime example of liberal wordiness. I hope you don't think I bothered to read all your claptrap! Conservative 13:09, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
I just want to point out: a guy who says "I know God exists" is by definition not an atheist. MattyD 13:24, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
MattyD, you are incorrect. Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.[98] They are merely doubleminded. Conservative 13:30, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
Right. And by saying "I know God exists," the person you are quoting is asserting the existence of God. He's not denying it at all. MattyD 13:33, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
Atheists are unstable fools who are doubleminded. They suppress the truth. Deep down, all atheists know there is a God. That is why they are so obsessed. You don't see Christians ranting about leprechauns a lot, do you? "Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist there is no God." - Heywood Broun Conservative 13:38, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
None of that addresses the fact that a man who says "I know God exists" cannot meaningfully be called an atheist, just as, for example, a man who says "I know the Earth is round" cannot be called a flat-earther. He is asserting the existence of God, therefore he is not an atheist. MattyD 13:42, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, you asserted that Atheists are actually Theists because "Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist there is no God.". Would you say that the same applies to homosexuals? "Nobody talks so constantly about gays as those who insist they are not gay."? You have made a truly disturbing number of edits to the homosexuality article (going so far as to lock the account so none others may edit it) and have created far, far more homosexuality-related content than anyone else on Conservapedia put together, past or present, all of it critical of homosexuality. Are you merely double minded? --NinthCommandment 14:29, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
Sadly, while rats are often smart enough to stop pushing a lever after it is repeatedly pushed with no result or with electric shocks, Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder (SCOCD) sufferers never seem to learn from their mistakes despite the inevitable quick rebuffs and occasional taunts for their foolish requests to edit the Conservapedia atheism and evolution articles.
I see you still have not discerned why I created the homosexuality article (I am the principle author). 微乎微乎,至于无形;神乎神乎,至于无声;故能为敌之司命。
It is good to see that I remain an enigma to the evolutionists and other assorted liberals who constantly ruminate about me and engage in speculative fantasies about me. If I were to guess, perhaps there are currently about 12 atheists who obsess about me. In a world of about 7 billion people, that is about 1.7 e-9 percent of the world's population. Far too trifling a percent of the world's population for me to dwell on - especially given the inevitable global decline of atheism/agnosticism and the rise of biblical Christianity/creationism throughout the world including Western World countries such as France, the UK and America.[99] So rest assured, your obsession about me is very unrequited.
The Apostle Paul wrote: "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things." (Philippians 4:8}. As you can see, obsessive atheists do not make the cut of things for Christians to dwell on. See: Atheism and morality and Atheism and mass murder and Atheism and uncharitableness
"And remember, once evolutionism ceases to be force fed in schools, atheism and agnosticism will fold like accordions. The few village militant atheists remaining will be shunned by their communities if they persist. And due to current world trends, which includes the low fertility rate of secularists compared to committed creationists, it is inevitable that evolutionism will be pulled from schools." See: Evolutionists, start thinking the "unthinkable"
I know that once evolutionism is no longer force fed in schools, I will rarely think of evolutionism. Just like I rarely think of flat earthism. Total victory over evolutionary quackery in the public square is going to be glorious for Bible believers. For biblical Christianity, it will be like VE Day in America when the the rabid German evolutionary racists were conquered. Conservative 16:05, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

"despite the inevitable quick rebuffs and occasional taunts for their foolish requests to edit the Conservapedia atheism and evolution articles." This statement by User:Conservative demonstrates his/her/its/their/my misunderstanding of how wiki-based projects like Conservapedia are intended to work. The general rule is that wikis are open for the Best of the Public to add incremental contributions to make the most trustworthy articles. GregG 17:46, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

GregG, thank you for agreeing with me it is merely a general rule. If you have any complaints about the current state of affairs, I suggest taking them to the Conservapedia panel. I will warn you though that they already have ruled in my favor once and they will likely do it again if pressed into doing so. Conservative 18:04, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
By "general rule" I meant that there would only be a few exceptions, like Main Page, Template:Mainpageleft, Template:Mainpageright, Conservapedia:Commandments, and Conservapedia:Copyrights. I certainly did not intend to say that it is acceptable to leave pages permanently protected so that only administrators can edit them. I believe otherwise: articles should only be protected to prevent vandalism or edit warring and only then for the minimum extent necessary, keeping in mind that such protection is hostile to the wiki nature of Conservapedia. GregG 18:10, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
ETA By the way, User:CPanel and User talk:CPanel seem to have been inactive for nearly five years. Perhaps your information on the dispute resolution process is out of date. Where can I find more current information on this? GregG 18:12, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
GregG, I suggest you and your fellow evolutionists persistently contact the Conservapedia panel's user talk page. After all, evolutionists supposedly believe that given enough time anything can happen. Conservative 18:19, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

Coptic Christians[edit]

I hate to be spreading a rumor singling-out Coptic Christians. They already have their lives at risk. From most credible sources, it was a coordinated attack with protests of the film used as cover.--Jpatt 14:42, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

I agree with Jpatt. There does not appear to be evidence that the attack was not affiliated with the protesters. --NinthCommandment 14:44, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
It looks like a stronger case may be starting to come together. MattyD 11:34, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

Main page spelling error[edit]

"As can bee seen by these photos" has a misspelled word. GregG 08:40, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

Thanks. Conservative 09:30, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

Prove Creationism! Campaign[edit]

User Conservative, here's a challenge for you...

Instead of using your intellect and boundless energy on a negative campaign (You don't need me to tell you that disproving evolution wouldn't make creationism true - you're too smart for that) - why don't you instead prove that the Biblical account of Creation is true?

Obviously, you will need supply actual,independently verifiable proof of your chosen beliefs. But you know that already!

You promote a campaign that asks 15 questions, why dont you just publish FIVE proofs that you're chosen scientific model is true.

If you start quoting 'Art of War', Genesis or direct me to debate 'Shockofgod', I'll take that as a sign of defeat... That's just lazy!

Come on user:conservative, are you a man or a mouse? Show some machismo! EJamesW 15:15, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

Creationist attacks on Darwinism are not going to stop until Darwinism is no more. They are going to be more frequent, hit Darwinism at strategic points, occur on a global scale and be more assertive in character. [100] The attacks are going to occur against an ever weakening American and global Darwinist opposition.[101][102]
EJamesW, in addition, you wrote: "You don't need me to tell you that disproving evolution wouldn't make creationism true - you're too smart for that". What is the most probable alternative position to the creation/evolution positions and what proof and evidence do you have for it? If you do have a compelling alternative position, I do find it very telling that you have not been ardently letting us know about it.
One last thing, Sun Tzu is considered to be one of the master strategists of all time. Why wouldn't I quote him where I agree with him? "Invincibility lies in the defense; the possibility of victory in the attack" - Sun Tzu.
Have a nice day. :) Conservative 10:16, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
EJamesW, have you seen THIS yet? It seems as if razor sharp creationist minds have already thought about about your "Prove creationism! campaign". See #4 and #5 in this article. Is this yet another case of God inspired ideas heading off the ideas of evolutionists at the pass? Do you think #4 and #5 were part of the at least 100 ways to grind up evolutionism, atheism and agnosticism into a fine pulp which may have been alluded to HERE?
Keep your suggestions coming though! Christian creationists are always seeking ways to grow biblical creationism and shrink evolutionism/atheism/agnosticism in the world in the most efficient manner possible. Conservative 16:10, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

I've given you a week to come up with a convincing reply and you have failed to provide one single piece of evidence that 'Creationism' is true... To be honest I'm not surprised, your chosen position is very tough to justify. It would take a genius, citing compelling, scientifically (and independently verified) evidence to convince me that your chosen ideology is correct.

Don't get me wrong, part of me would love to live in your world of absolutes. Good/evil, right/wrong, etc. But real life is not like that, it's far more complex. I think, deep down, you know that.

Believing in absolute truths (especially those without any real evidence) is dangerous. That particular path leads to persecution, segregation, and ultimately extermination. Your particular flavour of Christianity demands that homosexuals, disobedient children, unfaithful wives (not husbands) be pelted with stones until they die. I'm sure that you could never bring yourself to carry out the instructions contained within the 'Holy book' against certain members of society. You're better than that. You are, aren't you?

You shouldn't be scared of Science. The vast majority of Christians have realised the honesty of the 'scientific method' and have accepted scientific principles. Science is fascinating and mind-blowing!

Have you never realised that the act of replying to my comments involves a great deal of science?

Hope that you are in good health, and kind regards to your family. EJamesW 16:57, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

p.s. Let's meet up for argumentative beer next time I visit the U.S.

Prove creationism is true[edit]

Here is evidence that Christianity/creationism is true: Christianity and creationism is true.

Second, have you noticed this and this yet? Are the seedlings of a Creationism Proven! campaign already planted? Conservative 03:12, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

Hello user:C. Do you have a first name? (or Christian name as it's still sometimes termed in the u.k.) You can call me Jim. Sorry it's taken me a long time to answer your latest post but there's many demands on my time. I've read every single word of the links you supplied and I believe I've got the general 'gist' of your main arguments.

I don't believe, for one moment, you'd ever think I'd be convinced by such 'trite' arguments. You Creationists have got to do better if you are to convince educated and intelligent people that your claims are true. I've tried to point out to you that the 'Question Evolution! Campaign' invites greater scrutiny of evolutionary science. There's (archived) pages in this website that have well-informed, and convincing answers to the '15 questions' that you or your group have professed to be unanswerable!

Read 'Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China'. There's many slogans that sprang up in the 'cultural revolution' are very similar to those that you use. In fact why don't we start a conservapedia book group? I'm up for it - how about you? I'm sure AugustO would drive us bonkers with his interpretations of great novels...

Best wishes to you and your family. EJamesW 16:27, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

p.s. user:C - isn't about time you had a proper talk page?

p.p.s I've created the 'Conservapedia book group' page with the first suggested read 'Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China'. As it's near to the start of October - could I suggest that the next book be suggested by Aschlafly for the start of November. Then user Conservative for December, Ed for January etc..

A semantics question on a main page item[edit]

This sentence is currently in an item on the main page: '"God-hating atheists do not care about the considerable amount of evidence supporting the biblical record because they do not want to repent of their sins." My question is, how can an atheist hate God if he does not believe that God exists? It is obvious an atheist does not believe in God no matter if God exists or not, so how can an atheist hate something they do not believe exists? For example, I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster, so I cannot hate it. To hate, one must acknowledge existence. My suggestion is that you change that sentence to start with "God-denying atheists", a much more accurate term. RossPhillips 22:17, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

More accurate, but tautological. Simply 'Atheists' would seem to be the mot juste.--DHouser 13:52, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
Another way to look at it would be to take apart the word "God," and see it as 1. the Lord God as He exists--some people do not believe in Him--and 2. the "idea" of God--nobody denies that the idea of God exists separately from God Himself. A "God-hating atheist" is not directing his hatred at a being in which he does not believe (the first sense of the word), he's directing his hatred at the idea of God independent of God's existence. MattyD 13:59, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
Well put by MattyD. In addition to his point, note also that atheists include people who say they don't believe God exists. What some atheists really believe may be something different.--Andy Schlafly 14:48, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
The question is, surely, are there any God-loving atheists? If not then the qualification is redundant.--DHouser 16:04, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
A thought experiment: A man is drawn to the idea of religion, and loves the idea of God, and even wants that in his life, but because of public-school indoctrination, he is unable to take the required leap of faith to believe in the actual existence of God. He is an atheist who loves God. A God-loving atheist. So yes, there could be such a thing. MattyD 17:09, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
That thought experiment is a little biased. "Public-school indoctrination"? An atheist who acknowledges god is not an atheist. TurtleD 17:20, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

Atheists are double minded, rebellious and deceptive individuals who deep down know that God exists. Atheism is merely the denial that God exists. Atheism as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God. See: Atheism. See also: Atheists doubting the validity of atheism and Atheism and deception and Denials that atheists exist

“The Scripture saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it, by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it....It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man." Sir Francis Bacon wrote in his essay Of Atheism Conservative 17:38, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!. . . But He loves you!", George Carlin wrote. Richman 12:27, 18 September 2012 (EDT)

Richman, your atheist rhetoric is not going to: 1) Start an atheist revival 2) Reverse the global decline of atheism Next, it is a strawman argument. The Bible specifically declares that God is not a man (Numbers 23:19). So your invisible man strawman is ignorant and foolish. In addition, nobody escapes the fires of hell, by whining about them. It is through repentance that one escapes the fires of hell. Lastly, the Bible is clear that he rejects some and loves others.[103] I suggest you do more repenting and less whining. For example, I have no doubt that at some point in your life that you committed a lie. You are a sinner in need of repentance. And there is abundant evidence that God exist and you will stand before the judgement seat of Christ.[104] Conservative 13:00, 18 September 2012 (EDT)
Conservative, if you replace "man" by "being" the argument still stands. Anyway, I hope you spend your days repenting, because I see you sinning all the time: you distort the arguments of your adversaries, belittle and humiliate them, and as soon as they give as good as they get you block them. Do bring on the abundant evidence in your own words. (By the way, here's an interesting link for you: [105].) Richman 14:27, 18 September 2012 (EDT)
Are you claiming that Elijah sinned when he mocked the prophets of Baal? Could it be that you are a prisoner of your age when it comes to setting moral standards? As far me, I am going to use the timeless Word of God, the Bible, as my guide. Also, subsequent to the Atheism and obesity article, atheists charging Bible believers with hypocrisy has lost its sting. We know how much atheists purport to love science and rationality and we know what medical science says about obesity (and being overweight) and its health risks. Checkmate atheists! You've lost the hypocrisy front! Another ideological battle front that Jesus won and the atheist population has lost! An ex-carpenter who used hand tools who was a godly itinerant preacher/prophet in the first century did not have problems with obesity! Conservative 20:22, 18 September 2012 (EDT)
Interestingly, your Atheism and obesity article and my link showing that atheism in the US is on the rise share the same source: Gallup. Here is a direct link to the study: [106].Given your keen interest in the rise or fall of atheism, I am sure that you, as the non-hypocritical Christian that you are, will feature this sensational news item on Conservapedia's front page.
I fail to see though how your citing your Atheism and obesity article is relevant to our discussion. Or why obese atheists are supposedly hypocrites, for that matter. Richman 08:00, 19 September 2012 (EDT)
Please tell the American atheist and evolutionist Ed Brayton to move to Sweden. He is unnecessarily raising the average BMI of Americans and increasing food prices due to the significant upward pressure on demand for food that he is causing.[107] The secular Swedes have a solution to obesity that requires no exercise and dieting - surgery![108] Conservative 12:14, 19 September 2012 (EDT)
Once again changing the subject when you've run out of answers. Very disingenuous - you sure are a sinner in need of repentance. Anyway, how about writing on Conservapedia's frontpage about the stunning rise of atheism in the US? You are committed to the truth, aren't you? Richman 13:08, 19 September 2012 (EDT)

In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the atheist population in the United States was 1.6% of the American population.[109] A mere squeak in the American population that will be grind down to a 1/2 a squeak. See: 10 reasons why American atheism will see a significant decline Conservative 01:57, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

And yet another cop-out. You sure write an awful lot about an intellectual position that only a "mere squeak in the American population" adheres to. Anyway, the reasons you refer to are refuted by the results of the Gallup survey. If you really are committed to the truth, i.e. if you also honor the truth when it doesn't fit your prejudices, you post the stunning news about the rise of atheism in the US on Conservapedia's frontpage. Richman 08:38, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
Global atheism is shrinking in the world. Second, ever since Richard Dawkins and the British Humanist Society ducked debate offers from William Lane Craig, many Christians have even a lower regard for atheism than before (and it was really poor before then). So to call atheism an intellectual position is a misnomer. Conservative 11:56, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
First, Conservative, you are resorting to last wordism ( quite a bit in this and previous conversations. Second, I don't understand your attitude toward others. Earlier you quoted "The few village militant atheists remaining will be shunned by their communities if they persist." Do you not believe in freedom of religion? Do you think others should be able to believe what they wish to believe? Do you think it is American to shun others that do not think like you? Would America have formed into the country it is today if people were shunned for their differences? TurtleD 12:16, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
TurtleD, do you believe that all worldviews are of equal value? If so, please defend your position. Second, what are your thoughts on Aristotle's law of noncontradiction? Third, what are your thoughts on postmodernism? Fourth, what are your thoughts about the history of militant atheism? Conservative 12:59, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
Let me take this one. Aristotle's law of noncontradiction rules, because it means that when atheism is on the rise in the US (see [110]), it can't be in decline at the same time. As to postmodernism, I think it is a self-defeating worldview: if indeed there is no objective truth, then postmodernism itself can't be objectively true either. I also think that you regularly indulge in postmodernist reasoning, as you seem to draw whatever meanings you want out of texts. Richman 10:27, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
Do I engage in postmodernist reasoning? I notice you provided no proof and evidence of this. Also, were a large number of atheists/agnostics prominent advocates of postmodernism? For example, Jacques Derrida? Can you name one prominent Bible believer who was a postmodernist? I don't think so! Face it, atheists are prone to adhere to quackery more than Bible believers and studies demonstrate this (See: Irreligion and superstition). Conservative 14:37, 30 September 2012 (EDT)


Hi, you seem to worked up about Tim Tebow not getting enough play time. The Jets lost against the Steelers 10-27 on Sunday. Why do you suppose such a poor defensive performance has anything to do with who's playing at quarterback? StaceyT 16:38, 17 September 2012 (EDT)

Giving up 27 points is not all that bad for a defensive effort. Scoring only 10 points on offense is abysmal.--Andy Schlafly 19:13, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
Just out of interest, what did he say when you told him he was runner-up for Conservapedia's Conservative of the Year 2011? StaceyT 18:15, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
Nudge... StaceyT 16:37, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

"5 principle strategies to collapse Darwinism"[edit]

The word "principle" should be "principal". GregG 00:24, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

I simplified the front page link and removed the unnecessary word. It now reads: "5 strategies to collapse Darwinism". Simplicity is more elegant in many cases and I think this principle applies in this instance. Conservative 01:38, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
It's very intriguing that whoever runs the QE! blog manage to fix the same spelling error in the blog post within 9 hours of my posting about it here. Thanks for the correction in any case. GregG 09:09, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
Are you saying the change in the blog post was due intelligent causes and not the result of blind natural forces? Why don't you think the blog post just evolved after a data center got struck by lightning? :) Conservative 18:06, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

"100 ways to grind up evolutionary belief"[edit]

Two identical sections with this title appear on MPL. I think at least one of them is redundant. GregG 00:26, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

Despite the fact that there are at least 200 ways to grind Darwinism into a fine pulp, I removed one of them from the main page. :) Conservative 01:43, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

Interesting story.[edit]

Interesting development in the Libya embassy killings that you have some news stories about here. Apparently the militia group responsible has been chased out of Benghazi. [111] might be worth putting a story about it up. Cmurphynz 09:07, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

And another source: [112] good on them i say. Cmurphynz 00:29, 23 September 2012 (EDT)

US General Accountability Office wins Ig Noble Prize[edit]

According to [113], the US General Accountability Office has won an Ig Noble Prize (Nobel Prize parody) in Literature for its report about reports about reports. The report included a recommendation for a report about the report about reports about reports. This is what our tax dollars go to. Gregkochuconn 10:24, 23 September 2012 (EDT)

My fav literature ig nobel prize was the one that was given for a paper that had more authors and contributors than actual characters in the article (ed, they are normally given to stupid things like this, they have also been given for things like feeding viagra to animals, making crickets watch star wars and a person who did a study on naval fluff). regards --Dvergne 10:39, 23 September 2012 (EDT)

It's amazing the Navy has fluff at all, what with it being at sea, etc. Wonders 22:05, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
Navel fluff, I think. Gregkochuconn 14:50, 25 September 2012 (EDT)

Atheism and Motorsport[edit]

I think that an essay similar to one of conservatives pieces would be quite good and show why atheists can not succeed in motorsport. From memory there has NEVER even been a mildly successful atheist driver. --Dvergne 23:39, 23 September 2012 (EDT)

Fernando Alonso. MattyD 23:40, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
Fair point, although he has thanked the man upstairs a few recently for some lucky breaks. --Dvergne 23:48, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
I just finished a 11 hour research/writing project while I had a cold. I was also under a deadline. A key source of information called me this evening so I was able to finish the project in time. The thought of writing anything right now makes me gag. :) Conservative 04:28, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
Getting it out before thursday would be good, there is no F1 grand prix this weekend, so most of the F1 blogosphere will have run out of new material by then thus they will probably pay it some attention as they need to get thier page clicks up to get revenue (unless of course there are any driver announcments in which case there will have that to talk about). An F1 focus would be best as the blogs don't tend to follow stuff outside F1. Regards Dvergne 09:18, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

It's an interesting concept, but I absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. An atheist driver is unlikely to say after a race, "I thank my lack of belief in God for this win", while a religious driver is far more likely to be humble and thank God.--DTSavage 15:01, 25 September 2012 (EDT)


Pardon me for asking, but what is the gaffe that Michelle Obama committed? PeterRyan 10:40, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Explain how anyone would ride the Underground Railroad. Karajou 10:42, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
(edit conflict) "riding that Underground Railroad"??? Apparently Michelle thought there really was a railroad built underground, and made the gaffe in an inept attempt to score political points.--Andy Schlafly 10:46, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that she didn't understand the metaphor. Two questions - what political points would she score by referring to a literal railroad? And who (among her audience, who would be well aware of the history of the Underground Railroad) perceived it as a gaffe? KingHanksley 11:31, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

I think using train metaphors like "riding" is extremely common when talking about the Underground Railroad.
Heck, Harriet Tubman said the following -

I was the conductor of the Underground Railroad for eight years, and I can say what most conductors can't say; I never ran my train off the track and I never lost a passenger.

"Conductor", "ran my train off the track", "lost a passenger". Was this a gaffe on Harriet Tubman's account? PeterRyan 10:51, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

It was not a gaffe on Tubman's part; it was deliberate. She was helping slaves escape bondage, and any words that would keep their pursuers "off the tracks" would help. And Ms. Obama's gaffe by comparison? She's from Chicago, and we all know how well public education works there. And this is her buddy's attempt [114] at deliberately dumbing it down further, so if the shoe fits... Karajou 11:01, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
I would add that if you are going to constantly remind people about the not so glorious plight of blacks in America's past, you ought to at least get it right. Claiming it was a metaphor is just a likely excuse offered by liberals. How about those great-grandparents that weren't even born yet? --Jpatt 11:38, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
It's more of the typical liberal attempt to excuse the gaffe; they always have one. A Republican or conservative saying the same thing, and liberals would do everything in their power to hang him. "Potatoe" anyone? Karajou 11:50, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
I'm sorry, but flagging this up is truly attempting to make news out of nothing. It's a simple metaphor and there's nothing more to be read into it. Mr Karajou, I highly doubt you could blame the Chicago public school system for anything when she attended Princeton University and Harvard Law School, or are you claiming that the same education that Mr Schlafly received is of poor quality? HumanGeographer 12:16, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
Yes, she did attend Ivy League universities, but we're talking about an individual who is pushing her own beliefs on the rest of society, and if one of those beliefs is an ignorance of American history, she needs to be called out on it, no matter how minor. As for Chicago, you have the link above that you can read, and it's about Obama's terrorist pal and K-12 education. Then there's the fact that 79% of eighth graders cannot read at their level [115], and it's graduation level is 60% [116]. Why are there so many drop-outs in that city? Why is the level of education so poor in that city? Just who is in charge of that city, and who is running the educational system there? Answer: a bunch of liberal Democrats. We're highlighting that discrepancy in this website. Karajou 12:32, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
American history is typically learned in grade and high school, not college. Also, politicians today do not speak in a literary writing style as some are suggesting above.--Andy Schlafly 12:26, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
Nonetheless I highly doubt that this will be noteworthy as even a 'gaffe'. It's not because media might be perceived to have a liberal leaning, it's simply because everybody can hear instantly that it's a metaphor and that's that. What better verbs could convey the message? 'use', 'utilize', 'participate in'? - Despite your claim that 'politicians today do not speak in a literary writing style', it should not stop them from doing so if they want to, simply because Mr Romney is chooses not to do so and thus is perceived as boring. HumanGeographer 12:32, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
And nonetheless, it's the liberal side of the fence that will always downplay what they say or do. Last week some seventy-one minutes were devoted to attacking Mitt Romney on the four major news networks for the "gaffe" about the 47% not paying taxes (which is a fact), vs. just 6 to 7 minutes covering the sacking of the Libyan consulate in which four Americans were killed. Karajou 12:36, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Even if Michele Obama hadn't learned about it in high-school, her trip to the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center on Feb 23, 2012 makes it doubtful that she doesn't know what she was talking about. AugustO 12:37, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Nobody wants to talk about those great-grandparents. I bet the audience knew what she was talking about, right? Not a gaffe either? This thread is an issue at RW so of course they will come here and do their best to downplay. Look, both Obama's are not well versed in American history. Remember Barack's gaffe? "We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad"--Jpatt 13:05, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Underground Railroad was the term used by blacks (and by whites who helped) them for the network that enabled them to escape from slavery in the Southern states from the 1830s!!! Did you guys really not learn that at school? Heck, even British kids over here learn that at school. Nothing to look at here, move on. StaceyT 16:35, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

No, it was not a term coined by blacks, who would not have commonly traveled on railroads in the South in the 1830s. It was a pejorative term coined by southern whites, which shows further how uninformed the First Lady's statement was as she tried to play the race card.--Andy Schlafly 16:44, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
As uninformed as the guys of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center? AugustO 16:49, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
Aschafly, does your point matter? The term 'Underground Railroad' was used by blacks like Frederick Douglass and white abolitionists like Levi Coffin (etc etc etc etc etc). Good grief. StaceyT 16:56, 24 September 2012 (EDT) (trying not to chew up my parents' carpet in frustration at you guys).
Try chewing on this, Stacy: The Underground Railroad was a clandestine network of people to ferry blacks from house to house, location to location, and get them to freedom. If they couldn't get freedom in the North due to the Fugitive Slave Laws, they would make their way to Canada. Now, Stacy, just who set up the conditions in the South where slavery was the norm? Who set up the Fugitive Slave Laws? Who demanded acts to be passed to attempt to muzzle abolitionists? What sort of people were the ones who caused the American Civil War to break out? You want a hint? It's the same people who created the Ku Klux Klan; the same people who created "Jim Crow" and segregation; the same people who stood in front of Southern high schools and colleges to prevent blacks from getting in; the same people who tried to prevent the Civil Rights Act from taking place; the same people who demand higher and higher taxes from everyone; the same people who talk the race card every chance they get...and you have to complain about a certain "gaffe" from one of their members that we object to because she doesn't have her history in order. But it's completely OK for her to lecture us about the evils of obesity while she gorges on hamburgers and ice cream every chance she gets. As far as I'm concerned, these people are not fit to lead a nation, and on November 6 we're going to show it loud and clear. Karajou 19:42, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
How pathetic. Please stop wasting electrons on this rubbish. StaceyT 20:10, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
What you call "pathetic" is historical fact, and like it or not the Obamas are part of that political party, and that party is still practicing slavery of one form or another. They're going to lose November 6. Karajou 21:19, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
lol and what if they don't? --DavidToyos 20:29, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
This is a disgusting pile of ad hominems directed at conservapedians, sysops, and politicians. If this does not add any substance, I will trim topic entirely.brenden 20:47, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

"Apparently Michelle thought there really was a railroad built underground." No. The escape system known as the Underground Railroad consciously adopted the language of the railroad, with "Conductors", "Stations" and "Passengers". The term "riding the underground railroad" is to this day a readily understood simile for escaping from slavery. Major stops on the railroad are still referred to, by tourist guides and museums, as "stations." You'd have to try very hard to imagine that someone using this phrase was ignorant of the fight against slavery in the United States. --TonySidaway 09:20, 25 September 2012 (EDT)

suggestion for news[edit]

$595,000 spent in Michigan on……..roadside sculptures - [117]

Romanian General quote[edit]

I believe that Rumania is an older spelling, and the spelling should be changed to the modern version, Romania.--DTSavage 14:51, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Australia says no to Same Sex Marriage[edit]

I heard from a mate that members from both the liberal and labor parties have voted down a proposed law that would allow same sex couples to marry and possibly adopt. I think that this deserves a mention in the news as an increasingly atheistic country decides same sex marriage is morally wrong.

Interesting news story--Reid makes Romney's Mormonism an election issue.[edit]

Harry Reid seems to think Romney is too conservative for his faith. MattyD 14:06, 25 September 2012 (EDT)

Conservative leaders open a salvo at liberal media[edit]

Interesting. Might be worth putting in the Main Page. HumanGeographer 11:41, 26 September 2012 (EDT)


Is the suggestion here really that Netanyahu is too cautious? KingHanksley 15:47, 28 September 2012 (EDT)

Main Page Left[edit]

User:JanW asked for an overhaul of the left side of the main page; he wanted to give the Conservapedia Bible Project a more prominent position and criticized that there are more than a dozen items about the "Question Evolution Campaing!" cluttering the space.

What was so wrong about this statement that it had to be erased and deleted from memory? User:Conservative blocked User:JanW with an expiry time of 2 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (90/10 rule: excess of talk rather than edits to substantive entries)

Has User:JanW been admonished first? Sadly I cannot check this as his user/user talk pages were deleted, too. While deleting the pages of vandals is certainly necessary, this approach seems to be an overkill for someone who just violated the 90/10 rule!

Or was this just a pretext to block someone who asked an unwelcome question? That would be worse.

AugustO 17:28, 28 September 2012 (EDT)

There must be 50-100 reasons/ways to get rid of a liberal evolutionist troll.[118][119] I used the 90/10 rule. :) Don't need to discuss much, just drop the ban and get yourself free![120] Conservative 17:47, 28 September 2012 (EDT)(edited by User:Conservative after User:AugustO's reply below)
I can only see that you got rid of a user who made a point you don't like. AugustO 17:42, 28 September 2012 (EDT)
I can live with that. I am not going to lose any sleep over it.
The problem is all inside your head. The answer is easy if you take it logically. I'd like to help you in your struggle to be free. There must be fifty ways/reasons to ban a liberal evolutionist troll.
It's really not my habit to intrude. Furthermore, I hope my meaning won't be lost or misconstrued. But I'll repeat myself, at the risk of being crude. There must be fifty reasons/ways to ban a liberal evolutionist troll. Fifty reasons/ways to ban a liberal evolutionist troll.[121]
I used the 90/10 rule! Conservative 17:54, 28 September 2012 (EDT)
  • I'm glad to hear that your sleep is sound at the moment
  • Bending rules or breaking commandments didn't appear to me as being the conservative way to handle problems.
AugustO 17:57, 28 September 2012 (EDT)
BTW, at this moment, none of your last 11 edits has been to the main name space. Could you please block yourself? Preferably for 2 years? AugustO 18:00, 28 September 2012 (EDT)

Policemen can go over the speed limit. Conservative 18:10, 28 September 2012 (EDT)

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." (Abraham Lincoln) --AugustO 18:17, 28 September 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, I should have been more diplomatic with you. My apologies. Second, I stand by my decision that the person was an evolutionist troll and the cost/benefit was not there in terms of contribution. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. Conservative 20:40, 28 September 2012 (EDT)
The left page sure has changed since I last saw it - all the important stuff is buried. Why not have a single "Featured on QE!" box? Ruddager 02:48, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

Darwinists keep offering suggestions that are continually ignored. I guess given enough time you still think anything is possible. You are wrong. Conservative 02:13, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

He does kind of have a point though, if you look at that part of the page it is almost exclusively about 'question evolution'. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, it's a very interesting blog, but it might be a good idea to reformat or rename bits of the page so that they fit the content better. Cmurphynz 23:57, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

Get used to the Question evolution! campaign evolutionists: it is not going away[edit]

Get used to the Question evolution! campaign because it is going to be a well funded campaign that grinds down evolutionism until it ceases to exist or until Jesus comes back. Better yet Mr. evolutionist, cease being an evolutionist and join the campaign! Conservative 02:13, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

Well I, for one, hope it is not going away. It has provided me with more consistent laughs than anything else I can think of over the last twelve months. --CromulentDave 03:09, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

"Does you use"[edit]

The top story of MPR has a grammatical error. GregG 09:08, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

Attack on Embassy[edit]

An attack on the Embassy in Libya is a terrorist attack on the territory the Untied States, possibly the first sine 9/11. Shouldn't the Main Page and associated articles reflect this? OscarO 13:34, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

CREWS: Homosexuals in the military demand special privileges[edit]

The first anniversary of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sept. 20, has come and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were not idle chatter...

Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent. Two airmen were publicly harassed in a Post Exchange food court as they were privately discussing their concerns about the impact of repeal. A chaplain was encouraged by military officials to resign his commission unless he could “get in line with the new policy,” demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and then reassigned to be more “closely supervised” because he had expressed concerns with the policy change, again demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint.

At an officer training service school, a male serviceman sexually harassed another male serviceman through text messages, emails, phone calls and in-person confrontations. The harassing male insisted the two would “make a great couple.” The harassed serviceman reported the harassment, but the command failed to take disciplinary action.[122]

This kind of thing, though it is based on personal reports here, is seen elsewhere, and consistent with the forceful spirit behind pro homosexual activists and that agenda, first seen in seeking to force their way into Lot's house, and then into other places since, including forcing sex into passages of the Bible it does not belong in, seeking to provide sanction of an activity that the Bible only condemns.

But as we are all sinners, there is room at the cross for all who will repent and cast all their faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood, and so follow Him Daniel1212 20:35, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

When I read the talk page title for your post, I thought they might be demanding lavender uniforms and lighter rifles to accommodate their limp wrists. By the way, have you seen THIS and THIS? Liberals manage to degrade the effectiveness of every institution they get significantly get involved in. Conservative 21:49, 29 September 2012 (EDT)
Was that comment serious? :) Cmurphynz 23:10, 30 September 2012 (EDT)
I seen the that, but have you seen THIS While you weren't looking: FBI and CIA embrace homosexual movement. Reaching out to "gay and transgender community? Slouching toward United States of Sodom. Pray and preach, yet "the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? " (1 Peter 4:17-18) . . Daniel1212 23:26, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

Changing bible verse on MPL[edit]


It's been at least 3 months since the Bible verse on MPL was updated. I would like to see some new verses featured on our main page to help set my mind for the day according to God's plan. Additionally, it would help if the featured Bible verses were placed in a more prominent location (that is, one that doesn't require scrolling down several screens to find). Thanks, GregG 15:54, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

Weird Sounds[edit]

A few random reports of unidentified sounds does not, in any way, imply that they have a demonic (or otherwise supernatural) source. There is probably a logical and mundane explanation for each phenomenon, even if that explanation has not yet been identified. To speculate otherwise, without sufficient evidence to justify doing so, is plain insanity. Not to mention that wild speculation, and jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions, is the antithesis of conservatism (by definition, conservatism demands a considered, rational, approach). Please remove this story from the newsfeed, it makes us all look ridiculous.--JHunter 22:54, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

Why are atheists/agnostics/evolutionists so enamored with the word "random"? What proof and evidence do you have that these reports were random?
I am not a fan of Hugh Ross, nonetheless this excerpt from the Toledo Blade is relevant as I recall there were other sources reporting the same thing:
"In 1969, however, Dr. Ross met two astronomers who were having regular UFO encounters. Both also happened to be involved in occult activity.
Upon investigation, Dr. Ross consistently found a connection between occult involvement and residual UFO encounters. For example, he said, countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia's Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were." - from the Toledo Blade
Could THIS and THIS be the answer?
Next, where did I jump to conclusions on the front page? Show me where I made a definite commitment to a certain explanation.
I think you are overreacting and afraid of the weird sounds may be anomalies to your frail worldview. Either than or you are afraid the weird sounds will appear under your bed! As a Christian I only fear God! I am not afraid of weird sounds!
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet Act 1, scene 5 - Shakespeare Conservative 02:02, 1 October 2012 (EDT)

New Zealand! :)[edit]

And in other news, three New Zealanders have joined some project or another. I'll tell you if the country changes drastically as a result. (we should live in hope eh) :) Cmurphynz 23:13, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

I am sure the Chinese atheist communist said similar things.[123] Conservative 02:14, 1 October 2012 (EDT)
They probably did. But no, I think it would be great if some big changes did occur. It might not look very likely at the moment, but we never know do we. Cmurphynz 08:24, 1 October 2012 (EDT)
Big changes are going to occur. Evolutionism/atheism are ideologically aligned with Western liberalism and financially supported by their liberal policies. Liberalism is unsustainable due to: An aging and long living baby boomer population not being able to supported by an abortion and birth control culled younger population, big spending/big government policies, public schools not preparing people adequately for a post robotic/artificial intelligence world where entrepreneurial skills will be needed, foreign competition, religious populations having higher birth rates and immigration, global Christianity spreading quickly around the world, etc. [124][125][126][127][128][129][130] The smart money like Jim Rogers sees a lot of economic pain in the West ahead in the coming years. Rogers moved to Singapore so his children would have a better children because he sees the Eastern World rising and Christianity is seeing big growth in the Eastern World (Most Christians live in the Eastern World. See: Global Christianity).
Because PZ Myers and other atheists/liberals have so closely allied themselves with the Western left/liberalism ideology, I believe this will have a negative effect on the advocacy of secular ideology. For example, atheism in America is often still associated with communism due to the Cold War years and this is suppressing atheism evangelism in the USA.
Should Jesus Christ tarry, long term robotics/artificial has the potential to improve mankind's lot, but I think there is going to be significant short term pain in the West due to many Western public schools not preparing people adequately. [131][132][133][134]
In the United States, liberal ideology has been ascendant and dominant in the United States for the last 50 years or so, but there are a number of signs that secular left policies will be severely cut back in the coming years.[135][136] Many of these same factors could play out in secular Europe.[137] Maybe the West will bounce back and eventually remain very competitive and economically dominant compared to the Eastern World. America certainly has been very innovative in the past. Historically though, biblical creation belief has been strong in the United States and could remain so. Plus, in Latin America creationism is growing fast and they are neighbors to the United States. Maybe a future less liberal/secular Europe could bounce back too.
I am guessing a lot of these same forces will be at play in NZ too plus NZ is affected by the rest of the world. Conservative 18:30, 1 October 2012 (EDT)
Flag of New Zealand.png

Biblical creation belief is growing in New Zealand. In addition, New Zealand Associate Education Minister John Banks says he is a creationist.[138]

Also, a New Zealand Christian who has successfully raised money via grants has expressed strong interest in an fundraising effort which could revolutionize fund raising for biblical creation evangelism efforts worldwide. [139] Conservative 20:21, 1 October 2012 (EDT)

I am taking the silence of NZ evolutionists as a sign of these developments being a clear victory for NZ biblical creationism. Conservative 23:16, 2 October 2012 (EDT)
The The reason that you don't hear anything is partly because you live on the other side of the world, but mainly because in nz evolutionists assume that they've won, and so don't even bother engaging with anyone that happens to disagree. There is really almost no debate on the issue, as most kiwi evolutionists seem to believe that any objections are just silly.

Interesting link about John Banks there, I wasn't aware of that. (doesn't seem to affected his honesty much though) Cmurphynz 08:59, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

Main Page Left - general thoughts[edit]

IMO the left side of the main page should help the visitor to view Conservapedia and content of Conservapedia should be promoted. The reasoning for this is simple: the first link a user clicks at the Main Page should lead him deeper into Conservapedia, not away from it! A featured article, some interesting (meaningful!) pictures could do the trick.

At the moment, the left page distracts a casual visitor. I won't go into the merits of the QE!-campaign (as I don't want to derail the discussion), but above the section Popular Articles at Conservapedia you find many more links to the blog questionevolution than interwiki-links:

That's not much of a surprise, as 18 of the 19 top sections are covering the QE! campaign - and the main source is said blog:

  1. Queasy evolutionists
  2. Crazy evolutionist hamsters
  3. India creationism is expanding
  4. America loves to Question Evolution!
  5. The 5 strategies to collapse Darwinism
  6. 100 ways to grind up evolutionary belief
  7. 13 recent grim events for Darwinism
  8. Breaking all 7 rules of good history?
  9. Systematically attacking Darwinism
  10. Hysterical evolutionism vs. methodical creationism
  11. Europe's unrest and creationism
  12. Victorious creationists; Darwinists' defeats
  13. Fundraising arms race
  14. Desolating global Darwinism
  15. Creationism friendly schooling GROWING
  16. Evolution
  17. Todd Akin
  18. Unreasonableness of young earth deniers
  19. Resources to refute evolutionists

IMO most of the above could be summarized to creationism will be on a rise - thank you, QE! (and that isn't exactly a news, it is a declaration of intent.

And instead of uplifting, meaningful pictures we find:

Conclusion: Even if you are thinking that the left hand side of the Main Page looks inviting, it doesn't invite to the right place, i.e., Conservapedia.

AugustO 02:12, 1 October 2012 (EDT)

Evolutionism is a false worldview and global creationism is on the rise.[145] Creationists are not letting up and in fact are looking to increase their efforts.[146] Get used to it. You are going to see more and more biblical creation advocacy in the public square - not less. Look at this as a foreshadowing of things to come. Conservative 02:22, 1 October 2012 (EDT)
Hey, what's wrong with the pictures? I find some of them 'uplifting' and 'meaningful'. The one on the top left for instance is objectively inspiring ;) Cmurphynz 08:30, 1 October 2012 (EDT)
Your answer doesn't address the point I made. Two questions:
  • How much traffic of the blog comes from the main page of Conservapedia - 90%? 95%?
  • How many visitors of your blog find the way back to Conservapedia?
Again, this section isn't about a foreshadowing of things to come, it's about how the main page looks today. AugustO 02:30, 1 October 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative, I see that you began to clean up the left side. That's a start, but obviously not enough. IMO the very minimum would be that any article which has a link out of Conservapedia is alternated with an article which mainly links into Conservapedia, e.g., article of month, a Bible verse linking to the CBP or one of the masterpiece which are now missing. Seems fair, doesn't it?

Even better would it be if you could condense the ads for your blog into one short, gripping piece which than is featured as third or fourth section...

AugustO 15:30, 1 October 2012 (EDT)

August), the priorities of those who believe in biblical creation are far different than many of those who are evolutionists. If you are looking for me to be putty in your hands in terms of cooperation with your agenda for the main page, that is not going to happen. Conservative 18:04, 1 October 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, I thought the main page could use a little more biblical creation news so I added some recent developments which are occurring New Zealand including an event reported by the NZ press. Feel free to thank me when it is convenient for you. :) Conservative 20:27, 1 October 2012 (EDT)
Thank you very mu... oh wait, has this anything to do with the left side of the main page, the one titled "featured on Conservapedia"? I don't think so. I don't want you to be putty in my hands and I don't want you to cooperate with my agenda for the main page. I want you to act in the interest with Conservapedia's own agenda: this part of the main page should lead readers into the encyclopedia, not away from it. And I will be thankful when you consider my questions above, i.e..
  • How much traffic of the blog comes from the main page of Conservapedia - 90%? 95%?
  • How many visitors of your blog find the way back to Conservapedia?
Please try harder to stay on topic. --AugustO 01:34, 2 October 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, I think you first have to show it is my blog. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't ever recall saying it was my blog. 微乎微乎,至于无形;神乎神乎,至于无声;故能为敌之司命。 Conservative 04:13, 2 October 2012 (EDT)
Isn't it? I thought it was for some reason. Now that you mention it though it was probably just that you kept linking to it rather than someone saying that.Cmurphynz 04:28, 2 October 2012 (EDT)
I think you first have to show it is my blog. Why? If you say that it isn't your blog, then it isn't your blog. I just assumed that you were the main contributor as its style is so similar to what you are showing here on Conservapedia.
But frankly, whether it's you blog or not, it doesn't matter for the main point I'm trying to make: this part of the main page should lead readers into the encyclopedia, not away from it.
AugustO 04:34, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

This is similar to previous discussions about the main page. My view is similar, that the left hand side should feature Conservapedia content, and external content should go in the right-hand side. August hits the nail on the head saying that this page should bring people into Conservapedia, not direct them away from it.

Greg G proposed a new main page layout a while ago - see user:GregG/New Main Page - which I think is quite good. Feel free to contribute to the discussion there.--CPalmer 05:35, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

I like the Greg G format better. Currently, the major push into content is an article list entitled, "Popular articles at Conservapedia". However, that title is misleading because this list is very different from Special:PopularPages. Eight out of the top 24 most popular articles deal with homosexuality, so I suppose that someone used editorial judgment to create the popular articles list. The Greg G format calls the section "Features on Conservapedia". Wikipedia has a "Did You Know" section to drive main page readers into content. Perhaps we should have something similar, because just listing article names will not tap the curiosity of main page readers. Also, the main page should have a short, two or three sentence long "mission statement" of the project. Many people come to Conservapedia not knowing what to expect, and the logo with the catch-phrase "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" raises more questions than it answers. Thanks, Wschact 06:11, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

These are nice ideas. Unfortunately, such an overhaul will probably be delegated to a committee - and I don't have much confidence in such an approach. I'd just like to see this part of the page being made about the items featured on Conservapedia. --AugustO 07:23, 2 October 2012 (EDT)
I will make the main page left less focused on the various articles associated with that domain - in due time. How long the period of less prevalence will continue or when it shall commence will of course remain a mystery to evolutionists. 故兵貴勝,不貴久。 ; 微乎微乎,至于无形;神乎神乎,至于无声;故能为敌之司命。 ; 人皆知我所以勝之形,而莫知我所以制勝之形。 Conservative 17:09, 2 October 2012 (EDT)
Remember: "In addition, it is always a good idea to unleash surprises on the opposition so we have some of those planned as well."[147] :) Conservative 17:15, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

How long the period of less prevalence will continue or when it shall commence will of course remain a mystery to evolutionists. *LOL* Look, it is not necessary to delay any action as a kind of face-saving exercise, proving that you won't give in to any pressure: linking under the title featured at Conservapedia preferably to content at Conservapedia is obviously the right thing to do. So you won't succumb to the wishes of evil evolutionists, but just to the voice of reason... AugustO 17:32, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

Christian Creationists will peacefully conquer New Zealand like they did Rome and are doing in China![edit]

Flag of New Zealand.png

Biblical creation belief is growing in New Zealand. In addition, New Zealand Associate Education Minister John Banks says he is a creationist.[148]

Also, a New Zealand Christian who has successfully raised money via grants has expressed strong interest in an fundraising effort which could revolutionize fund raising for biblical creation evangelism efforts worldwide. [149] Conservative 20:17, 1 October 2012 (EDT)

Biggest blow to hit world atheism[edit]

World's biggest atheist population about to see a big decline

China location.png

"In the Sierra Leone conflict, 100 trained commandos from the private military company Executive Outcomes were able to effectively combat the revolutionaries from the United Revolutionary Front and they saved many people from being butchered. When 17,000 United Nation troops were called into replace these commandos, they failed."[150]

Of course, this gives further weight that one highly trained and motivated creationist is worth tens of millions of weak and impotent evolutionists in the creation vs. evolution ideological war. :) Keep this in mind as far as the "post-Christian" comment you trotted out! And don't forget to remember what is happening in China! Z