Talk:Main Page/Archive index/118

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


When will liberals tire of attempting to claim their useless and harmful ideologies are compatible with Christianity?

As a Catholic who believes in both creation and evolution, I take offense to the assertion that my belief in evolution as a scientific explanation for how life became diverse once God created it means that I'm not Christian. Perhaps it was merely a brusque statement, but it shouldn't be repeated on Conservapedia's front page. Thanks for your consideration, GregG 23:27, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

GregG, See: Social effects of the theory of evolution and Communism, Nazism and evolutionism.
Although I don't agree with everything in this video, I do know Adolf Hitler was raised a Roman Catholic and said he would remain a Catholic (Adolf Hitler stated in 1941, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"), said he adopted the hierarchical organizational structure of the Roman Catholic Church for the Nazi government and there are many pictures of Roman Catholic officials with Adolf Hitler.
GregG, I have a few questions:
1. Why didn't the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) ex-communicate Adolf Hitler?
2.Why did the German Pope Benedict XVI, who was a member of Hitler's Youth, revoke a Holocaust deniers ex-communication? [4] Was this the right thing to do?
3. Did the Confessing Church, which was persecuted by Nazis, oppose Hitler more than the RCC? [5][6]
4. Who was the highest ranking RCC official who was severely persecuted by the Nazis?
5. The Italian Pope Pius XII is often called "Hitler's Pope".[7][8] Is this a fair characterization? If not, why not?
6. GregG, are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.
If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room:,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at
Also, have you heard from Kenneth Miller yet about the 15 questions for evolutionists? Conservative 00:07, 3 October 2012 (EDT)
Ken, I was chatting to VivaYeshua last night and he said that Conservapedia is a ridiculous website and it's full of rubbish. He also thinks that theistic evolution, at least, is a reasonable position although he doesn't hold it himself. And he denies knowing you. Perhaps he thinks you lack machismo? Also, see User:Conservative and bestiality and homosexuality.--AlanCoyle 13:54, 7 October 2012 (EDT)

Your post is as offensive as ill-informed. Especially point 2 (Picture of Pope Benedict XVI as a young man giving the Nazi salute in Roman Catholic religious garb.) shows that you have been made a tool of anticatholic propaganda. Even I as a German Protestant am offended: The original of this photograph can be found, e.g., here (taken from the article "When Pitures Lie - the fairy-tale of Ratzinger's nazi salute.) --AugustO 02:34, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

Offensive and ill-informed? Yep, that's Ken!--AlanCoyle 13:55, 7 October 2012 (EDT)
Point taken on the picture. I notice you did not address the other questions though nor did you show they were unreasonable questions. On the whole, the RCC response to the Nazis was poor. Although as a Protestant I certainly disagree with many aspects of Pope John Paul II's theology and disagree with the whole notion of popes in general and although I think he was very lax as far as the priests pedophilia scandals and downplayed them (and many Catholics agree with me)[9], I can at least say that John Paul II attended an anti-Nazi theatre performance and helped Poland overcome Soviet rule. Ratzinger did desert the German military, but it was when the end of the war was very close. Furthermore, even an American president wouldn't pardon a Holocaust denier and bring him into his administration, yet that is essentially what Ratzinger did within the RCC. Furthermore, when you look at the lives of the young men Daniel, Joseph, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, David and Timothy, they don't seem the type of young men that would join the anti-semitic/evolutionary racist Hitler youth if they lived during that time period.
Furthermore, the liberal evolution Protestant German churches acted poorly on the whole in Germany too. How did your evolution believing Protestant denomination do as a whole as far as resistance to the Nazis? Conservative 06:18, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

I have no personal knowledge of 1-5, and I'm definitely not in the mood to do any research on the subject now that you've not only endorsed CMI's attack on my Catholic faith, but that you've doubled down by suggesting that because I am a Catholic and believe in both creation and evolution, I would support Nazism. That is absolutely not true and you should know better. To be honest, I have been considering debating SoG, and from listening to a previous debate, he does seem much more reasonable than you regarding beliefs he does not agree with. Unfortunately, I have started grad school, so I'm not sure I will have the time to prepare for a good debate the way I want to, and therefore I must respectfully decline for now. GregG 08:10, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

I would hope that Conservapedia could be respectful of all people of faith regardless of specific religious beliefs. A Buddist conservative is just as welcome here as a Lutheran conservative. I celebrate everyone I meet for the quality of his mind, and I don't care about the past transgressions of his organizations. Wschact 10:27, 3 October 2012 (EDT)
The problem is that the notion of conservatism itself is a social construct. Conservapedia defines a conservative as "someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all. A conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the logic of the Bible for the benefit of all." Of course, this particular interpretation emphasises a bible-believing Christian faith. Being a 'constructed category' means that those who 'define' Conservatism are thus able to define who is a conservative and who is not. This definition would thus exclude anyone who does not believe in creationism (other faiths) from being a true conservative. In a similar fashion, the Tea Party have redefined Republicanism to exclude those who do not fit with the Tea Party movement as RINOs. Perhaps User:Conservative should create a similar term, such as CINO (Conservative/Creationist in Name Only)? HumanGeographer 13:01, 3 October 2012 (EDT)
I'm with User:Conservative on the connection between the Catholic Church and fascism - and I'm a Catholic myself. There's no point in denying it. As well as the connections between the Church and Hitler and Mussolini, Catholic priests gave communion to some of the nastiest butchers in history on the front line of the Eastern Front as well as to people working in the death camps. The church was up to its elbows in blood in most of southern Europe during the 30s and 40s. In 1933, Pope Pius XI released an encyclical encouraging Spaniards to start a "crusade" against their democratically elected government. The same word was used when he told every Catholic it was his or her sacred duty to support, at arms if possible, General Franco's fascist uprising in 1936. There is even some evidence that he was consulted before Franco had even made firm plans. Bishops of the Catholic Church in Germany wrote to Hitler, exhorting him to support his Spanish brothers in God. Whether they had any influence or not is immaterial as he sent men and materiel, including the Kondor Legion which - at Guernica and other towns - practised the tactics they would use shortly afterwards to set Europe's cities on fire. As far as the fascist forces went, they were middling evil - the truly evil troops were the Moorish soldiers Franco used as a weapon of military, moral and sexual terror. After the war, and in rebel held areas during the war, the Church took an active part in the fascist repression. Nuns would walk through hospitals picking patients to be executed as "Reds". The syncretism between the fascist military and the Catholic Church was cemented, albeit until Franco had consolidated his authority as an autocrat, in National Catholicism. All with the consent, if not the blessing, of the Vatican. If you can read Spanish, I strongly recommend "Los Años del Miedo" by Juan Eslava Galán, a history of Spain between the end of the war in 1936 and the start of US aid in 1952. Rafael 15:35, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

Greg, Creation Ministries International has a link below each of the 15 questions for evolutionists. Judging by your remarks on this page, I don't think you have read these resources.

Second, I reread your initial comments and I think you are not accurately representing what I wrote on the main page. Nor are you accurately representing what I wrote about RCC's response to Nazism.

Third, taking exception to my comments about the RCC's response to Nazism and then indicating "I have no personal knowledge of 1-5}" and you're not in the mood to investigate is not a reasonable response.

Fourth, you keep stepping in the creation vs. evolution debate ring via this talk page and then you become irritated when my creationist rejoinders come in response to your comments. Don't step into the ring, if you don't want your ideas challenged. If you don't want your evolutionary ideas challenged then stay in your evolutionist cocoon and stay off this talk page. It's that simple. Conservative 22:07, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

Why should constructing an encyclopedia involve "stepping into a ring" of verbal combat? Attacking someone's faith based on political events that happened before we were born seems like "hitting below the belt." Wschact 23:58, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

Wschact, please demonstrate to me that CP is merely an encyclopedia and explain to me why an online encyclopedia must have a news section. Please demonstrate that news items on the main page are building an encyclopedia. Please also show that main page talk items on those news reports are also building an encyclopedia. Please show that history of religions and the ideologies they adopt have no affect on their religions. Thank you. Conservative 00:20, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

I would not object to people discussing the history of the Roman Catholic Church in that article and on that article's talk page. I happen to agree with many of the statements made above. However, this section started with an expression of concern that people who believe in evolution in a way that is consistent with their religious faith are not true Christians. Side tracking the discussion into the history of the Catholic Church during World War II is extraneous to the discussion and reads as if it was intended to be a personal insult. Given how much of a distraction the right half of the front page has become and the amount of time it seems to require, perhaps it would be wise to revisit whether it furthers CP's central mission. Should people pour their efforts into keeping the main page filled with up-to-the-minute information, while the other pages fall badly out of date? For example, most articles on United States locations do not yet reflect the 2010 census data. I understand that the particular volunteers who work on the right side of the main page may not be interested in updating other articles with census data, but we should all think about how we are deploying CP's resources and whether the main page is chasing away readers and/or volunteers. Wschact 01:14, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
I am thinking of learning Gimp and bringing this picture and this picture back to the main page.Conservative 03:18, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
The Flickr user "atheism" appears to have a number of pictures taken in Europe.[10] Is he/she a secular European? :) Has she/he traveled in Europe? Will there be future pictures taken in Europe featured? Will the atheism Flickr group expand or remain dormant due to the declining atheist population which keeps shrinking each day? [11] Conservative 18:20, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

Point taken on the picture. I notice you did not address the other questions though nor did you show they were unreasonable questions. My point is that whoever falls for so stupid misinformation can generally not be trusted on his other arguments. Where did you get them? The same source as the picture of the pope? So before you can expect me to address the other questions in deep, you should show that those aren't talking-points which you copied from somewhere without thinking about them yourself or checking them (as you have failed to do in the case of the picture).

But nevertheless, here are my preliminary thoughts on the rest:

1. Why didn't the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) ex-communicate Adolf Hitler? Politics. While heads of states were regularly excommunicated in the middle-ages and the time of the Reformation, this tended to cause more problems than solve them...
2.Why did the German Pope Benedict XVI, who was a member of Hitler's Youth, revoke a Holocaust deniers ex-communication? [12] Was this the right thing to do? A clever misinterpretation of what has happened. I'd say that the pope wasn't informed about the idiotic ideas of Williamson when he lifted the excommunication of all the bishops of the society of St. Pius. Ratzinger himself is neither an antisemit nor a holocaust-denier.
3. Did the Confessing Church, which was persecuted by Nazis, oppose Hitler more than the RCC? [13][14] Yes, the Bekennende Kirche opposed Hitler more than the RCC. But the Bekennende Kirche. But I don't know whether there were more Protestants than Catholics opposing Hitler: the structural differences of these Churches are to big.
4. Who was the highest ranking RCC official who was severely persecuted by the Nazis? In Germany, probably the bishop of Münster, Clemens August Cardinal Graf von Galen. In Poland perhaps the primate of Poland August Hlond, Archbishop of Poznań and Gniezno.
5. The Italian Pope Pius XII is often called "Hitler's Pope".[15][16] Is this a fair characterization? If not, why not? You should know that I don't follow links to youtube - it's just to time-consuming. It's easy for us today to say that Pius XII should have done more and to smear him.

In short, you are spreading often repeated canards seemingly without any reflection on part of yourself. This is more fitting a Chick-tract a discussion on this serious topic. And what for? Just that you can say that Catholics who think that the Theory of Evolution is right aren't Christians, because you claim that Catholics have supported and are supporting national-socialism? That's despicable. AugustO 03:53, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

I took 2 history courses on the Holocaust and I did not find your arguments persuasive. Conservative 07:35, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
What's not persuasive about In Germany, probably the bishop of Münster, Clemens August Cardinal Graf von Galen. In Poland perhaps the primate of Poland August Hlond, Archbishop of Poznań and Gniezno. being the highest ranking RCC official who was severely persecuted by the Nazis? AugustO 08:24, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

I maybe mistaken, but I think Poland had a better history of advocating human rights in the 20th century. I think the main issue is what was the Vatican/German/Italian RCC response to the Nazis. The RCC is a very top down oriented institution compared to many so it is important to look at the historical Pope/Vatican response to Nazism.

In addition, Italy and Italian cardinals has historically had a very significant effect on the RCC. [17] Unfortunately, although there are positive aspects of Italian culture, Italy has had a history of corruption in their society - especially when you compare it to countries which have a cultural legacy of Protestantism such as Northern Europe. [18][19] Conservative 10:40, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

Which part of the 20th century? I brought up August Hlond, who was opposing the Hitler-regime, but held strong anti-semitic opinions, which were shared by many in Poland: you find examples of local pogroms through the whole first half of the century, and the communists had there persecutions of Polnish Jews, too...
It's quite a clinical look to separate the Vatican/German/Italian RCC from the rest of the world's church. Don't you think that an excommunication of Hitler could have had an influence on the conditions for Roman Catholics in the occupied areas of France, Belgium, Poland, Bohemia etc.? BTW, the U.S. didn't cut their diplomatic relations with Germany until 1941 (though the ambassador was withdrawn in 1938). --AugustO 10:42, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
I think we are going to probably have to agree to disagree on this issue due to other priorities on my time. Also, here is some data on corruption and Italy to substantiate my previous claim:[20][21][22] Conservative 10:47, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
Without the tradition of corruption and greed in the Catholic church we wouldn't have had the reformation - so that's not much of a surprise. But nevertheless I think of the members of the Roman Catholic church as our brothers and sisters in Christ. And that's how this discussion started: GregG complained that he is a Roman Catholic and that his is offended by the "assertion that my belief in evolution as a scientific explanation for how life became diverse once God created it means that I'm not Christian". You answered with something implying that Roman Catholics are nazis/like nazis/supports nazis and therefore cannot be real Christians. And that was wrong in many ways.
I hope that one of your time-consuming priorities is to clean up the left hand site of the main page, so good luck with it! AugustO 11:06, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
August, warum redest du noch mit diese Trottl? Besser mit die Haasen zu sprechen; Ken hat nicht mehr alle Tassen im Schrank. Du sollst nach eine andere Wiki, weil CP ist kaputt.--AlanCoyle 13:32, 7 October 2012 (EDT)

I decided to add a quick note.

I view the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) as a political Rome/Italian (and later European) power play and historically it has stacked Italian cardinals disproportionally within the Vatican power structure even to the present day. I did a quick count and there appears to be 46 living Italian cardinals in the RCC despite global Christianity being dominant today.[23] And despite global Christianity being a fact today, the current German Pope (Pope Benedict XVI - Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger), recently was stacking the RCC cardinal leadership disproportionally with Europeans (mainly Italians).[24][25]

There is a history and tradition of corruption, scandals and intrigue within the Roman Catholic church hierarchy. [26][27][28] The longstanding tradition of corruption within the RCC hierarchy exists even today. [29][30]

Christians can be the salt of the earth and thus affect politics, but when you mix politics too much into the church, it is a recipe for corruption. Paul warned about the bad influence of "church politics" early on in the New Testament (I Corinthians 1:12-13).[31] Also, "In Acts 6 we get the first sign of internal trouble. The Hebrew widows were being cared for while the Grecian widows were neglected."[32]) etc. etc.

Furthermore, the New Testament Greek does not support Peter being a rock upon which the church was built.[33][34] Both Paul and Peter both had zeal and recommended zeal within Christendom, however, church history shows that Pauline influence on the church appears to have been greater than Peter due his missionary trips, great abilities, NT writing, very zealous nature, etc.[35] Conservative 16:20, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

So we both agree with Martin Luther that the Roman Church has a history of corruption. But nevertheless the Roman Catholics are our Brothers and Sisters in Christ. AugustO 08:25, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

I do agree with Wschact that the discussion about the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany was off-topic. Nevertheless, after some consideration, I did decide to look for information on this topic, and I found Wikipedia's article very informative. It seems that the situation with the Vatican, Italy, and Germany was much more complicated than either you or I had thought. I hope you will take some time to read that article, which may very well answer some of your questions or render them moot. GregG 13:52, 7 October 2012 (EDT)

2013: A BAD year for evolutionary belief


2013: A BAD year for evolutionary belief

Why is 2013 going to be a BAD year for evolutionary belief? Conservative 07:53, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

Gosh, even worse than 2012? --AugustO 08:27, 5 October 2012 (EDT)
To what extent is the number of 'atheism' searches on Google a good measure for the number of athiests? How often do we type 'Christianity' or 'Conservatism' into Google? HumanGeographer 11:13, 5 October 2012 (EDT)
August, definitely. Conservative 03:42, 6 October 2012 (EDT)
Human Geography, I would think lower levels of searches on a host of related searches for a topic and lower web traffic on a large number of prominent websites for that topic is not good news for people wanting to grow that particular ideology. See: Internet atheism. Also, if the opposition's web properties and adherents are growing quickly while they are shrinking in adherents that is not good news either.[36] I don't have anything further to say about this to you though. I hope that helps. Conservative 03:42, 6 October 2012 (EDT)
As you're so interested in demographics, what do you make of the fact that a quarter of Americans under 20 are atheist or agnostic? Every year from 2012 on is going to be a very bad year for US fundies, as they're increasingly outnumbered and outvoted by secularists. Olé olé olé!--AlanCoyle 13:27, 7 October 2012 (EDT)
By the way, if your blogs are having such an effect on atheists why do you have to censor the comments to keep out anything that disagrees with you? That seems to show a lack of machismo; if you were the sort of guy that Hispanic ladies think has machismo you'd have the cojones to leave opposing comments up instead of hiding them like a whiny child.--AlanCoyle 13:46, 7 October 2012 (EDT)

Conservapedia vandal up for Wikipedia Adminship!

Did you know that E organized vandalism at Conservapedia, and is now up for adminship at Wikipedia? See more at [37]. ThrowAway 10:48, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

And how am I now surprised by this !. There are some real ****** who are in high places at that place.
See THIS. Plus, once these demographics start working against them to a greater degree they will be even more desperate. Conservative 16:26, 5 October 2012 (EDT)
you should know that RfA is not adminiship. E is merely nominated for the position.brenden 19:55, 5 October 2012 (EDT)
You're right. He will have to show the preponderance of evidence points to him being a loser before he is made an Admin at Wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia on bestiality!!!!!!Conservative 20:13, 5 October 2012 (EDT)
Ken, why are you so obsessed with bestiality? Do you thank God daily that your dog can't talk, by any chance?--AlanCoyle 13:24, 7 October 2012 (EDT)

Evidently, Francis Collins never say the movie The Ten Commandments. God and Moses always win.

Evidently, Francis Collins never saw the movie The Ten Commandments. God and Moses always win. --AugustO 16:43, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

That's quite absurd: it takes you 10 - 12 edits to create two lines of text at the most prominent position on this wiki (still with an error) - and then you cover up this bumbling way of editing by deleting hundreds of edits to Template:Mainpageright. Please, take a couple of minutes to become acquainted with the Show preview button! --AugustO 16:53, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative, what have you done to the main page? AugustO 17:13, 5 October 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, what have you done to the main page? EJamesW 17:23, 5 October 2012 (EDT)
Both of you need to look at the bright side of things. Countless amounts of obsessive atheist wiki nerd commenting and cataloguing of the Conservapedia main page right posts via diffs which was done at another website, just went up in smoke! Any secondary records which exists are irrelevant because all true skeptics need direct evidence before they believe anything!
Of course, real men know the first rule of wiki edits! :) Conservative 19:07, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

The first rule of wiki-editing is "use the preview button"! The second rule is "use the preview button especially when editing very visible pages". BTW, I don't think it is a good thing to destroy evidence... --AugustO 01:49, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

Evidence of what? A vast right wing conspiracy? Only wiki nerds obsess about diffs! I had a wiki nerd pesterfest me about diffs on my user page and talk page, but I quickly put the kibosh on that! Conservative 02:43, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

Main Page Left

After the debacle with Template:Mainpageright I just want to repeat my point: Template:Mainpageleft is entitled "Featured on Conservapedia". The items in this section should lead visitors into Conservapedia, not away from it. Sadly at the moment the most striking links take a visitor to a blog, and not to articles here on Conservapedia. --AugustO 01:49, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

What happened? Looks like question evolution stuff is going in to the right page now anyway Ruddager 21:47, 6 October 2012 (EDT)
The Question evolution! blog has been cited by prominent conservative sources. WorldNetDaily and Carl Gallups! No doubt once it is highly promoted, it will be cited by other conservatives. And remember, one endorsement by a conservative is worth 1 trillion endorsements by liberals! And donn't forget that the blog has been cited by Shockofgod which is worth the square root of sod all! Conservative 21:33, 7 October 2012 (EDT)
Who's Carl Gallups? Is he that fool that runs 22:50, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

Conservapedia book group

Hi, I'm user EJamesW - please call me Jim.

I've created a book discussion page. Please read Wild 'Swans: Three Daughters of China' and post your thoughts and comments at [[38]]

And please suggest books for future discussion

EJamesW 17:12, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

How about "The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ" by Philip Pullman? The Jesus character is outstanding and earns the "good" part of the title.--SilvioR 22:59, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

Patients starve and die of thirst in UK hospital wards

Socialized medicine in a post Christian country

Forty-three hospital patients starved to death last year and 111 died of thirst while being treated on wards, new figures disclose today.

As the report leaves out some info it is not clear during what period the rest of the alarming stats belong to. [39] Daniel1212 19:41, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

Grandiose Announcements

It would be nice if the grandiose announcements of the Question Evolution - campaign for the future would be accompanied by some reports of major achievements in the past. Remember the promise from December 2011 that "Facebook will be a tremendous boost to the Question Evolution! Campaign"? What had happened to that ten months later? Where is the facebook page with its hundreds of thousand of likes boosting the campaign? AugustO 06:50, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, I know a number of people who have denounced atheism and evolution and become young earth creationists due to the overwhelming amount of evidence that disproves what the evolutionists keep on trying to pass off as truths. I think we need a page on thesuccesses of the Question Evolution! Campaign. Regards --Dvergne 09:04, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
Empirical evidence for the success of the Question Evolution! campaign. HumanGeographer 12:40, 8 October 2012 (EDT)


7 things:

1. The Question evolution! campaign blog in question does allow blog comments on its blog. Why aren't you asking this question via their blog comments?

2. Second, the blog post Facebook will be a tremendous boost to the Question Evolution! Campaign was made on December 7, 2011. Why haven't you looked for comments on their blog subsequent to this announcement. There is a search box on their blog. Why aren't you using it? It seems to me that this is another example of you not being diligent enough to obtain an answer to your question.

For example, on January 5, 2012 this pronouncement was made: "We just got someone with 18,000 Facebook likes to promote the campaign on Facebook. Today, we contacting a creationist who is very active on Facebook to promote the campaign on a more long term basis. In addition, one of the members of our team is reading materials in 2012 on Facebook outreach and should be able to assist these people." By the way, last time I checked, 2012 was not over!

3. These 3 posts indicate that the fourth quarter of 2012 is going to be the strongest portion of their outreach in order to make 2013 be the WORST year in the history of Darwinism plus they gave data showing that 2012 was a terrible year for Darwinism.[40] [41][42]

4. Have you read this post and this post yet? It seems to me that this is another example of you not being diligent enough. What does the first post say about social media? This appears to be a third example of you not being diligent enough.

5. Does this post give any clues when an all-out assault against evolutionary belief will occur?

6. Does the all-out assault on evolutionary belief include social media?

"We recently recruited a second talented Christian writer to write a Question Evolution book for middle school students and she has a ready made audience. She is a real go getter and a fervent Christian with missionary zeal. For example, she runs active social media website communities to spread the gospel and defend Christianity which have thousands of people as an audience. An agent who represents successful writers is presently working with her and thinks she is a talented writer."[43]

Yawn. Google "First Amendment." Even if your talented writed existed - she doesn't - and your book got published - it won't - it would never see the inside of a classroom. That's because creationism is religion and can't be taught as science. Olé olé olé!--SilvioR 23:03, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

7. Don't make any future comments on the campaign if you are going to be a lazy evolutionist and not do your due diligence! :) Conservative 20:48, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

Wait a minute, the "facebook" post was made two months IN THE FUTURE? apparently Conservative is a psychic. I'm just kidding, of course, but that is a small typo that might be a good idea to correct :)--DTSavage 18:49, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
Thanks, I fixed it. Conservative 19:00, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative, I'm only interested in the blog because it is so prominently featured at Conservapedia's main page (instead of the content which should be IMO.) So I have no intention to contribute to it, as this is exactly the thing I'm advising against: taking away traffic from Conservapedia.

And what you get from this blog aren't news but only announcements! If you not sure what the difference is: news relate to things which have actually happened, while announcements cover all the plans for the future. Like this new one: We recently recruited a second talented Christian writer to write a Question Evolution book for middle school students and she has a ready made audience. This author was recruited three months ago - and we have nothing to see yet. You quote We just got someone with 18,000 Facebook likes to promote the campaign on Facebook - and this is from January 2012! And what happened to the announcement in the next sentence: Today, we contacting a creationist who is very active on Facebook to promote the campaign on a more long term basis? Nine months seem to be a long term basis in internet times! Again, nothing of this promotion can be found on facebook - and certainly, the Question Evolution Campaigns hasn't become an internet sensation.

By the way, last time I checked, 2012 was not over! Indeed, but we are already getting all these announcements for 2013. It would be nice to see a list of things which the campaign has accomplished in 2012 (you know, the things from the plans for 2012). If the answer is nothing, but we still have nearly three months, then I'd reply please concentrate on fulfilling these plans before announcing new ones. Otherwise, feel free to contribute to Empirical evidence for the success of the Question Evolution! campaign.

So, an effect of the Question Evolution Campaign during the last year cannot be detected - with all due diligence. But we have all these fantasies promoted here on the main page - and that is just not good enough for a trustworthy encyclopedia.

AugustO 05:41, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, given all the frauds and speculation with the evolutionary paradigm, I hope you realize the irony of you complaining about so called "Grandiose Announcements". See: Evolutionary paradigm and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation. Conservative 08:04, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

Well, such frauds and speculations aren't displayed on Conservapedia's main page - only announcement after announcement of the future's endeavors of the Question Evolution campaign, but no reports of said campaign having reached any of it lofty aims. I didn't call your announcement fraudulent, but they are becoming more and more disappointing. And you didn't address my comment above. AugustO 08:12, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

Why are you forgetting to mention this blog post: 2012 has been a very BAD year for Darwinism and atheism just like we predicted! It seems awful convenient for you to fail to mention this big announcement came true, isn't it?

Also, you are failing to mention this announcement: Why our Question Evolution! group is focusing on America and Canada And then the results mentioned here: Proof and evidence that the Question Evolution! Campaign is growing in America - Independent third party evidence

Lastly, if you are looking for disappointment, I think you need to turn your eyes on your lackluster evolution believing denomination in Germany that keeps shrinking year after year! You are like Charlie Brown criticizing a successful NFL kicker! Conservative 13:11, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

Why are you forgetting to mention this blog post: 2012 has been a very BAD year for Darwinism and atheism just like we predicted! Because it is a rather forgettable blog post:
  • the main part are three old announcements of shockofgod how 2012 will be a bad year
  • even though the "atheist alliance international" seems to be a quite lackluster group, its facebook page has more likes (13,000) than anything the Question Evolution! campaign has put forward
Then there is the post 2012 is shaping up to be a BAD year for atheism and evolutionism! Great new charts and developments! Amusingly the google trends depicted there in May 2012 have reversed themselves over the last half year - following your lead, I'd say that the second half of 2012 is shaping up to be a good time for atheism
And then the results mentioned here: Proof and evidence that the Question Evolution! Campaign is growing in America - Independent third party evidence These aren't positive results, neither:
  • the number of unique visitors for is unimpressive, there are blogs of atheists which get more unique visitors
  • the rest of the post are only announcements again, nothing, really nothing substantial: you are going from victory to victory? That's only true if you count tying your shoelaces as a battle in the morning ;-) (do smilies work for me too, or only for you...? )
I've nothing against all your "Luftschlösser" (castles in the air), but please, don't announce each of it at the main page of Conservapedia, as this page starts to look ridiculous.
AugustO 13:51, 9 October 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, you are acting very evolutionist like and practicing the fallacy of exclusion. How is this a good year for atheism: Internet atheism - intro and Decline of internet evolutionism and atheism. Plus, on a more long term basis, there are these stable trends which appear to be trends which are entrenched for the foreseeable future: Global decline of atheism and the rise of global creationism. Information on the Question Evolution! Campaign By the way, I hope you weren't referring to Freethoughtblogs above because their monthly traffic is down from the beginning of 2012 as per Quantcast.[44] Definitely. not a good trend! Let me make it easy for you. If one person is driving away from Berlin and another is driving to Berlin, the one driving to Berlin is going to get there first! Frethoughtblogs is going in reverse and headed away from "Berlin". Of course, it is hard for you to understand this concept since your denomination is shrinking. while Creation Ministries International is GROWING. Conservative 14:29, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

Dear User:Conservative, please spare us further items at the main page until something has happened in real life - I'd like to see news and not announcements:

  • Announcement: will become more popular than freethoughtblogs
  • News: has become more popular than freethoughtblogs

AugustO 15:32, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

I conclusively proved that 2 major announcements have turned into news (2012 state of atheism/evolutionism and QEC/USA). Furthermore, I showed there was progress on Facebook as per the QEC blog. Using inductive logic, I see nothing wrong with putting future QEC announcements and news. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the announcements became GRANDER and the news became GRANDER.. After all, the QEC is in Texas and everything is BIG in Texas![45] Conservative 17:28, 9 October 2012 (EDT)
As a creationist, I find you kind of embarrassment, and AugustO, while saying nothing of the truth of evolution or creationism, hit the nail on the head why. Sometimes when I read your updates on the main page, you remind me of my 12 year old son playing me in Battleship when he tells me how much he will DESTROY my ships and OBLITERATE my army. You aren't doing us any favors Conservative, and I for one, as a Creationist, find the blowhardedness of your grandiose claims to be facile and somewhat embarrassing. People believe or they don't believe, and it is my responsibility as a believer to persuade, and not to act as if I am involved in a child's war where calling "A9 to B6" (or writing a blog post) will be something to devastate my non-believing brothers who I wish to convince. But I've long assumed you aren't writing these main page updates and posts to convince anyone but yourself. I actually wonder if your faith is weak given how rancorous your zealotry is, as if you feel you yourself are under attack. Believe in Christ, and spread the good word, and all good things will follow. Taking a war posture isn't helping. Peace be to you. --BillWhitliff 21:51, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

Bill, a few things. One, is there is a difference between atheists and atheism? Is saying there is a campaign to reduce evolutionism/atheism/agnosticism mean you are going to devastate atheists (whatever that means). Why are you misrepresenting what I wrote? Is is due to negligence or to malice or is due to some other reason? Lastly, did the Apostle Paul use war imagery (pulling down strongholds, soldier of Christ, sword of the Spirit, etc.). Apart from you personally not liking it, why can't such imagery be used today? Is your objection to such imagery because you are a pacifist? If so, is it right to impose your ideology on other Christians? If so, why? Conservative 01:01, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative, you announced to make 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism and settled with 2012 has been a very BAD year for Darwinism and atheism just like we predicted. Frankly, I have different standards:
  • when the Soviet Union fell and free worship was possible again in Russia, that was a bad year for atheism.
  • when Albania seized to be an officially atheist state, that was a bad year
  • when the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Central Asia reopened the St. Petri in St. Petersburg in 1993 - a building which had been used as a public bath in communist times - that was a joyous occasion and a blow to atheism
  • when the hit-count of the website of some obscure atheistic organization drops by 30%, that doesn't make a bad year for atheism.
That the Question Evolution campaign is focusing its actions on North America is no news, sorry, as long as there are no actions at all.
All I see is smoke and mirrors: you have protected Empirical evidence for the success of the Question Evolution! campaign - that should help to fill you the page without fear of interference. Again, fewer announcements, more actions, please.
AugustO 04:06, 10 October 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, while I am not going to spin my wheels on time wasting arguments, I am open to discussion. AugustO, show me a year in world history where Darwinism had a worse year and support it with evidence. Please do not leave out the Eastern World when performing your analysis.[46]
The blog post in question cited many prominent atheist websites which saw losses of traffic. Specifically, it cited this resource: If you are going to engage in the fallacy of exclusion, you are telling me it is not worth having a discussion with you. If you want me to largely ignore you like Andy does, it wouldn't bother me to do so at this point due to your intellectual sloth and/or your unwillingness to engage in honest dialogue at this point.
Also, if you want to show that forced secularization Soviet Russia was ever very successful in creating a substantial amount of atheism relative to the total population, please do so and keep this and this and in mind when you are making your case. Conservative 05:07, 10 October 2012 (EDT)
  • The Soviet Union wasn't as successful as it wanted to be, but they achieved hampering the propagation of religion: certainly there are more missionaries working today in Russia than there were 30 years ago!
  • Okay, you have a couple of sites dropping in popularity. Has this anything to do with the Question Evolution campaign? This seems to be doubtful, as even the declining sites are way more popular than the campaign, look here
But I digress: at Template:Mainpageleft, we are still finding more grandiose announcements (2013: A BAD year for evolutionary belief * The 5 strategies to collapse Darwinism * 100 ways to grind up evolutionary belief * Biggest blow to hit world atheism * Systematically attacking Darwinism * Crazy evolutionist hamsters * Fundraising arms race * Desolating global Darwinism) than actual news. And all of these announcements have nothing to do with Conservapedia! The rest of the items are hardly newsworthy, neither, like "Our Question Evolution! group just broke through a SECOND goal we set for the United States! ". What was this second goal? To make slightly more popular than the typical American website. Surprisingly this goal wasn't announced in an earlier post, so it smells of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. And we get breathtaking information like: In addition, we believe we may soon have a successful grant writing person on our team now as he expressed considerable interest and we have spoken to him for over 2 hours at this point. BTW, that was two weeks ago - did you get this "successful grant writing person" - or do you have to phone him/her again?
Enough of all this. Do us all a favor and clear the Template:Mainpageleft of all this clutter and reintroduce the featured article, picture of the day, etc., i.e., things which are featured at Conservapedia!
Again, Template:Mainpageleft should attract visitors to Conservapedia and not lead them away.
AugustO 05:54, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

If you want to show me your sincere, show me a worst year in the history of Darwinism than 2012 and support your argument with evidence. I put forth evidence, you need to do the same if you want to convincingly contest this and don't forget to include the Eastern World including China. Conservative 06:04, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

Revision of request due to the Eastern World not included in 2012 related post

2012 was the worst year in the history of Western World Darwinism and the Gallup survey and European creationism prove this.[1][2] French scholars say evangelicalism is the fastest growing religion in France for example.[3] I am Duane Gish. I endorsed the QEC and I approved this message. Mission accomplished!!

Here is the 2012 goal:

"The new year is rapidly approaching. Accordingly, it is time for our Question evolution! campaign to chart out our group's vision for 2012. Simply put, we want to help make 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism. More specifically, in the Western World we want to help make 2012 a pivotal year as far as the expansion of creation evangelism. Our goal is to help our fellow creationists increase the percentage of the Western World population which holds to a biblical creation worldview which should aid Christian evangelism."[47]

This goal has already been achieved as can be seen below. Mission accomplished!!!!

  • On June 1, 2012, the Gallup organization released a survey on the percentage of young earth creationists in the United States has increased in recent months (approximately over 12 months).[48] There was a reported change from an estimated 40% of Americans being creationists to 46% which is the single largest increase during a survey period and it happened in about a year.

Since the goal has already been achieved, a 2013 objective and creating momentum for 2013 in being worked on.[49]

If you want to convincingly contest the 2012 claim, show me a worst year in the history of Western World Darwinism than 2012 and support your argument with evidence. I put forth evidence, you need to do the same if you want to proceed forward with any credibility. Conservative 06:33, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

When my little niece helps in the kitchen baking a cake, she gets some dough to play with - and we make sure that it doesn't end up in the cake. Afterwards, we thank her for her help. In this sense: congratulations to your great achievements! AugustO 06:43, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

I am glad we are in agreement that 2012 was the worst year in the history of Western World Darwinism. Conservative 07:05, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

I figured 1925 would have already won, but to each his own. GregG 08:26, 10 October 2012 (EDT)
Christianity can move forward despite laws against it and the Roman Empire confirms this.[50] The creation vs. evolution battle will be won via the court of public opinion before it is won in the courts of law and we know the highest courts are influenced by public opinion (for example, Supreme Court Justice Roberts probably disregarded the law and flipped his decision due to not wanting to be attacked by the liberal media and other liberals).[51][52][53]Conservative 16:40, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

I am glad we are in agreement that 2012 was the worst year in the history of Western World Darwinism. Another of your misconceptions, I'm afraid... Look, you are always conflating three different things:

  1. the scientific Theory of Evolution
  2. the public perception of this theory (Darwinism)
  3. atheism

How was 2012 the worst year for any of those?

  1. The Theory of Evolution is still the paradigm of biology. It gets refined all the day, but there haven't been any discoveries in 2012 which cast any serious doubt on the theory - at least not in the mind of the scientists involved.
  2. There are states in the U.S. which are introducing laws to make it more difficult to teach the ToE at high-schools. Same in Russia. In Europe you can find sporadic events where teaching of the ToE in schools is attacked, mainly by parts of the Muslim population. That is all a far cry away from the pre-1925 (or pre-1918) situation when teaching the ToE was forbidden in some states and countries - at least at school-level.
  3. Today I see more atheists in the Western World (by percentage and in absolute numbers) than there were fifty years ago. The sources you give are describing only slight fluctuations, and the studies often can't be compared.

You seem to be wrong on all counts. And that was the only item of news which you have to present? The you should better stick to your grandiose announcements, but do so not on the main page of Conservapedia! AugustO 01:58, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

Merely claiming things without supporting them sufficiently may make you feel good, but it gives me little incentive to want to discuss it. Not impressed by your arguments by assertion. For example, have you seen THIS (see: graph). This is an example of someone using proof and evidence to demonstrate their contentions. Conservative 02:19, 11 October 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, do you deny that in the Western World there are more (relatively and absolutely speaking) atheists today than in the 1950s when church-attendance rates were the highest? As for arguments by assertion: I'm glad that you found this expression. Now revisit Matthew 7:5
AugustO 02:52, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

Still see little reason to dialogue with someone who argues by mere assertion. Get back to me when you can address this article Evolution and its sources which debunk your evolutionist evobabble. Conservative 03:03, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

User:Conservative, do you deny that in the Western World there are more (relatively and absolutely speaking) atheists today than in the 1950s when church-attendance rates were the highest? AugustO 03:12, 11 October 2012 (EDT)
For example, have you seen THIS (see: graph). This is an example of someone using proof and evidence to demonstrate their contentions. What does the graph show? That over the last three month, 600,000 - 800,000 people have visited Creation Ministries International, and there is a slightly positive trend. The conclusion: And look at the graph below to see how well we are doing lately without even implementing a sophisticated plan in a very aggressive manner. How is this an example of someone using proof and evidence to demonstrate their contentions? You are a fan of youtube: this video of an animated kitten got 1,000,000 visitors during the last week, compared with at best 60,000 for CMI over the same period. And there was no promotion in an aggressive manner manner, neither. Does this make October a good month for animated kittens and a bad month for the Question Evolution! campaign? According to your line of "reasoning", it does.
As for the rest of the article:
"Starting tonight, which is October 10, 2012, a member of our is going to read a classic 350+ page book on reaching people in a post internet age in a wide variety of media including venues outside the internet. The book is an awesome book which shows people how to use these various means of reaching people in an integrated and well run outreach campaign. It should take a day or two to read. This member of our group has been reading related material recently so the material in the book should come very easy. We also recently contacted a Christian who has implemented web marking programs for major corporations and he has offered to be of assistance. "
This is one of the most pathetic paragraphs I've ever read. A reading assignment that will change the world... He or she should read the Bible instead! AugustO 03:32, 11 October 2012 (EDT)
Are you sure you typed that paragraph in right? Have you thought about buying a new keyboard? :) By the way, I hope you don't think your efforts are going to stop American Darwinism from shrinking another 6 percent or stop the growth of European creationism.[54][55] Conservative 05:59, 11 October 2012 (EDT)
Are you sure you typed that paragraph in right? It often shows that English isn't my first language (at school it came third, after Latin and Greek). I just hope that I made my points clear, but of course I try to restate them in a more understandable fashion:
  • In the fifties, church attendance in the Western World was on its highest. There may have been some academics and artists who were atheists, but you could hardly find a politician. Do you really think that 2012 is a worse time for atheism than the 1950s were?
  • As an example for using proof and evidence to demonstrate their contentions, you linked to a blog entry were someone said "And look at the graph below to see how well we are doing lately without even implementing a sophisticated plan in a very aggressive manner. " The graph showed the number of visitors to a moderately successful website which got much less hits than the example of the cartoon kitten I provided. In short: the claim that they are doing well seems to be false.
  • Another section of the blog entry to which you referred me announced the coming of the completion of a reading assignment. I repeat: I've never seen anything more pathetic described as news than this statement!
Conclusion: even the blog entry which you cited as an example for the use of proof and evidence to demonstrate their contentions was in fact mainly filled with grandiose (or even pathetic) announcements.
AugustO 11:12, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

Lack of church attendance is not synonymous with atheism. For example, lazy theists, deists, aging population (sickness), etc. If you want to assert that the 1950s was a worse time for atheism and say it's so obvious, why the reluctance to give a source or sources? Please have your sources give global and regional perspectives (Western World, etc.). I know one thing for certain, you are not going to get me to make proclamations about 1950s atheism without doing adequate research. By the way, global atheism is shrinking in terms of both market share and adherents and it is expected to shrink at an accelerated rate.[56] Conservative 16:21, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

My reluctance to give a source or sources doesn't stem the lack of such sources, I was just thinking that this is common knowledge. Indeed it is a nice experiment in Zeitgeschichte - ask your parents and then your grand-parents how many atheists they knew when they were in your age.
Do you think it would be possible today to do something similar to adding the famous phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance as it was done in 1954? Couldn't atheists lobby today more successfully against such an action?
As for statistics: in 1953 98% of all Americans said that they believed in God, in 2011 the number was down to 92%. The numbers in Europe and Australia / New Zealand are much worse: e.g., in Great Britain the number of those who "belong to a religion and attend services"" is steadily falling since decades, it's now 31% (it was 74% in 1964)
Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. John 20:25 AugustO 17:27, 11 October 2012 (EDT)
I consider Gallup Inc. to be reliable so that is useful information. How about China or Russia though? Christianity has seen big strides in China.[57] Also, a lot has changed since the 1950s. For example, availability of contraception and medical abortions which has an effect on atheistic ideology propagating itself relative to theism - particularly conservative Christianity.[58][59] Plus, greater world travel and global communication has made it more difficult for communist/atheist/leftist control freaks to control flow of information (Chinese students becoming Christians in America and bringing it back to their home, religious immigration to secular Europe, internet evangelism, growth of conservative media outlets/bloggers, etc.). So it is much different world at the present time. Conservative 18:08, 11 October 2012 (EDT)
China? Russia? Shifting the goal posts by a couple of thousand miles? A reminder: If you want to convincingly contest the 2012 claim, show me a worst year in the history of Western World Darwinism than 2012 and support your argument with evidence --AugustO 18:10, 11 October 2012 (EDT)
I am not going to waste a lot of time on this. Just show me evidence that there was a worst year in the history of Darwinism in the Western World than 2012. So far you have not. Conservative 18:16, 11 October 2012 (EDT)
  • I am not going to waste a lot of time on this. Correction: you are trying to waste a lot of my time on this. Shifting the goal-posts is a certain indicator of such a strategy.
  • Just show me evidence that there was a worst year in the history of Darwinism in the Western World than 2012. I've done so above. You remember, what you called useful information?
  • So far you have not. That's what called an argument by assertion.
AugustO 01:37, 12 October 2012 (EDT)

The Gallup stat indicating belief in God in the USA showed a small reduction over time which I indicated was useful info does not show a "worst year in the history of Darwinism". Atheism is a boon to Darwinism as most Western atheists are Darwinists. You are totally wasting my time at this point. I don't see myself having a dialogue with you about the 2012 issue at this point as you are not showing good faith and offering very significant information via way of arguing your position. Conservative 15:18, 12 October 2012 (EDT)

  • Do you think it would be possible today to do something similar to adding the famous phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance as it was done in 1954?
  • Can you imagine a war on Christmas in the 1950s?
AugustO 01:36, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

The issue is whether "2012 is the worst year in the history of Darwinism in the Western World". Please show how this invalidates "2012 is the worst year in the history of Darwinism in the Western World". You need to invalidate the claim that creationism is growing in the Western World and I don't think you can do that because creationism certainly appears to growing in the Western World (United States, France, etc.).[60] I believe I am being sufficiently clear at point. Conservative 03:06, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

  • The blog entry to which you are linking is entitled "Global decline of atheism and the rise of global creationism. Information on the Question Evolution! Campaign! " . So, we are back to atheism, aren't we? Therefore, please answer the following questions above, repeated for your convenience:
    • Do you think it would be possible today to do something similar to adding the famous phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance as it was done in 1954?
    • Can you imagine a war on Christmas in the 1950s?
  • "You need to invalidate the claim that creationism is growing in the Western World " No, that I don't have to: creationism may be on a rise again after it had dropped in popularity. But certainly creationism was stronger when Lord Kelvin made his arguments... AugustO 03:06, 15 October 2012 (EDT)
  • I see that you have made another announcement: Evolutionists: Beware the ides of October! It's now 7:00 GMT, so you have another 29 hours to come up with something which will be equivalent to the stabbing of Julius Caesar in 44 B.C. . Another imagined grandiosity which won't make the news, I'm afraid.
AugustO 03:06, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

AugustO, the time of Kelvin and the 1960s was a time when secularism/evolutionism was gaining in influence are over now. No amount of nostalgic posts are going to change that. You may be trying to fool yourself and trying to salvage what's left of your evolutionist pride, but I know it is definitely not working. You are not convincing yourself and you are certainly not fooling me.

Belief in biblical creation is growing in the United States and even in places like secular France and the secular religions of atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism and waning in influence. In addition, liberal evolutionism spouting religion is shrinking while conservative churches grow. Creationists are going to go from victory to victory while evolutionists are going to suffer defeat after defeat. For details see: Evolutionists are LOSING while biblical creationists gain victory after victory I hope this puts things in perspective for you and you move on to more productive endeavors. Get used to the idea that 2013 is going to be the WORST year in the history of Darwinism. Conservative 19:43, 15 October 2012 (EDT)


User:Conservative, just looking at your recent contributions to Conservapedia I'd say that over 95% of what you're adding lately (in fact, for some time now) is simply mocking atheists/atheism, repeating question evolution propaganda and then talk on why you continue to do this. I'm bored of it, clearly others are bored of it, and we all get it, let's move on. I'm sure you have plenty more that you can contribute, right? PS. Augusto is right about qe propaganda leading people away from this site. If you look at our stats on Alexa you'll notice that the percentage of people visiting more than one page on CP has only been around 40% for the last month WilcoxD 18:33, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

I don't see any radical changes to the percentage. Conservative 19:25, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

My response

File:Photoday 7 bg 071302.jpg
Dr. Tim White, anthropologist at the University of California-Berkeley, gave the name "flipperpithecus" to a supposed "humanoid species" arising from a fossil find that is most likely part of a dolphin's rib.
Merely labeling something propaganda and demonstrating it to be are worlds apart. I do find it ironic that evolutionists are accusing me of engaging in propaganda. See: Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation In addition, as far as your boredom, this is not an entertainment website. If you want to be entertained, read evolutionary propaganda which is always good for a few laughs.

Haeckel diagrams

Nebraska man


Of course, I could easily add more. Conservative 02:14, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

The Definition of Propaganda ...

... according to Conservapedia is:

any idea, fact, rumor, or lie, or a wider body of same, which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance or hinder any given cause.

I think it's fair to say your contributions to Main Page Left are published there in an effort to further the cause of the Question Evolution page, therefore they are propaganda, quod erat demonstrandum. As for this not being an entertainment website, I agree (I come here for news mostly), but it is not a blog either and that is how you are treating it.

One more thing though - Main Page Left looks bad. Really, really, ridiculously bad. It's a disgrace - I've seen my children produce better projects in primary school. WilcoxD 18:27, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

Darwinism is a disgrace. Are you an atheist? Is atheism a disgrace? If not, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true? Conservative 15:21, 12 October 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, are you dodging me or just trying to have the last word? This has nothing to do with atheism or darwinism; this is about the state of the main page. If you still want to know the answer to your questions then I suggest you go back and read some of my other recent edits to this page more carefully. WilcoxD 17:50, 14 October 2012 (EDT)
re: you being a non-atheist: Agnostics are non-atheist. Richard Dawkins and Huxley (Darwin's bulldog) belong in the agnostics camp and they could also be placed in the rabid evolutionist camp as well. We also know that evolutionists have a penchant for deceit and unreasonableness. See: Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation Conservative 19:23, 14 October 2012 (EDT)
For pity's sake, how explicit do I have to be? Would you like the address of the church I regularly attend? Why even ask "are you an atheist" if the answer isn't going to be satisfactory, and then why repeat that question when I'd answered it anyway? Mostly, how does this help improve Main Page Left?
Unless you would like ideas to help resurrect Main Page Left I consider my point clearly made and will not be drawn away from the subject at hand by any other silly questions. WilcoxD 19:51, 14 October 2012 (EDT)
Wilcox, what church body do you attend? Also, what is your church's position on sodomites? In addition, is your church body alive and evangelizing or is it shrinking and dead? See: Morals decline and evolutionism Conservative 20:15, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

scopes trial year not worse year for evolutionism than 2012

"The Scopes trial by no means ended the debate over the teaching of evolution, but it did represent a significant setback for the anti-evolution forces. Of the fifteen states with anti- evolution legislation pending in 1925, only two states (Arkansas and Mississippi) enacted laws restricting teaching of Darwin's theory."[61] Conservative 18:24, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

Notice to upset evolutionists

Get used to the idea that you have no control over the main page and will not in the foreseeable future. Conservative 18:30, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

Evolutionists and liberals are not upset - just amused and entertained! Keep it up user:c! EJamesW 17:49, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

Conservative, you seemed to resist your articles on Main Page Left being labelled propaganda but have been unable to show that they are anything but that. That must be uncomfortable for you. It still looks bad too (awful in fact), but I shall do as you wish and drop the subject for now as I don't want to be drawn into another 90/10 (or 10 in a row as it was last time) trap. Kind regards, WilcoxD 18:59, 11 October 2012 (EDT) (non-evolutionist, non-atheist)
Wilcox, are you an atheist? Conservative 05:51, 12 October 2012 (EDT)
No I am not, which is why I wrote "non-atheist". See - it's right before you wrote "Wilcox, are you an atheist?" Sorry, I thought that would have been enough. WilcoxD 17:33, 14 October 2012 (EDT)
Why do you insist on changing the subject? It doesn't matter if he's an atheist or not; his points are valid. You have reduced the main page of this encyclopedia to a joke with your stupid campaign.--DouglasAS 16:34, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
I used to edit on this site a few years ago and I remember it was like other wiki sites since it had a "featured article" every day on the front page. What changed that the front page is now constantly promoting that evolution blog? I think there are far more pressing issues for conservatives than just evolution. I have to agree with others in that the main page left is basically one big sloppy off-site advertisement. I'm afraid User:Conservative is the front page dictator and all efforts in suggesting any changes will not be heeded. I also don't understand his paranoia that everyone who disagrees with him is an evolutionist/atheist? Some of us just want what's best for this site, and we don't think constant blog promotion is it. Unfortunately the voice of the people is rarely heeded by a dictator, which is ironic considering as conservatives, aren't we supposed to advocate the ideals of free speech and freedom? Benclarkston 20:53, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
There is a time and season for everything under the sun. And there have been seasons when creation vs. evolution issue has had more prominence on the main page. There will be a season when the creation vs. evolution has less prominence on the main page, but it will not be dictated by evolutionists. Lastly, you may not know this, but much to the chagrin of evolutionists, I was made sysop for the express purpose of tackling the creation vs. evolution issue at this wiki. :) Whether you like it or not, the origins issue is a core issue for religious conservatives and it is at the very heart of the current culture war in the West. For example, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! Human life is sacred and we are not mere animals derived from slime/goo. Furthermore, religious conservatives are beginning to have momentum on the creation vs. evolution issue and now is the time to pour it on in terms of effort and not the time to be less diligent. [62] Conservative 21:41, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

Nobel Prize Headline

"But Planned Parenthood and supporters of abortion may be howling mad at these two, as they did not use a single cell from an unborn child"

I don't understand the meaning of this sentence. Why would pro-choice advocates be happy? HumanGeographer 12:38, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

Because they are anti-life. They actually favor abortion -- not as a "choice", but the thing itself. MattyD 12:58, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
Well stated, Matty. Also, note how the researchers are not Americans. Pro-aborts do everything they can to limit adult stem cell work in the United States.--Andy Schlafly 13:02, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
Do you have a source for that? I hardly believe that pro-choice advocates are 'pro-death' when they are also anti capital punishment. I can't find any ban or limitation on adult stem cell work in the US that does not also cover embryonic stem cell research. Headline Adult Stem Cell research, eg [63] seems to be coming out of largely pro-choice states to me (yes, Romney was governor of Massachusetts but he was very famously pro-choice at the time). HumanGeographer 15:03, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
Speaking as somebody who has actually done stem cell research; Andy, that statement is ridiculous. The trouble is that induced pluripotent stem cells ("adult stem cells") do not perfectly mimic the behavior of the real thing (for instance, induced pluripotent cells tend to be way more tumorigenic than embryonic stem cells when implanted into lab animals), they still retain a slight epigenetic imprint of their former cell type. Because of this, even studies done mostly with induced pluripotent cells must compare their results with those obtained from an embryonic stem cell line--otherwise there is no way of being sure that the results obtained are not just an artifact of the transformation process.
Furthermore, the original papers describing the process of inducing pluripotency (there are now several methods available), compared the gene expression patterns of the induced cells to the gene expression patterns of embryonic stem cells. Obviously, this requires the use of embryonic stem cells; so the statement that these researchers did not use a single embryonic stem cell is simply incorrect. --JHunter 16:01, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
Pro-aborts are interfering with adult stem cell work in the United States. How else do you explain that no Americans were part of this award, even though American medical research is typically ahead and typically recognized by such awards.--Andy Schlafly 16:05, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
Trust me, there is no interference. Many of the methods for inducing pluripotency actually were developed in the United States. Both Gurdon and Yamanaka had collaborators (listed as co-authors on their papers) working in the United States. --JHunter 16:22, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
Additionally, because developing protocols for inducing pluripotency requires the use of embryonic stem cells, the (pro-life) restrictions on embryonic stem cell research in the United States are a barrier to American scientists seeking to contribute to the field. --JHunter 16:31, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
It also appears that Yamanaka was trained and works part time in the United States.--JHunter 03:11, 9 October 2012 (EDT)
Briton John Gurdon also did his work a considerable number of decades ago, long before Roe vs. Wade was enacted in the United States. HumanGeographer 08:40, 9 October 2012 (EDT)
Good point, Geographer. Gurdon's early work with nuclear transfer (cloning) in Xenopus (which earned him this Nobel prize) pre-dated Roe vs. Wade by two decades. However, Gurdon's current work in studying the epigenetic mechanisms of cell differentiation was not really technologically feasible until the mid 1990s. --JHunter 15:25, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

Is the presidential election overrated?

Being in the UK, I rely on Conservapedia to give me a real insight into US news and politics. I think that many other visitors also come for that reason. So why is there so little on the main page about the election? Looking at the main page as of this moment, the only thing I can see without scrolling down is sixth item down on the right hand side. The left hand side - Featured on Conservapedia? - is taken up with links to CMI's website.

Am I missing something? Is the presidential race not really as important as it appears? Rafael 19:13, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

The liberal media do overhype the presidential election. We have three branches of federal government, plus state government, plus a variety of other forces shaping culture, values, and knowledge. Today presidents and most politicians (with a few exceptions) are followers, not leaders.--Andy Schlafly 23:25, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

20 things that make dogmatic evolutionists feel very uncomfortable

20 things that make many dogmatic evolutionists feel very uncomfortable.[64] Conservative 05:25, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

Protestants no longer a majority in the US, number of people claiming "no religious affiliation" rising.

Bad news worthy of some attention? MattyD 10:14, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

See THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS and THIS Conservative 10:22, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

What, exactly is Romney's stance on abortion?

Conservatives would probably feel more comfortable with this guy if he wouldn't take both sides of a key moral issue on the same day. MattyD 21:13, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

Higgs boson passed over for Nobel

The time between paper and Nobel prize is generally a few decades. This year's Nobel prize in physics was awarded for work done 17 years ago. The results of the Higgs boson discovery are still being vetted, awarding a Nobel prize for this work would be extremely premature; anybody with even a passing familiarity with how science works knows this. As such, I fail to see how this represents a "setback" to anybody. --JHunter 23:28, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

I second what JHunter has said, there is almost always a 15+ year difference between the discovery and being awarded a nobel prize, so much so that it is an unwritten rule(although it maybe written rule that the public don't see). This is to allow for peer reviewing, more peer reviewing and even more peer reviews of the initial research. The statement made on the mainpage is quite laughable for the reason me and JHunter have detailed. --Dvergne 02:37, 10 October 2012 (EDT)
I agree with Jhunter and Dvergne. Please rephrase or delete the item. Wschact 07:43, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

James O'Keefe and deceit

I am intrigued by the story here and I would like to see all the footage. I do have to wonder, though, whether it's good judgment for Conservapedia to help provide access with instructions on how to commit felonies, or whether to promote the work of someone who has a history of engaging in deceit. GregG 19:01, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

News pick: South Carolina Voter ID precleared for 2013 and beyond

This is good news for proponents of reasonable voter ID laws [65]. Essentially, South Carolina's voter ID law (R54) is precleared subject to the stipulation by South Carolina that voters who do not have ID can execute a reasonable impediment affidavit without needing to present ID, pay a notary fee, or seek out a notary if none is available at the polling place. GregG 19:20, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

"Try calling your Department of Motor Vehicles and asking them if animals are allowed to have driver's licenses!"

This argument completely misses the point. It would be like criticizing the statement "all squares are quadrilaterals" by rebutting "try asking any old quadrilateral to show that it has 4 right angles." Further, I don't think anyone (evolution proponent, creation proponent, FSM worshipper) disagrees that humans, among other living things, belong to kingdom Animalia. GregG 10:59, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

Stem Cell Research

Shinya Yamakaza's work was based heavily off of them, and the application of that work used them. Pick up a copy of his papers and look at the references. He could not have made his discovery with out them. --HHHB 17:25, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

All Black Cat

Why is there a New Zealand cat on MPL? AlanE 23:15, 11 October 2012 (EDT)

Where is your proof the cat is from New Zealand? Second, do you have the cats papers? Conservative 05:55, 12 October 2012 (EDT)
G'morning. He's in black with a silver fern on his chest and, from his attitude, he's about to contest the line-out. AlanE 15:32, 12 October 2012 (EDT)

CNN Poll

This should probably have a citation.--DTSavage 00:59, 12 October 2012 (EDT)

It was broadcast. A citation can be added later if and when it makes it onto CNN's website.--Andy Schlafly 01:07, 12 October 2012 (EDT)
Thanks for the clarification! I watched it on youtube, and didn't get the polling.--DTSavage 01:31, 12 October 2012 (EDT)
I can't add the citation myself. Here it is:
CNN: [ CNN Poll: Debate watchers split on who won VP debate] (October 11, 2012)
Even CNN had to admit that Ryan was much more articulate, collected, polite and composed than Biden was throughout the debate.--Ty 17:31, 12 October 2012 (EDT)

Another interesting news article GregG 08:53, 12 October 2012 (EDT)

Dear Mr Schlafly

Please, please, please do something about the state of the main page. There's no Conservapedia content anywhere on the top half, just links to a stupid blog. Read the comments and see how many editors are unhappy with this, and how they've been treated by the person responsible for the mess.--DouglasAS 16:37, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

I'm afraid your pleas will not be heeded at all, since a number of other people have said the same thing and have consistently been insulted and accused of being an atheist. We have a dictator in control of the main page, and as with all dictators you'll have to be cautious where you tread if you want to continue editing this site. Benclarkston 21:13, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
Please, please, pretty please. Evolutionists are pathetic and weak!  :) Conservative 03:20, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

Request from user: conservative to debate user EJamesW

Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: ) via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room:,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua Conservative 09:09, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

Hello user:conservative! Thankyou very much for inviting me to a debate but I really can't see what point that would serve. Winning or losing an argument which would invariably end up about semantics is not going to change reality.
I realise that accepting evolution as the reason why life exists is going to be a difficult truth about existence that goes against everything that you've chosen (or been indoctrinated) to believe.
I think you should lay off the incessant 'Question Evolution!' proclamations on the main page. To be honest with you they're starting to take on a desperate and pathetic quality to them and you're only attracting ridicule and mockery from Atheists, and exasperation from fellow Christians . Who, exactly, is this campaign aimed at? I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person would be swayed by such trite and disingenuous arguments. Or is this campaign only aimed at 'thick' people?
I would particularly advise you against linking to such 'news' items that proclaim a person is going to read a book (350+ pages long!) but then couldn't because of a cold so the incredible announcement that is going to destroy evolution is going to be delayed until the 15th October... This sounds like a cruel 'Monty Python' sketch.
I hope this incredible upcoming announcement is going radically change the scientific world or all your posts have been a complete and utter waste of time!
As always best wishes to you and your family EJamesW 17:15, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
p.s. as you have declined to have a talk page , I think it's only fair that a copy of this conservation is posted on the talk page of the main page. EJamesW 17:55, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

EJamesW, It is interesting, is it not, how fear and loathing of debate pervades the Left: and the lying left detests debate

By the way, I do have my doubts that your lengthy screed of liberal wordiness on Aschlafly's talk page was read as there was no response from him. You might want to consider being more concise next time and upping the substance to word ratio. Conservative 18:36, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

I'm willing to debate you on the 15 questions. When would you like to do it? Don't bother asking if I'm an atheist, by the way; I'm not. I'm Anglican and I believe in theistic evolution.--DouglasAS 18:29, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
Your German IP would seem to indicate that you are particular persistent atheist who is desperate to get my attention. There are a number of obscure atheists wanting to get my attention. I suggest making the offer more attractive. Ask Penn Jillette or Richard Dawkins to be your debate partner. Conservative 18:45, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

HPV vaccine case study

First, I would like to thank Andy for posting that case study on the main page. I hunted down the full text and it was an interesting read. I gave a copy of it to my former immunology professor; he's always looking for case studies from the frontiers of immunology to incorporate into his class. An idiopathic hypersensitivity reaction triggering what appears to be an autoimmune disease certainly fits the bill. However, to claim that this patient's condition was directly caused by an inherent property of the HPV vaccine is grossly incorrect. As the authors of the case study conclude, the patient had a very rare underlying immunological condition that was exacerbated by her immune response to the vaccine. It was an inappropriately over-zealous immune response, caused by this underlying condition, that led to her infertility. Had the patient's immune system reacted normally to the vaccine (and had she not refused the hormonal therapy prescribed to preserve her fertility), this would not have happened.

Similar cases, triggered by things as innocuous as a seasonal flu, or even chronic exposure to an environmental allergen (I once read a case study about a woman who was rendered infertile by her cats), are well documented in the literature. The precise immunological mechanisms involved in these cases remain largely unknown, although several genetic risk factors have been identified.

This case was publishable for the simple fact that cases like this (especially cases where a probable antigenic trigger can be positively identified) are extremely rare. This truly is a one in a million complication.--JHunter 22:37, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

Quality of the main page (can anyone suggest a good place to follow the presidential election from a conservative perspective?)

Although I appreciate Mr Schlafly's comment about the liberal overhyping of the Presidential election, it would still be good to read about it here, free of liberal bias.

Instead, the mainpage is full of links to the CMI mainpage - the latest including news that an unnamed person intends to read an unnamed book and that another unnamed person has a cold - and items that don't seem properly understood. For example, the story about an Obama voter who wants the deer crossing moved is very funny but nowhere in the actual clip does the person show any political leaning. The assumption comes from Newsbusters, a blog. Similarly, the item about the connection between the HPV vaccine and infertility links to an abstract that states: "Although the cause is unknown in 90% of cases, the remaining chief identifiable causes of this condition were excluded. Premature ovarian failure was then notified as a possible adverse event following this vaccination[...]This event could hold potential implications for population health and prompts further inquiry. " (my emphasis) In other words, the case is an outlier, the HPV vaccine was identified as the cause by default and not by any causal pathway, and further research is necessary.

If we can't improve the main page, get "Featured on Conservapedia" back on track, and link to significant, properly understood stories then can someone suggest where else I - as a Brit - can get the conservative line on US news? Rafael 09:31, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

Conservapedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia (supposedly). Coverage of news and current events on the main page is nice to have, but I don't think it is the main purpose of this website. However, with all the daily linking to CMI, the QE! blog, and Conservative News and Views on the main page, plus other frequent updates about news of varying levels of importance, I can see how people might confuse this site for a news/blog portal. Most sysops here don't seem to be working towards improving Conservapedia as an educational resource, and it seems like some are actually doing the opposite, whether intentional or not.
That being said, to get the conservative line on US news, it's probably a good idea to visit some of the top sites in Essay:Best_News_Sources, although I can't guarantee the factual accuracy of those sites' contents. --Randall7 12:07, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

How Stupid Can a Liberal Get?

Good question. The problem is that nowhere in the article or the clip does it say the woman is an Obama voter or a liberal. The first line says this: "An Obama voter who assumes if he can lower the seas then local transportation departments can get deer to obey highway signs? A woman called a Fargo, North Dakota radio station..." It says if he. Then it says a woman. Clearly not referring to the same person. So who is really stupid?? -chicagotony

Do you agree with the woman, then? Do you support that woman's idea? Karajou 13:51, 14 October 2012 (EDT)
I don't support the woman or her idea, but I don't see or hear her outing herself as an Obama voter. I know it must be there, else it would not have made the front page -- I obviously missed it. Can you please tell me where she says so so I can share it with some friends? Thanks! MattyD 19:26, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

"Darwinism and the appeal to authority logical fallacy"

First of all, I find it interesting that this charge is being levied against evolution, when Creationism is (at least to a non-religious person) precisely an appeal to the authority of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Second, I don't see how the Nuremberg defense, Hitler, or Nazi Germany is even relevant to whether evolution is a well-supported scientific proposition. Heck, even the Bible, which is the Word of God, has been a source for justification of unsavory behaviors both in the past (slavery) and today (liberal Christian sects like Episcopalianism that reject Biblical doctrine as taught by the Church). Yet these misuses of the Bible certainly don't mean that the Bible is bad, much less that we should "Question the Bible!" GregG 21:47, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

Felix Baumgartner

Can someone put something up on the main page about this? While not particularly conservative focused, I believe that his jump represents an astounding moment and an incredible feat that should be recognized.--DTSavage 22:28, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

Main Page Left: Cartoon

I tried to add some text to the cartoon, but wasn't allowed to do so:

"On Thursday October 11 2012, the Democratic Vice President Joe Biden and the Republican candidate for this office, Congressman Paul Ryan hold their only debate before the Presidential Election 2012."

I'd appreciate such a text to be included either under the cartoon or at the page of the cartoon to give a visitor to the main page some links into Conservapedia: as I said repeatedly, the Template:Mainpageleft should - well - lure a reader deeper into this site.

AugustO 08:11, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

Ides of October 2012

The 15th of October 2012 now dominates the left and the right side of the main page. As today's events are likened to the assassination of Julius Caesar, anything short of Richard Dawkins dropping dead - preferably with a death-bad conversion - (or at least PZ Myers attending mass) will be quite a disappointment. But I'm afraid that the end of the day will see only another reading-assignment fulfilled. --AugustO 11:55, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

From what I can tell they made new facebook and linkedin groups but they couldn't figure out twitter. WilcoxD 17:48, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

Crop failure: MPR?

A friend of mine whose Pop's a farmer told me about this: Crop yields in the Question Evolution! campaign are down this year by almost 15%! This is surely God's judgement on the idiotic User:Conservative. Someone please add it to the Main Page Right (I don't have permission). StaceyT 18:26, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

The low crop yields are likely more evidence of (perhaps anthropogenic) Global warming. Cmurphynz 17:12, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
In fact the source says they're because heavy rain damaged the wheat crops. Other crops had better than average yields.--BillyReuben 17:17, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

"and its still early in the day!"

This passage on MPR has a grammar error. I figure it's the sort of the thing that a writing or English teacher would catch, but in any case, it's on our front page. Please fix this. Thanks, GregG 18:31, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

It is also no longer early in the day. MattyD 19:22, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

@Conservative you also forgot to change the blog post's title.  :) GregG 21:35, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

Benghazi attack

Having a red link on the top of the main page right looks terribly bad and unprofessional !. Would it be possible for someone to change the wording/get rid of it ! Dvergne 22:16, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

Never mind, I just created a redirect to Benghazi Attack instead. Dvergne 22:18, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

This is absolutely disgusting

My mother is a Protestant who doesn't believe in Young Earth Creationism. I love my mother, and I know that she loves me very much and is very proud to have three wonderful children. I therefore object to the author of this blog post making the unsupported assertions that she is a "cold fish", a "short haired, butch, lesbian, men hating feminist", "mean", someone who "hates babies", a "whore", "more prone to catching sexually transmitted diseases which make them barren", and likely to "cheat on their husbands and put on weight watching scandalous soap operas", and as someone who would "often go to occultists to remove curses and also turn to New Age medical quackery and witch doctors". I can assure you that all of these assertions are recklessly false, and I have to wonder why this scandalous material is being linked to on our front page. Thanks, GregG 23:49, 16 October 2012 (EDT)

I have to agree with you there, I think that user:conervative has defiantly overstepped the mark by a long shot on this one. It is very offensive and I think it has no place one or linked from this site.
The sad fact is, nobody cares what you think. User:Conservative and Popeye the sailor man run this blog now; Andy Schlafly either can't or won't stop their abuse. You might as well give up and find another conservative wiki to edit on.--MitchellJ 15:03, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

Taken from the comment section of the blog post:

A few points:


2. I cite from the article:

"New York City is a very liberal and evolution friendly city. New York City's Department of Health recently reported that 41 percent of all pregnancies there end in abortion." See also: Abortion and evolutionism at:

3. University study: Morals decline and evolutionism:

4. Atheists and agnostics and uncharitableness:

5. Liberals and uncharitableness, see:

6. Social Darwinism:

7. Evolutionary belief and Nazism and Communism:

8. Evolutionism and scientific fraud:

Evolutionists and liberals are not in a position to claim the moral high ground Conservative 02:40, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

I hope you have a look at some of the vandal comments, as between the hatred and abuse there was some valid points. Dvergne 02:52, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

I'm sorry GregG but it has just been definitively proven that yo momma lacks any discernible morals. In all seriousness though, that is a pretty infantile, and very insulting article, that probably should not be publicised by this website. The article (and I use the term loosely) attempts to cloak its gendered insults (bordering on misogyny) with a justifying cloak of 'scientific fact' by employing gross generalisations based on research from the 60's and other mostly unsatisfactory sources, often badly misinterpreted. At one point there is a rather disquieting note indicating that the author's views on marital rape are likely to be rather medieval. (also, why is it so glaringly obvious that the author is male?) While there is some valid material in there, it is mixed in with so much that is less valid (or downright objectionable) that we should probably not be giving it the attention that it obviously doesn't deserve.Cmurphynz 03:23, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

4 points: 1) University study: Morals decline and evolutionism: 2) In 1950, "Pope Pius XII did indeed state that there is no intrinsic conflict between Catholic teaching and evolution. He did not lay claim upon a biblical authority for this verdict, but instead presented the document as a statement of papal authority. From 1950 forward, the Roman Catholic Church has been presented as being at peace with the theory of evolution, and this is often thrown in the face of evangelicals in public argument."[66] 3) Roman Catholic Bishop's warned of sexually abusive priest in the 1950s.[67] 4)Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust.[68] Coincidence? I don't think so! No good can come from adopting liberal, unbiblical views. Conservative 05:34, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
And the relevance of all that to the topic under discussion?Cmurphynz 05:37, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
First of all, there must be some reason why you are not addressing point #1 of the 4 points above. What is it? Conservative 05:42, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
Spurious correlation. Anyway I have to catch a bus. I'll discuss this another time.Cmurphynz 05:51, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
You can't have a discussion with a jerk like User:Conservative, and you can't get anything done about his behavior. He runs this blog now, like it or not. Aschlafly won't even say a word about what's happening. He'd rather see every one of you leave than face up to User:C and take away his sysop rights.--MitchellJ 15:15, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
The topic under discussion was whether it was appropriate to link to that blog post. The main points raised were that it was insulting and lacked a good basis for its allegations.Cmurphynz 05:49, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
Cmurphynz, he wrote that blog post and he'll never admit that it's inappropriate. Your only hope is to appeal directly to Andy Schlafly or, even better, leave this cesspit of a so-called encyclopedia and start editing at A Storehouse of Knowledge or Ameriwiki instead.

Sweden has the 3rd highest rate of evolutionary belief in the Western World. Need I remind you what is happening in libertine Sweden?Conservative 09:06, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

I have always found it interesting about U:C's complete lack of ability to stick to the subject when faced with accusations. MarkHenryClave 17:47, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
I know what's happening in Sweden. Everyone has health care, the murder rate is less that a quarter of what it is in the USA and the Westboro Baptist Church aren't desecrating anyone's funeral. Now why don't you stick to the damn subject and address the criticisms of the offensive rubbish you've linked to the main page?
By the way, I accept your challenge to a debate on the 15 Easy Questions For Evolutionists, if you have the machismo to go through with it. Olé olé olé!--MitchellJ 15:00, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
What is happening in Sweden other than the fact that it is one of the healthiest, safest, happiest, and most highly educated countries on Earth? MarkHenryClave 15:38, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
Nobody in Sweden is joining the QE! campaign, so in Ken's tiny mind it must be a terrible country. Remember you're dealing with a moron here.--BillyReuben 15:48, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

I am amazed at the hate that went into that QE post. Maybe Conservative should read the Bigotry page on this site ( TurtleD 16:37, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

Are you really? I'm not. It's the obvious next step. He's spent months insulting other editors, then promoting his blog on the mainpage, then changing the mainpage to nothing but promoting his blog, all in an effort to push the boundaries and see what Aschlafly will let him get away with. Seeing as the answer is "everything" he went on to actually delete mainpage right and replace that with a link to his blog. Andy just quietly reverted it and left Ken as a sysop, so it's no surprise that he's worked out he can now do anything at all. The latest blog post is clearly meant to drive Protestant editors away from here, just like his constant attacks on the Catholic Church were aimed at getting rid of Catholics. I guess I don't need to say anything about lady editors, if any are left, beyond that it's obvious he wants rid of them too. If I was Aschlafly the question I'd be asking myself is, "WHY does Ken want to chase so many editors away?"--BillyReuben 17:03, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
I actually don't think you're totally correct. I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that those are his real beliefs expressed in a particularly obnoxious fashion, and that driving away others is an unintended consequence of feeling that your opinion, however insulting it may be, must be publicised as much as possible.Cmurphynz 17:18, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
I think you're being too trusting myself. I've been watching what he's doing for a long time and over the last few months he's been pushing and pushing. Schlafly never does a thing, except sometimes meekly clean up after him, so now he's running wild. Look at his comments above. Most of them aren't expressing anything that can be recognized as beliefs, they're just deliberately insulting people. Personally I wouldn't contribute to a wiki where the sysops called editors atheists and whores and the site owner let them do it, but hey, I'm just an atheist. What do I know?--BillyReuben 17:23, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
Actually this wiki is quite entertaining. Anyway, I have some opinions on what you said there and I disagree with a bit of what you said, but I won't post them here as Conservative reads this page and I know (unlike some others perhaps?) when my opinions are likely to give offence.Cmurphynz 17:30, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
(and I wasn't talking about you there, in case you thought that was what I meant)Cmurphynz 17:31, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
Sure you weren't :-) Anyway, these days it's entertaining in the same way as watching cripples mud-wrestle. As for my opinions giving offense I don't care; Ken offends me after all, so he can have some back. Watch out you don't get blocked for 90/10 though; Ken and Schlafly both use it to stop discussion they don't like. I don't care myself because I use a proxy and they can't IP-block me, but if you seriously want to contribute here you need to be careful. There's no Christian forgiveness or toleration in these buttheads.--BillyReuben 17:35, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
no i actually wasn't talking about you. Anyway, was that what happened to main page right? I came on here and saw everyone complaining, but they seemed to have misplaced the history for the page :). anyway that was an interesting move :)Cmurphynz 17:44, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
Ken deleted the history for MPR to hide the fact that he'd done something and Aschlafly had reverted it. He has a habit of deleting histories, usually by deleting then recreating the entire page. For such a devout Christian he sure does do some dishonest-looking things.--BillyReuben 17:54, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
Re: Sweden, cite its fertility rate, Total fertility rate: 1.67 children born/woman (2011 est.) If every country followed Swedish model mankind would be extinct and there would be a lot more injured horses and a lot more STDs.[69] Plus, this is unsustainable model is having quite a bit of problems. [70] We know how liberals supposedly love sustainability and Sweden is not sustainable. Conservative 18:38, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
There's a bit more to life than pumping out kids like a lab rat. Anyway Ken, how many children have you fathered down in your basement?--JonasEldred 18:42, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
Sweden has lower STD rates than the USA, by the way. In fact for HIV the US rate is six times higher than the Swedish one and three times the rate for the whole of western Europe. Just thought you might be interested.--JonasEldred 19:07, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
If maknind were extinct, there would be a lot fewer STDs. Every STD particular to humans would be extinct due to a lack of hostsKingHanksley 22:43, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

America currently does not have a sustainable model and sooner or later economic/social liberalism is going to be pared back due to government indebtedness not being sustainable as Greece is showing. By the way, 2020 is approaching quickly.[71] Conservative 19:37, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

You completely ignored my point about STDs, you idiot. Do you ever answer questions, or are you only capable of parroting the same rubbish over and over again?--RolandDeschain 19:54, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

Um, folks, as a point of order, Andy is not "powerless" against pushy jerks (or possible stealth trolls...?) like our friend Consevative here. Rather, Andy will gladly tolerate their extreme nonsense as long as they still vocally espouse his form of conservative ideals. So let's put that whole "Poor poor Andy, powerless in the face of evil" crap to bed, please. Andy is well aware what goes on. Andy is OK with it. JLawrence 19:51, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

Then Andy's as much of a dick as Ken is.--RolandDeschain 19:54, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
You're catching on. JLawrence 19:55, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
Still, even if he's an obnoxious jerk, Andy at least has coherent aims for this site. Ken's just a troll. Doesn't Andy realize that he's defeating his own plan by letting that chimp scribble all over things? Not much of a commercial for Harvard law school, is he?--RolandDeschain 19:58, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
I don't like Conservative as much as you do but resorting to calling him names is just falling down to his level. You should consider your words before you add more fuel to his fire. TurtleD 20:02, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

Hey Conservative, I belive that a lot of this could be cleared up if you actually answered some of the points raised, rather than retreating into thought-terminating cliches and citing doubtful studies that are only tangentially related to what it being discussed. Much appreciated. Cmurphynz 20:06, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

Atlas Shrugged Part 3

Personally if I was an editor here, instead of just hanging around to watch the fun, I'd be pretty jacked off at the way my productivity was abused by the capricious acts of a small clique of self-interested bureaucrats. I'd think about doing something in protest, like maybe withholding the products of my mind until the system was overthrown and changed. Aschlafly might, at that point, realize that letting Ken User:Conservative and Anger BearUser:Karajou terrorize everyone isn't such a hot idea. I mean let's face it; compared with a site where sysops call good believing Christians "whores" and turn the mainpage into an extended commercial for a pathetic blog is Wikipedia really that bad?--BillyReuben 17:28, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

Calling liberal women "whores" is grinding global Darwinism to a pulp

Wow, 2012 is really proving to be a terrible year for creationism. Honestly, how many people do you think have found Jesus after being called "cold fishes", "short haired, butch, lesbian, men hating feminists", "whores", "hags", and "mean-spirited witches"? It makes me sick, it goes against the teachings of Jesus, and the role model we should strive to follow. We should be above childish name calling. Nine 19:17, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

What did the Apostle say about Cretans?[72]
Liberal evolutionists, repent! There was plenty of embarrassing stats/studies/information cited. Conservative 19:27, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
Care to point exactly which one supports "mean-spirited witches"? I would be very wary of any "source" supporting such hateful comments. And it seems that the consensus here is pretty solid that this article is inappropriate. Nine 19:39, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jesus himself say:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-48)
“If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful." (Luke 6:32-36)
Do you think you are loving your enemies and doing good by calling them "whores" and "cold fishes"? Responding with "Are you an atheist?", "Will you debate shockofgod?", or any of the usual copy/paste questions implies you are dodging my question. TurtleD 19:51, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
Waste of time, TurtleD. You got more chance of a sensible answer from my dog than from that moron.--SusanDelgado 20:03, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

One-shot accounts.

I find it pretty interesting the way all these accounts are suddenly set up for the sole purpose of joining in arguments here, and posting what they think of conservative. It's kind of cool how you guys seem to have a sort of sixth sense for finding conflict on conservapedia. Unfortunately all their comments get deleted but they can be pretty entertaining. Cmurphynz 20:46, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

Ugh, sometimes I feel like all I do here is criticise things. I'm not an "active" contributor, so to speak, I usually just try and touch up or add bits and pieces where I find them incomplete or missing but, other than that, use this as a point of reference (perspective) for certain topics and especially news. The thing that started all this though is the transformation of Main Page Left from what it was to a QE! propaganda feed, and I've found myself being vocal on that issue as I don't like it one bit. I also know what I'm up against though, so I know when to let it be to avoid the banhammer. On days like today I just sit back and enjoy the show :o) CP obviously has a lot of "lurkers", and they all seem to know quite a bit about a certain user who would rather remain anonymous. It's ok though mate, I'll still pretend not to know your name ;) I am disappointed to see that Mr Schlafly continues to completely ignore this topic though. I think a reasoned response would do a lot to settle things a bit. WilcoxD 20:58, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
Well don't let me stop you. :) Cmurphynz 21:00, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

Liberal Protestantism/secularism, move over little dogs, big ole' creationist dog is movin' in!

Liberal Protestantism vs. conservative Protestantism:

"Conservative churches are growing and liberal ones declining because of a differential in the fertility rates of each group. This demographic fact accounts for 80% of the “shifting fortunes of liberal and conservative Protestant churches” according to Chaves. Apparently women in conservative denominations have borne an average of one more child than women in more liberal or moderate denominations. Over several generations this difference becomes apparent and dramatic."[73]

Conservative Protestantism vs. atheism/agnosticism:

Michael Blume, a researcher at the University of Jena in Germany, wrote "Most societies or communities that have espoused atheistic beliefs have not survived more than a century." Blume also indicated concerning concerning his research on this matter: "What I found was the complete lack of a single case of a secular population, community or movement that would just manage to retain replacement level."[74]

In 2012, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (GCTS) reported that every day there are 800 less atheists per day, 1,100 less non-religious (agnostic) people per day and 83,000 more people professing to be Christians per day.[75]

Professor Eirc Kaufmann told a secular audience in Australia: "The trends that are happening worldwide inevitably in an age of globalization are going to affect us."[76] Conservative 21:19, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

Am I bovvered though? :) Cmurphynz 21:21, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

Something to maybe consider for "In the News"

From Newsweek, a neurosurgeon discusses his extraordinary experience with Heaven and God - experiences that happened while his brain was effectively shut off and baffling to mainstream and atheistic scientists who think the brain is fully responsible for creating consciousness. Thoughts? PaulDiFoglio 21:34, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

Question to User:Conservative

Conservative, would you please tell me your thoughts on the following quotes directly from Jesus' mouth?

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-48)
“If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful." (Luke 6:32-36)

Please don't dodge the question by linking to QE,, or responding with more questions because that would look very poorly on your "machismo". TurtleD 22:14, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

Are you saying that the Apostle Paul was acting contrary to Jesus words as far as his remarks about the Cretans? [77] 23:06, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
You did not reflect "an exaggerated or exhilarating sense of power or strength" by avoiding my question. Since you refused to share your opinion with me, I will wait until you satisfactorily answer my question before I answer yours. That's how a rational conversation works. TurtleD 00:00, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

OK, let's try to take a more positive approach

Let's do a show of hands: Who thinks linking to the article "10 reasons why creationists have bigger families" is appropriate for Conservapedia ? Nine 22:18, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

I have outlined a number of reasons above why I don't find it particularly appropriate. I would like them to be taken into consideration, but I also recognise that the decision isn't mine to make. So I do agree that it is probably not apropriate.Cmurphynz 22:23, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
Speaking of 10, alot of you single use accounters about to be banned or talk, talk and talk and now actual edits. Best you start doing something useful on the articles as well ! Dvergne 22:26, 17 October 2012 (EDT)