Talk:Main Page/Archive index/118

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: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,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 http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

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 AÃ±os del Miedo" by Juan Eslava GalÃ¡n, 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?Â :) 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 MÃ¼nster, Clemens August Cardinal Graf von Galen. In Poland perhaps the primate of Poland August Hlond, Archbishop of PoznaÅ 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 MÃ¼nster, Clemens August Cardinal Graf von Galen. In Poland perhaps the primate of Poland August Hlond, Archbishop of PoznaÅ 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

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. OlÃ© olÃ© olÃ©!--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 thisÂ !. 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!Â :) 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 creation.com?--ManniC 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)

AugustO,

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. OlÃ© olÃ© olÃ©!--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!Â :) 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 correctÂ :)--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 Creation.com 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 morningÂ ;-) (do smilies work for me too, or only for you...? )

I've nothing against all your "LuftschlÃ¶sser" (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: creation.com will become more popular than freethoughtblogs
News: creation.com 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

But

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: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/decline-of-internet-atheism-articles.html 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 creation.com 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.

European increases in creationism

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:

the scientific Theory of Evolution
the public perception of this theory (Darwinism)
atheism

How was 2012 the worst year for any of those?

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.
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.
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?Â :) 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 1