Talk:Main Page/Archive index/124

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hugo Chavez Alive And Returned To Venezuela

It turns out Hugo Chavez is alive after all.

Chavez Returns to Venezuela After 2-Month Absence

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has returned to Venezuela after a two-month stay in Cuba to receive cancer treatment. Chavez was forced to delay his inauguration last month in order to continue his recovery. In a Twitter message earlier today, Chavez said he will continue his treatment back at home.

Quoted from

Seems like Conservapedia was proven wrong, shame. I guess it wasn't liberal denial afterall. Badam 15:42, 18 February 2013 (PST)

You got video of that, or must we believe a single sentence from a leftist website? Karajou 21:52, 18 February 2013 (EST)

Wow, and all it took was a Twitter message to convince some people!--Andy Schlafly 19:08, 18 February 2013 (EST)
Elvis sent some Twitter messages the other day[1]. Does this mean Elvis is alive? Some people will believe anything. --DamianJohn 19:58, 18 February 2013 (EST)
Here's the messages. E=mc2=Hugo vive! OscarO 22:42, 18 February 2013 (EST)
Damian - you don't have to be alive to twitter.I am sure that half the tweets (twits? twats? ) sent these days are from people who are effectively brain-dead.) AlanE 23:15, 18 February 2013 (EST)
Well, it seems like both liberal and conservative news sources are saying that he has in fact returned to Venezuela. However, his condition is still horrid and it seems like the future is very bleak for President Chavez. I'd give him a year at maximum.,0,574748.story Sgruber

U.S. students in math and science

One sees a lot of articles about how badly U.S. students are doing in math and science relative to their counterparts in the rest of the world. An article here says that, in an international test of 8th grade students, those in Massachusetts did better than anyone else in the world except Singapore. They were tied for 5th in mathematics. This might be a good thing to put on the main page. SamHB 23:13, 7 February 2013 (EST)

So the best state in the U.S. is only the 5th best in math in the world? That's not terribly impressive, or newsworthy. I'm afraid to ask how poorly liberal California students did on the same test.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 8 February 2013 (EST)
Below average apparently. Not the only ones though. On a related note here is a list of the countries ranked in maths, reading and science taken from 2006. It is certainly gratifying to seen New Zealand doing so well on all of the scores. Perhaps the US could learn some lessons from our education system. --DamianJohn 02:15, 8 February 2013 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly, I would humbly suggest that your insinuation that liberal states do worse on these tests than conservative states is incorrect. Looking at the list for example, the states that did well-above average were: Massachusetts (voted for Obama 2012), Minnesota (voted for Obama 2012), New Jersey (voted for Obama 2012), New Hampshire (voted for Obama 2012), and New York (voted for Obama 2012). Alternatively, the states that were far-below average were: Oklahoma (voted for Romney 2012), Nebraska (voted for Romney 2012), Nevada (voted for Obama 2012), Arizona (voted for Romney 2012), New Mexico (voted Obama 2012), Alabama (voted for Romney 2012), Louisiana (voted for Romney 2012), West Virigina (voted for Romney 2012), and Mississippi (voted for Romney 2012).--Krayner 10:01, 8 February 2013 (EST)

Saturday postal service reduction

We might want to rethink our item about the plan to end individual mail delivery on Saturday. It turns out that Congress passed a law in 1982 mandating six day a week delivery. The Post Office claims that its plan meets that requirement because it will continue to deliver packages, but not letters on Saturday starting in August. Last year, the Senate passed a "Postal Reform Bill" that would have removed the six-day requirements after spending two years trying out alternatives. That bill did not pass the house, so techincally the six-day requirement remains in force. Harry Reid ts saying that he thinks the "packages only" approach violates the six-day law. That is very different from a general statement that liberals think that cutting spending is illegal. Thanks, Wschact 05:31, 8 February 2013 (EST)

So Barry Soetoro is breaking the law? He should be impeached. BenCG 18:19, 21 February 2013 (EST)
Actually, to be fair, inasmuch as we would love for Obambi to be impeached, the news article in Conservapedia is correct, per the Administration's legal reasoning (gasp!). The five day requirement is part of a budget act, and is not permanent law. Thus, if Democrats allege the post office can't cut six day delivery, they are asserting that they must renew six day delivery in the new budget (which is part of the spending bill). So the news posting is correct, and only liberal logic would result in thinking that what the post office is doing is illegal. BenCG 18:28, 21 February 2013 (EST)

In the news: Egypt

The people in Egypt are protesting for freedom and against the Muslim Brotherhood --Alex00 11:56, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Evolutionists, try to keep a stiff upper lip! London, England creationism is increasing!

Union jack.jpg

London, England tops a list of cities most visiting the prominent creationist website[2]

British creationists, it is time to hunt down and exterminate evolutionary folly in the UK. Tally-ho! Conservative 14:49, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Isn't that the same website that trashed Conservapedia, bigtime? Maybe they're visiting it to read that? OscarO 17:52, 9 February 2013 (EST)
London, England residents visit more than any other city! See for yourself:!cities UK Darwinism and world Darwinism is doomed.[3][4] I hope that clears things up for evolutionists.Conservative 17:57, 9 February 2013 (EST)
Charles Darwin's former residence, Down House, in currently in London: Poetic justice! Creationism is growing in London!  :) Conservative 18:18, 9 February 2013 (EST)
Those stats reveal nothing about sympathy or criticism --the viewers motivations. OscarO 18:25, 9 February 2013 (EST)
OscarO, Lita Cosner is a sweet Christian American lady who is VERY patriotic as can be seen HERE. It is most unchivalrous of you to pick on her - especially since she made valid points. :)
By the way, CreationWiki, which CP admin TerryH is an admin of, has a favorable article on Lita Cosner.[5]. :) Conservative 19:57, 9 February 2013 (EST)
Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought we were talking about British visitors, not American. If you are referring to Lisa Costner's statement,
" Forcing the Bible to conform to a certain political agenda, no matter if one happens to agree with that agenda, is a perversion of the Word of God,"
show evidence I "picked on her". OscarO 19:57, 9 February 2013 (EST)
Sorry to butt in here....I'm glad you said that Down House was "currently" in London. I think Down House must have moved since I was there. When I found it it was in rural Kent. I know it was after lunch and a pint of Ben Truman's can do things to the unwary, but I'm pretty sure it was Kent.... AlanE 20:33, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Re: Down House: "The house stands next to Luxted Road 0.25 miles (0.40 km) south of Downe, a village 14.25 miles (22.93 km) south east of London's Charing Cross, which was still known as Down when he moved there in 1842. In Darwin's day Downe was a parish in Kent: it subsequently came under Bromley Rural District, and since 1965 is part of the London Borough of Bromley.

It is an irony of history that young earth creationism is alive and growing in London which is very near Down House. Given that cities often expand due to urban sprawl and that London is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe, it would not surprise me if London become closer to Down House over time.

If anti-Darwinism is alive and growing in London, then evolutionism is not safe anywhere - especially since evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists."[6] Conservative 21:38, 9 February 2013 (EST)

It's was rural then and it's rural now, evidently. Show evidence visitor traffic translates in to anti-Darwinism or pro-something else, or recognize you've exhibited flawed reasoning and methodology. Enough bluster. OscarO 22:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)
Darwinism is not safe anywhere and London which resides in the homeland of Darwinism proves this. Conservative 22:13, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Also, the Museum of Scientific Atheism in Leningrad was restored to a church by order of the the former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev.Conservative 22:16, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Well yes, that sure answers my question. OscarO 22:18, 9 February 2013 (EST)
Cons. Get out from behind your bloody computer and go there! I know it may be a shock to your system but it may do you good. There is a big big difference between London and "Greater London". If you had said Greater London I would not have had a problem. The various "London Boroughs of this that and t'other" are not considered part of "London". People who live in those districts don't think of themselves as Londoners. I know. I know them. I've been there. I've stayed there. Even the ones who used to live in London say "its good not to live in London these days." But I know you're not going to understand because what isn't pixelated isn't real!
And while we're at it....former residence? Where does he live now? I thought he died there.
...Since there was an edit thingy and I've had to wait in line....what the hell has Leningrad got to do with things? ....and...London doesn't reside anywhere - people reside in it. AlanE 22:29, 9 February 2013 (EST)
Now, let's examine this, momentarily:
(a) Museum of Scientific Atheism is not the website;
(b) if you could produce visitor traffic stats for the Museum of Scientific Atheism pre-1982 vs regular church attendance now, while it would be interesting, certain adjustments would have to be made, such as mandatory field trips by school children. So those stats would reveal nothing about individuals beliefs in atheism;
(c) Darwinism is not atheism, nor is atheism Darwinism. They are two different subjects. It is possible for an non-atheist to be a darwinist, and vice versa.
(d) is it humanly possible for you to explain how generating user responses from visitor traffic stats to the website somehow are related to an atheist, Mikhail Gorbachev, restoring private property?
(d) further, are you persuaded in your own mind this convoluted reasoning and inability to answer a simple question convinces dispassionate observers of the worthiness of cause you evidently believe in? Thank you. OscarO 22:39, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Asteroid proof for Hydroplate Theory

I'm no scientist, but I have a few questions regarding this...

  1. Is this suggesting that all of the asteroids in the asteroid belts are chunks of rock from the Earth? If this is the case, I am to assume that (a.) multiple jets of water shot up with enough force to hurl chunks of rock the size of Rhode Island into orbit, and (b.) this force somehow didn't exterminate all life in an instant. If it is suggesting that the rocks were already in orbit around the Earth, we still run into the problem of water jets so powerful that they reached escape velocity as well as the mechanism that propelled the water in the first place; it's been a while since physics class, but I'm fairly sure that the force required would be astronomical (pun intended).
  2. It's well understood how asteroids leave the asteroid belt.
  3. an asteroid that was propelled with enough velocity (~11 km/s if memory serves) to leave Earth's orbit traveled for 3,000 years, then turned around? I'm pretty sure that would have taken it fairly close to Pluto, if not further. I'll have to look that one up.

I wasn't terribly familiar with Hydroplate theory until I just started looking it up, and I think it poses a lot more problems than solutions. Apologies for any misspellings or poor formatting, it's well past my bed time. -- JLauttamusTalk 23:44, 9 February 2013 (EST)

The the hydroplate hypothesis enjoys only limited acceptance within the creationist community, and has absolutely zero traction within mainstream science. --DonnyC 21:48, 10 February 2013 (EST)
Last I checked the "fountains of the deep" was the most popular cause for the Flood among creationists. If you're well-versed in creationism, would mind taking a look at Causes of the Great Flood? I wrote it a few years back but could only really find three causes at the time. -- JLauttamusTalk 23:10, 10 February 2013 (EST)


I barely got a "B" D: brenden 00:18, 10 February 2013 (EST)

But perhaps an "A" for effort?--Andy Schlafly 00:41, 10 February 2013 (EST)
hey, just a question, but how many tries are we allowed? brenden 23:49, 12 February 2013 (EST)
As many as needed to get a perfect score!--Andy Schlafly 00:42, 13 February 2013 (EST)


I followed the link at the very top of the left hand side of the main page to the Conservapedia:Index. Andrew Schlafly, though you have added your next course, the page needs to be up-dated! Especially the section on other materials which states:

Andrew, you seem to have evolved a canon of lectures on American History, American Government, World History and Economics. You should stick with it: the prospect of the courses on Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math and Bible Lectures as announced in the index was somewhat surprising given our exchanges on Biblical and physical matters.

--AugustO 02:21, 11 February 2013 (EST)

Expansion of anti-abortion content at Conservapedia

I believe there is going to be an expansion of Conservapedia's anti-abortion content via 1-2 writers for the Conservapedia:Pro-life Project. You know if Conservapedia ramp ups the Conservapedia:Pro-life Project, it could be a major boost to the overall web traffic of Conservapedia. There really hasn't been a major project in a while that would boost the web traffic of Conservapedia in a significant way. We are about due for one. Conservative 03:10, 12 February 2013 (EST)

I would most certainly like to be involved in such a project. Dvergne 03:21, 12 February 2013 (EST)

NK Nuclear Test

Do we want to put a Main Page item up about yesterday's test of a nuclear weapon by North Korea?--DTSavage 16:23, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Cardinal Francis Arinze

Quick fact-check: an item on MPR says that Cardinal Francis Arinze is likely to be elected Pope. That's no correct. Cardinal Arinze is now over 80 so he cannot participate in the conclave so he's extremely unlikely to become Pope. Bye for now. StaceyT 17:35, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Joke Sports

Regarding the "joke sports" article - in order for this to be a factual article, in-line with #5 of the Conservapedia commandments, how many people must agree these sports are a "joke" for it to become factual and not just personal opinion? It seems a contributor wrote out his misunderstanding of Swimming Relay as a some kind of citation as proof - it's pretty laughable.

Also, on the News feed, it calls out "A war against wrestling has been waged by feminists" and then on the "Joke Sports" page, it lists Women's Wrestling as a joke. Is it only a Joke because women are involved? Or is all Wrestling a joke? I'm glad this site likes Skateboarding, but why not Snowboarding? Seems it takes just as much skill to do and it certainly fits the criteria on your "Sports" article.

(sorry I had some trouble with this posting) CuriousJohn

What is a definition of a "joke sport" - a sport which exists primarily to give jobs to the sport's organizers and officials, but draws little fan or sponsorship support? Does the number of calories consumed matter? Wschact 20:40, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Television ratings for State of the Union

The referenced story does not seem to support the claim that it drew audiences lower than past Obama State of the Union addresses. I prefer C-SPAN coverage, and other people like PBS Newshour's coverage -- but the article does not include PBS or the cable news ratings. The comparison ratings are to other non-SOTU Obama addresses given in the past years, not his four earlier State of the Union addresses. Perhaps this should be reworded. Thanks, Wschact 09:57, 13 February 2013 (EST)

The data are clear enough; PBS and CSPAN audiences are too small to be significant.--Andy Schlafly 19:49, 14 February 2013 (EST)

Atheist leftists educated in public schools can't get a perfect score on Andrew Schlafly's American Government & Politics Final Exam!!!

American atheist leftists (many of whom are public school "educated") can't get a perfect score on Andrew Schlafly's American Government & Politics Final Exam!!! I thought you folks were so "bright". :)

You might as well face it. You failed! :)

By the way, Andrew Schlafly laughs at the atheist leftists' intellects! :) Conservative 19:10, 14 February 2013 (EST)

It says NO ONE has received a perfect score. So does that mean you did not get a perfect score either?! --JDrag 19:17, 14 February 2013 (EST)
What point were you trying to make, User:C? brenden 19:21, 14 February 2013 (EST)
Jdrag, given my perfect score on the Word Dynamo test, I decided to not take the test lest I spoil Mr. Schlafly's unmitigated triumph relative to his test. :) Conservative 20:53, 14 February 2013 (EST)
And your golf handicap, Cons. is 3, you are a professional standard bricklayer, plasterer and concrete finisher, you have been offered thousands for furniture you have built, you have sung Bach's Mass in B minor, you are rarely beaten at "Scrabble", you are a qualified surf lifesaver and you have a beautiful long-haired wife-sweetheart-friend - and equally beautiful children - who love you. And you have too much basic humanity and Christian charity to laugh at people you consider inferior or at ideas that are different to yours.
Oh! and you never ever leave the "t" off the word "not". AlanE 21:38, 14 February 2013 (EST)
Steady there Alan, I think Ol' Cons might be on to something. We have 30 questions... 30 questions that "American atheist leftists" can't answer satisfactorily... Do I smell the start of a new campaign!? The Question History! Campaign. This will be awesome. I'm sure an anonymously-authored blog will spring up in no time to breathlessly bring us the latest news of the campaign's upcomming -but never quite accomplished- plans. I foresee plans for booklets! Important Skype chats! Hundreds of tracts will be ordered! Comedies, satires, and pictures with captions! Oh yes, 2013 is going to be a very BAD year for liberal historical revisionism!!! Dare I say... Olé? --DonnyC 22:31, 14 February 2013 (EST)
You may say Ole indeed Donny...But... I'm not an American atheist leftist. I'm an Australian and the usual Cons-type tags don't apply. But bring on the 30 Questions! (It gives him something to do while not living a normal family life.) AlanE 23:05, 14 February 2013 (EST)

I am not an "Atheist leftist" but I did attend public school. I received the following message at the end of the quiz, "The total number of questions answered incorrectly is 0.
****Your total score is 30 out of 30.****
The total time elapsed was 4 minutes and 15 seconds." Wschact 23:24, 14 February 2013 (EST)

But can you lay bricks? AlanE 23:30, 14 February 2013 (EST)

Only when needed to build a wall to keep out the vandals. Wschact 00:19, 15 February 2013 (EST)
One thing evolutionists have never accomplished is finding the millions of missing link fossils expected by their pseudoscience. Conservative 04:12, 15 February 2013 (EST)

AlanE, re: "ideas that are different to yours": I didn't invent Christianity nor did I invest the abundance of evidence supporting it. It is not my fault that atheism lacks proof and evidence that it is true. Conservative 04:16, 15 February 2013 (EST)

I think it would something about this class Mr. Schalfly teaches if a bunch of random people could score 100% on the final exam without ever having taken the course. Also, since when is getting 2 or 3 questions out of 30 wrong "failing"? I don't think Mr. Schafly is giving failing grades to his students who scored thus. JamieW 21:58, 16 February 2013 (EST)
When atheists set themselves up as so-called "Brights" and other similar monikers and then fail to get a perfect score on Mr. Schlafly's test, you might as well face it - Schlafly wins and all the atheists who took his test failed! :) Conservative 00:12, 17 February 2013 (EST)
I don't get it. Some atheists consider themselves intelligent so therefore anything less than perfection in every aspect of life is failure? Some take a test for a course they've never taken, get a A, but not an A+, and therefore fail? And how does "Schlafly win" in this scenario? By writing a test with a few poorly worded questions? I'd ask you what your score was, but I'm sure you'd just say "100%" regardless of what you actually got, so I won't bother. I just took it and got 28 out of 30 (93%), which I'd say is not bad for the final exam in a class I never took. But I guess, because I don't recall ever learning about the "incorporation doctrine", I fail, and might as well have score a 40%. Good logic there. JamieW 09:34, 17 February 2013 (EST)

JamieW you wrote: "I don't get it." Given that there are so many atheists who failed Mr. Schlafly's test, I am not surprised that you don't get it! :) Conservative 11:15, 17 February 2013 (EST)

JamieW you wrote: "I don't get it." Given that there are so many atheists who failed Mr. Schlafly's test, I am not surprised that you don't get it! :)

Surely, you jest, User:C! brenden 18:02, 17 February 2013 (EST)

JamieW Incorporation Doctrine is very important, but taken for granted by most people today. As a result of the incorporation doctrine, the several States became bound by most (but not all!) of the amendments to the federal constitution. For example, consider this: Amendment 5 says that all "infamous crimes" but be prosecuted through indictment (that is, must go before a grand jury), yet many states allow the prosecution of these crimes by information. Compare this with the plethora of state laws that are struck down for violating the First Amendment, and you'll see how important incorporation is! Thanks, WilliamWB 18:43, 17 February 2013 (EST)

What's in the news at Conservapedia

I just performed a cursory and -admittedly crude- text analyses of the stories that are featured in the news here at CP. Of the 241 external links that appear on Template:Mainpageright as of roughly 1800 PST. Nearly 47% of the news items are cultivated from the same 3 outlets:, and President Obama garners 44 mentions on the main page, making him the most popular figure on CP. Soundly beating out God and Jesus' 16 combined mentions. As for topics, liberals are quite popular with 38 appearances, easily outpacing conservatives at 14. Guns, atheists/atheism, and abortion are also quite popular with 26, 19, and 14 instances respectively. Of course, this doesn't take into account the content of stories that are frequently "trimmed", which would most likely skew the data further. --DonnyC 22:05, 14 February 2013 (EST)

DonnyC, creation vs. evolution is a core issue relevant to conservatism vs. liberalism. Genesis affects theism vs. atheism, marriage and sexual relations, man's earliest history, the fall of man and sin, etc. etc. You haven't made a good case that less attention should be made to this issue. You have merely whined. Conservative 04:22, 15 February 2013 (EST)
Nope. No whining here Cons, just making a few casual observations. Nor, do I see anywhere in my post where I suggested that Conservapedia should focus more or less attention upon any particular person/topic. Since, Matthew 7:20 says "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them", I decided to poke around and take a closer look at the produce. Anyway, as startling as it may seem, not every word I type on CP is about you. As Carly Simon once sang "... you probably think this song is about you. Don't you? Don't you?". I'm worried that you may have become some sort of a solipsist. --DonnyC 05:11, 15 February 2013 (EST)

Holy Spirit

Our article about the Holy Spirit is No. 46 in Google!. --Joaquín Martínez 19:00, 16 February 2013 (EST)

That's great, Joaquin!--Andy Schlafly 20:42, 16 February 2013 (EST)
Today is No. 36 among 71,800,000 after some improvements. --Joaquín Martínez 12:33, 17 February 2013 (EST)

There will be a new Pope. Will Darwinism will have less and less influence in Roman Catholicism?

It would appear that the question in this headline was originally going to be a statement as the word "will" that exists after Darwinism does not fit into the sentence as a question. SJCootware 21:57, 16 February 2013 (EST)


This page is getting quite long again. I very strongly suggest that it gets archived as soon as possible. Dvergne 21:35, 17 February 2013 (EST)

Done. --Joaquín Martínez 09:11, 18 February 2013 (EST)
Hi, Dr. Martinez-Rosado. Me encante sus imagenes por la portada. Me gustaria conversar contigo sobre la Iglisia y que va a parasele con la oficina del Papa aqui en la Conservapedia. Paz y salud. Nate Nate 02:07, 19 February 2013 (EST)

"...avoid mentioning Super Bowl champion Matt Birk because this Great Conservative Sports Star is an outspoken critic of same-sex marriage."

Fair enough. Opposing the ability of people to enjoy the full set of civil and social rights on the basis of whom they love is a position that is rapidly going the way of the dodo, at least in the West; more American states are allowing marriage equality, and both Great Britain and France recently passed legislation allowing marriage equality. In a couple of decades, this guy's position will look as retrograde as people who opposed inter-racial marriage. CarsonP 11:10, 18 February 2013 (EST)

  • Misleading terminology: Carson, it's not on the basis of whom they "love" but on the basis of who they commit sin with. Homosexual acts are forbidden by the Bible, just as adultery is. No one complains about benevolence or compassion or any other kind of non-sexual love; the problem with homosexuality and other perversions is with the act itself, and how it distorts the relationship. --Ed Poor Talk 09:18, 19 February 2013 (EST)
Most Russians live in West Russia so Russia is often considered part of Europe and the West. Russia gives a big NYET (no) to homosexuality. Russia is one of the few leading powers outside the Eastern World that is not expected to decline in coming decades.[7] Acceptance of homosexuality is a sign of moral decay and decline. I believe homosexuality was more prevalent in Roman Empire before it fell.
The Telegraph: "A prominent Italian historian has claimed that the Roman Empire collapsed because a "contagion of homosexuality and effeminacy" made it easy pickings for barbarian hordes".[8] There you have it. The Roman Empire fell due to a lack of ma-cheese-mo! :) Conservative 19:35, 18 February 2013 (EST)

"Most Russians live in East Russia so Russia is often considered part of Europe and the West." Wanna think about that statement for a second, Cons? Seeing as the further west you travel in Russia the further into Europe you go and the further east you travel the more likely you are to run into people who look Oriental - you know; Eastern, un-European, non-Occidental, perhaps you have things - um - arse about. AlanE 20:09, 18 February 2013 (EST)

Thanks. I was up against 3 deadlines today and was in a bit of a rush. Fixed it. I met two of the deadlines and now I am working on the third. :) Conservative 21:34, 18 February 2013 (EST)
Then I won't mention the various inconsistencies and even obvious factual errors in your Italian professor's wafflings. (Eg Cartagena ("New Carthage") was/is not in North Africa but in western Spain.) I have said it before...slow down. AlanE 22:00, 18 February 2013 (EST)
I cited the Italian scholar for humorous reasons and I made that obvious. I didn't even read the Telegraph article. Nonetheless, Rome's collapse was due to moral collapse. And in Italy another collapse is coming due to moral failings.[9][10]Conservative 22:15, 18 February 2013 (EST)
My apologies, Cons. I deliberately ignored your smiley. (It can at times be the smile on the face of the tiger. :)) I tend to smile when non-historians give a simplistic one-dimensioned declaration on the reason (notice the singular - reason) for something as complicated as the fall of the Roman Empire. (Which Empire, by the way - the one that fell in the 5th century or that that went into the 15th.) You do realise, don't you, that the major difference between the Rome of, say AD 200, and when it fell was that when it did fall it was Christian. ;) AlanE 23:10, 18 February 2013 (EST)
AlanE, Rome was built on conquest and slavery. It never had a good foundation. By the way, the historian Bruce Bartlett declares that Nero's reign was the start of the debasement of Rome. Last time I checked, Nero was not a Christian. :)
In the summer of 2011, I had a knee injury due to me flying through the air at a high rate of speed and coming down on it. it took a while for it to heal 100%, but now it fully healed. And now with each passing day, I am getting more and more sleep due to progressively conquering a certain health condition. I expect to once again be in excellent health in about 120 - 150 days. And if my current strategy to defeat this health condition is not 100% successful, they now have have a medical procedure to cure it.
So pretty soon I will once again by filled with vim and vigor and have the eye of the tiger.[11][12] :) Conservative 02:01, 19 February 2013 (EST)
G'morning Cons. Good that your knee has recovered.
Every empire has been built on conquest and slavery - including the European conquest of America. About the fall of Rome, ask 10 historians and you will get 10 different replies. From Gibbon on there has been a multitude of reasons given. Take your ideological pick. AlanE 13:57, 19 February 2013 (EST)

Teen Scores Victory

Karajou, do you realise that the abortion decision you trumpet here was reached by referencing Roe vs Wade? Are you really supporting that awful court decision? RobertE 17:20, 19 February 2013 (EST)

It's what the headlines says in this case, Robert. The kid wanted to give birth to the baby; the parents wanted to kill it. Pro-lifers want to keep the children; liberals want to kill them. 'Nuff said. Karajou 17:31, 19 February 2013 (EST)
I thought that in most states when a minor becomes pregnant, she is emancipated (medically at least); essentially she can make her own decisions about her pregnancy and the life of the child. I know it's that way in all of my neighboring states, at least. I'm surprised this case got so far. -- JLauttamusTalk 19:06, 19 February 2013 (EST)
You're missing the point, Karajou. Obviously I agree that the child shouldn't be murdered, but the decision in this case has come about because the court ruled the girl had a right to privacy because of Roe v Wade. Rather than stating that murder shouldn't be allowed because it's murder, the court has used a law that is directly responsible for the slaughter of millions. I'm surprised you're supporting that. RobertE 12:27, 20 February 2013 (EST)

Symbols of the Holy Spirit

Our article "Symbols of the Holy Spirit" is number 6 in Yahoo and number 10 in Google among 5,600,000. It has been accessed 45,171 times as of today. --Joaquín Martínez 21:20, 20 February 2013 (EST)

In the News guidelines

This thread will be strictly moderated. All off-topic comments will be removed. GregG

I'm going to try posting this suggestion again in the hopes that it generates useful discussion.

I thought I would just throw in my two cents.

The fact that Mr. Schlafly regularly decides to trim stories to MPR submitted by other users (a list of examples going back just to the start of February 2013 follows: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] [but no story removed in this edit], [24] [one paragraph of a story removed]) suggests that there is a misunderstanding among the administrators as to what constitutes an item "In the News" that the "MSM isn't fully covering." I think all administrators and contributors would be well-served by having a concrete list of standards to check new submissions against. That way, if an administrator or contributor believes that a news item doesn't fit our standards, it can be brought up on this page (or perhaps a special page dedicated to Template:Mainpageright.

(By the way, it also appears that trimmed stories do not get archived. I wonder whether this is by design.)

I think it's a good idea for Mr. Schlafly to have solid guidelines or expectations regarding items that are added to Template:Mainpageright. (I should add that it's probably less work than simply trimming each unacceptable headline as it is added.) Here is a suggestion for some guidelines: (For the purposes of these guidelines, a "news item" is the content of an entry on Template:Mainpageright or any future section of the Main Page where a portal of news items may be.)

  1. All news items must comply with the Conservapedia Commandments.
  2. Since Conservapedia is primarily accessed by the web, all news items must contain at lease one link to an reputable external web page.
  3. All pages linked from news items must be "true and verifiable," (as per our First Commandment) "family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language" (as per our Third Commandment), and free from copyright infringement.
  4. All pages linked from news items must clearly state the real name of all of the authors of such pages. Web pages written by staff affiliated with a reputable newspaper, magazine, or radio or television station or network are excepted from this requirement.
  5. News items should pertain to a single event or a series of related events. News items should not be stale by the time they are first posted. A story that is merely an announcement of past, present, or future activity (like a press release) should not be posted, unless the announcement is itself covered by other reputable news sources.
  6. All content in news items (including images) should accurately and concisely summarize the story. Brief editorializing and commentary in the text of a news item are encouraged. A single news item should not exceed 100 words. Images that are not in the public domain may be included only with good cause.
  7. Although all newsworthy topics should be timely covered, special attention should go to conservative stories not given their due attention by the mainstream media.

Thanks, GregG 21:40, 20 February 2013 (EST)

These are thoughtful proposals. Assuming the 100 word limitation becomes workable, balance of newsworthy categories for broader interest (in a 24 hour period) may be helpful, too. Such as, (these are just arbitrarily off the top of my head), say, 10% devoted to International News, 35% Washington D.C. & domestic news, 25% Education news , 25% Religion and science, 5% business and economic. Of course the number of subject categories could be more and amount of space adjusted. The idea is balance and appeal to a wider audience. OscarO 22:55, 20 February 2013 (EST)
I'll repost my original comments: I would like to add that the total length of the news section should be reduced drastically. No new visitor to the site is going to wade through 200+ news items, especially considering many of them are quite stale. I see no reason for there to be more than 20-30 news items displayed on the front page at any given time. Also, a news story that the "MSM isn't fully covering", that links to the mainstream media... is a bit of a self-refuting argument. --DonnyC 22:59, 20 February 2013 (EST)

February 21, 2013 trimming

Mr. Schlafly just trimmed a few more stories from Template:Mainpageright. Perhaps looking at these stories will help us to formulate better guidelines:

Original story Original contributor Trimmed story GregG's comments
A documentary film entitled Martyred in the USSR which covers the persecution of Christians and Jews under militant atheism is being released in October of 2013.[25]

In order to cover production costs, they are seeking donations and funding.[26]

A trailor of the movie is available at: Martyred in the USSR

Conservative, January 24, 2013 A documentary film entitled Martyred in the USSR which covers the persecution of Christians and Jews under militant atheism is being released in October of 2013.[27]
Apple's stock drops 10%, as its gimmickry begins to fade. [28] Turn to what never fades: the Bible. Aschlafly, January 24, 2013 (story removed entirely) I'm surprised that Mr. Schlafly removed a story that he himself contributed.
A BBC documentary on the creationism "conspiracy" fails.[29]

Why was the film crew so hostile and afraid to interview scientists who doubt evolution?

Conservative, January 24, 2013 (story removed entirely)
Not a joke: liberal Joe Biden is preparing to run for president. [30] Well, at least he doesn't always read from a teleprompter! Aschlafly, January 23, 2013 (story removed entirely) Again, surprisingly, Mr. Schlafly is the author.
Why has suicide increased exponentially throughout the world? [31]

One thing for certain: biblical Christianity, young earth creationism and conservatism are not causing it! Excellent graph showing church involvement rates and suicide rates.

Conservative, January 4, 2013 (story removed entirely)
"So easy, a caveman did it!" [32] Karajou, January 4, 2013, moved without change by Conservative, January 4, 2013, grammar corrected by Karajou, January 8, 2013 (story removed entirely)

I will fill in more of my comments later, as the hour is getting pretty late. GregG 23:33, 21 February 2013 (EST)

Some headlines have a longer shelf life than others. Should that be surprising?--Andy Schlafly 18:46, 22 February 2013 (EST)

Something that bugs me

I'm often interested in reading the primary sources mentioned in the headlines but I usually find myself having to dig through Question Evolution mess to find them. Wouldn't it be better if the links in the articles went straight to the actual source instead of some blog? That's my 2cWilcoxD 16:28, 21 February 2013 (EST)

What happened to Tim Tebow?

From the American Family Association:

TonySidaway 17:43, 21 February 2013 (EST)

It's pretty obvious isn't it? Tebow was put under immense pressure from the liberal NFL, probably threatened with expulsion and/or another season not being picked. Unfortunately that is the way of it these days. No-one dare offend the liberals in high places. --DamianJohn 19:01, 21 February 2013 (EST)

Difference between Tim Tebow and CMI

What is the difference between Tim Tebow and Creation Ministries International? Creation Ministries International never backs down!
7 reasons why the Question evolution! campaign will be a boon to single women and a bane to homosexual activists. [33] Conservative 21:42, 21 February 2013 (EST)

Considering you ban people for posting on discussion pages too much this is basically trolling for negative attention. I just wrote down what I predict your response to me will be. Please please, nobody respond to this. Let the rest of the page be dedicated to real discussion of important issues. Nate 23:49, 21 February 2013 (EST)

NKeaton, the 90/10 rule is a good rule. Conservative 01:08, 22 February 2013 (EST)
NKeaton, you wrote on another website: "I am a proud first generation Irish Catholic man, the brother of a Jesuit priest, and the kin of at least one Jesuit or Opus Dei priest per generation for many years." I can attest to you being proud. You know what the Bible says about being proud, don't you? Conservative 06:16, 22 February 2013 (EST)

Personal remark removed

What does the bible say about your bragging, Cons? Jude 1:16: "These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage." CuriousJohn

And Cons, what does the 90/10 rule say about it being cited when banning someone after 4 edits? AlanE 16:22, 22 February 2013 (EST) Now excuse me while I do a real live non-ideological edit. (They're becoming an endangered species here lately, it seems.)AlanE 16:27, 22 February 2013 (EST)
CuriousJohn, there have been some individuals railing at, criticizing, obsessing over, and constructing a psychology profile relating to a anonymous wiki account. It must be quite humbling when these individuals are told in various ways how errant they are. :) We are very amused. :) Conservative 19:17, 22 February 2013 (EST)

I was talking about bragging (about machismo, your internet wins, etc.). I have no idea what you just said but if you want to follow the bible, you shouldn't be such a braggart. CuriousJohn

My/our username is User: Conservative. You don't know if I/we are a man/woman or a group of men/women. One thing for certain though. Richard Dawkins and the atheist/agnostic community lacks machismo! [34] See: Atheism and cowardice and Decline of atheism and Atheism and leadership. It is not my/our fault that atheists/agnostics/evolutionists lack MA-CHEESE-MO!Conservative 12:33, 23 February 2013 (EST)
So you're actually legion? --LanceG 13:13, 23 February 2013 (EST)

Ok so, the whole group of you... Try reading the article on hypocrisy. [35] CuriousJohn

CuriouosJohn, it is atheists and evolutionists who are often acting hypocritically and ignoring science! See: Atheism and obesity and New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight and Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese. Why can't more atheists/evolutionists eat like Jesus and Moses did? Unlike Moses, PZ Myers never had a scientifically advanced dietary code named after him![36]  :) Conservative 15:04, 23 February 2013 (EST)
What is CP's policy on sharing accounts anyways? brenden 15:27, 23 February 2013 (EST)
Whatever the policy is, keep in mind in its application to CP Sysops/Admins, that policemen can speed and don't have to wear safety belts and David ate the showbread! :) Conservative 15:37, 23 February 2013 (EST)
With regard to the above, it is interesting to read [37] (police are specifically not exempt) and [38] (exception only for those "in custody" or law enforcement agency) and [39] (no police exemption) and [40] (quoting police chief: "All of the officers are required to wear seat belts, as well as the passengers.") I think I make my point. GregG 14:45, 24 February 2013 (EST)

I know someone who had a top law officer position and he was not required to wear safety belts. A lot of police don't wear safety belts. A policeman quoted from "Me, I don’t wear one. It’s uncomfortable with the bulletproof vest, duty belt, you’re in and out of the car quite often. . . .". Conservative 21:18, 24 February 2013 (EST)

I trust that User:Conservative will illuminate us all with the specific duties of a sysop that are incompatible with (and there allow to be ignored, according to him/her/it/me) the Conservapedia Commandments and guidelines. GregG 21:04, 25 February 2013 (EST)
Back to the CP policy on sharing accounts, and whether or not sysops/administrators are above the rule that commoners must follow, User:C, who, precisely told you that Sysops can share personal accounts? Unless it was Mr. Schlafly, I really cannot take your word for it. brenden 22:18, 24 February 2013 (EST)
I think it's best to just leave him/her/it/them alone. You'll never get a straight answer, and this behavior will continue and nothing will change. The only options are to stop "feeding the troll" and work on other articles on the site that are in dire need of improvement, or take your talents elsewhere. Just my $0.02. -EdgarP 20:04, 26 February 2013 (EST)

The policy that User: Conservative set up for User: Conservative is working fine. Liberals may not like it, but when has that ever bothered User: Conservative? Conservative 12:13, 26 February 2013 (EST)

You will get a straight answer, but never a complete answer about this issue as User: Conservative is inscrutable and enigmatic concerning this matter at this wiki. :) 微乎微乎 至于无形 神乎神乎 至于无声 故能为敌之司命。 Conservative 20:33, 26 February 2013 (EST)
你不应该用Google翻译如果您想引用孙子兵法brenden 21:40, 26 February 2013 (EST)
Brilliant Brenden --DamianJohn 21:43, 26 February 2013 (EST)
To be fair, his citation is original. Google wouldn't do a very good job on it, but a common translation of the line is "O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible; and hence we can hold the enemy's fate in our hands." Also to be fair, I'm not sure how well this advice has been heeded. MelH 23:26, 26 February 2013 (EST)
One thing I/we know. There are some people with some wrong ideas about this matter. Conservative 10:32, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Bowman v. Monsanto Supreme Court Case

It seems like independent farmers and giant agri-businesses are going at it again. I do wonder how it will turn out. Will Monsanto win and continue to patent life and strive to obtain a monopoly on soybean seeds as well as several other crops and organism, or will independent farmers win and be able to save their seeds, and farm the way they want to, without having to buy seeds from Monsanto after every harvest? I personally am rooting for Bowman to win the case, but I'm interested in what the people here at Conservapedia have to say about it. Sgruber

The problem with liberal sources is that they rarely give an fair treatment on matters and often engage in the fallacy of exclusion. See: Benefits of genetically modified food.
In life, one often has to do cost/benefit analysis to determine the value of something.
Personally, I am very bullish on the improvements that the private sector is doing relating to the "green revolution".[41] Conservative 15:26, 23 February 2013 (EST)

Print Media

So, NYT tries to sell Boston Globe, and that is "liberal claptrap collapsing" but the conservative Human Events needs to find a buyer because they are not conservative enough? Maybe no one reads actual print these days. --JDrag 18:39, 22 February 2013 (EST)

Why do you call Human Events "conservative"??? The headline clearly explains otherwise.--Andy Schlafly 18:44, 22 February 2013 (EST)
Maybe because they call themselves conservative? --DonnyC 19:00, 22 February 2013 (EST)
Are self-serving claims conclusive? Mitt Romney called himself severely conservative. Did that suddenly make him conservative?--Andy Schlafly 19:02, 22 February 2013 (EST)
Are self-serving claims conclusive? No, not in the slightest. To be frank, you have attached labels to yourself that I appraise with a certain level of incredulity, but I recognize that I am not the final arbiter of such matters. You seem to have appointed yourself gatekeeper and Fidei defensor of all things conservative. --DonnyC 19:22, 22 February 2013 (EST)
It was Reagan's favorite reading for years. Reagan called it a "must reading for conservatives who want to know what is really going on in Washington, D.C." Would you say it is not conservative, or not conservative enough? --JDrag 19:25, 22 February 2013 (EST)
Thirty years ago, under different ownership and management, Human Events was Ronald Reagan's favorite newspaper. And Joe Montana was the best quarterback then too. Does that make Joe Montana the best quarterback today?--Andy Schlafly 19:28, 22 February 2013 (EST)
So when did it stop being conservative? Today? Because you thought it was conservative enough when you created the entry for it here on Conservapedia. --DonnyC 19:38, 22 February 2013 (EST)
In most cases in which a person is diagnosed with some kind of a condition or a disease, it is usually not known when was the precise date in which the illness began. When did Human Events stopped being conservative is a tough question, and ultimately irrelevant. By now it's clearly not. - Markman 20:22, 22 February 2013 (EST)
Very well put, Markman.--Andy Schlafly 22:12, 22 February 2013 (EST)

No Budget, No Pay

Shouldn't this story be mentioned on the main page somewhere? --Dfrischknecht 21:05, 22 February 2013 (EST)

Social issues tend to be more important than the same-old, same-old budget "crises".--Andy Schlafly 13:53, 23 February 2013 (EST)

duh science

I thought we wanted to investigate video games and their effect on kids? Shouldn't we be supporting this study? Isn't this Conservapedia proven right? CuriousJohn

This is Conservapedia proven right, again, but it is not necessary to wait years for a government study to recognize the obvious of "duh science."--Andy Schlafly 13:49, 23 February 2013 (EST)

I didn't expect you to wait for scientific proof before you claimed victory on any subject, Andy. CuriousJohn

The Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on violent video games are unconstitutional limits on free speech. I would think that scientific evidence could be very valuable in showing that this ruling is shortsighted, and would so be welcomed. MelH 14:30, 23 February 2013 (EST)


You mean "wife", right? ZetaSonic 18:32, 23 February 2013 (EST)

Funny mistake. Thanks for mentioning it!--Andy Schlafly 18:43, 23 February 2013 (EST)


Argo has won Best Picture, according to IMDB. ZetaSonic 00:22, 25 February 2013 (EST)

Famous Castles of the World

Our article Famous Castles of the World is number 16 in Google among 629,000,000 and 6 in Yahoo. --Joaquín Martínez 08:53, 25 February 2013 (EST)


"The Pope accelerates the conclave for picking his successor, whom liberals fear will be the conservative African Cardinal Francis Arinze."

Shouldn't that be 'who'? The relative pronoun is not the object of 'feared', but the subject of 'will be'. Onestone 18:01, 25 February 2013 (EST)

It should he "whom". The entire phrase "Whom liberals fear" acts as the subject of the sentence, and to determine the proper pronoun you have to look at the phrase alone. In the phrase "whom liberals fear", "liberals" is the subject, "fear" is the verb, and "whom" is the object. You can see it more easily by rewording it as "liberals fear whom". Therefore, the objective case pronoun "whom" is correct. AmyPond 13:44, 1 March 2013 (EST)
Not true, AmyPond. "Whom liberals fear" most certainly doesn't act as the subject of the sentence, and whom should be who. Turn the phrase around: "Liberals fear he [not him] will be the conservative African Cardinal Francis Arinze." Or else read this. Onestone 14:32, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Argo = conservative, Lincoln = liberal???

Dear Mr Schflafly, Please could you explain why you regard the movie Argo as conservative and Lincoln as liberal. I know Argo was about rescuing American diplomats but it happened under left-wing Democrat President Jimmy Carter and was executed by the liberal/ socialist Canadian government (something which the movie didn't go into so much). And on the other hand, I thought Abraham Lincoln was one of your all-time conservative heroes - he should be? I guess I sometimes just get a little confused by the nuances of what you call conservative and liberal so please could you explain the movies to me. StaceyT 20:00, 25 February 2013 (EST)

"Who can not be saved?"

This should read "Who cannot be saved?" GregG 08:32, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Both "cannot" and "can not" are acceptable. AmyPond 13:38, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Can somebody fix the MPR lead headline?

THe lead line links to here and not budget sequester. Can this be fixed by redir, disambig or wording or whatever? (No sense doing all the writing if its gonna be ignored w/links to wrong pages). TY. OscarO 15:25, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Venezuela confirms Hugo Chavez has died

Just read a couple of tweets from a number of different news agencies saying that authorities in Venezuela have confirmed that he has passed away. (Whether that be today or the are just finally admitting it is unknown). Dvergne 17:09, 5 March 2013 (EST)

World Famous Painters

Our article World Famous Painters is number 4 in Google among 35,500,000; it has been accessed 41,541 times. --Joaquín Martínez 18:02, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Congratulations Joaquin, a lot of hard work has gone into actually making that a decent encyclopaedic section, amazing what can happen when people focus on the content rather than winning battles. Ic 08:26, 7 March 2013 (EST)
Thank you do much. --Joaquín Martínez 15:58, 7 March 2013 (EST)

This is a joke, right?

"Conservapedia is proven right: HUGO CHAVEZ IS DEAD, and the lamestream media finally admit it." This is a joke, right? Conservapedia has been saying for some time that he died 2 months ago, and the "lamestream media" knew this but weren't publicizing it. He died yesterday, as even Fox News admits, and Conservapedia claims that proves that they were right all along? No, it proves they were wrong.--LordB 23:30, 6 March 2013 (EST)

How is this a joke? Conservapedia claimed that Chavez was dead, and now the rest of the world agrees that he is dead. Conservapedia has again been proved right. --DHouser 11:33, 7 March 2013 (EST)

This hardly proves Conservapedia right. There's no evidence (besides good ol anti-liberal suspicion) that he was dead before March 5th. dsherman

The open casket

Chavez's body is lying in state in an open coffin in a military chapel where it has been viewed by many. While it isn't completely impossible to cling to the conspiracy theory, it doesn't really pass the smell test at this stage. Are we to suppose that the body has been held in a deep freeze for months? And to what purpose would the leadership delay the announcement of death, when he was expected to die and there was plenty of time to prepare?

Why cling to the old cold war tropes? All the evidence supports the official story and there is nothing to be gained by spinning alternative versions. --TonySidaway 03:28, 7 March 2013 (EST)

Venezuela and Cuba are based on an old cold war mentality. Communists have a long experience in preserving the bodies of their leaders, both for funerals and for long-term exhibition. Think of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gottwald, Dimitrov, Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il. Chavez's Communist cronies needed to lie about his death, because it gave them time to solve the internal power struggles among the top "Bolivarians", including the military leadership. Otherwise, they would have been pressured to follow Chavez's own Constitution and call for new elections BEFORE they had settled their internal disputes, BEFORE they had all agreed on how much power would everyone retain and who should succeed Chavez as mafia boss. That in a country where the military had already anounced that it would stage a coup if "the Revolution and the people were betrayed", be it by the democratic opposition actually winning an election or by the military leadership disagreeing with who inherits Chavez's leadership position. Remember that Venezuela is not a normal state with functioning institutions and a respect for the rule of law, but a dictatorship ruled by a gang of Communists. By lying, they avoided naming National Assembly chief Diosdado Cabello as interim President and calling for new elections, giving vice-president Nicolás Maduro and his allies time to organize and carry on their own internal coup, and present Nicolás Maduro as the clear leadership figure before that large portion of the Venezuelan people who prefer to follow an autocratic leader instead of having freedom (fraud can only go so far... the "Bolivarians" still need a large number of real votes).--Ty 08:58, 7 March 2013 (EST)

That's simply hand-waving, since the idea that Chavez died months ago is mere unsupported speculation. So even if we accept your characterization of the political system as completely accurate, there remains no evidence that Chavez died beforeand the death was covered up for a time. It's a classic example of conspiracy thinking, in which an account is favoured for its narrative sweetness despite absence of supporting evidence. --TonySidaway 13:58, 7 March 2013 (EST)

True, there's no hard evidence demonstrating that Chavez died before March the 5th. However, there's no hard evidence demonstrating that he was alive either. For that, we only have the words of his Communist cronies, some Twitter messages anyone could have written and a few photographs purportedly showing him with his daughters. Photographs that can be faked. And there's strong circumstancial evidence indicating that he was either death, in a coma or in a similar state. Leaving aside those few photographs, no proof of life was ever provided. None. No one was allowed to see him, not even his close political ally President Evo Morales of Bolivia. The absolute secrecy around him was very telling. When that level of secrecy is combined with the Venezuelan regime's need to gain time while they sorted their internal power struggles, the only reasonable explanation is that he was either dead, in a coma or in a similar state. Whatever the case might be, it is absolutely clear that the Cuban and Venezuelan regimes have been constantly and systematically lying about Chavez's health for the past years, reaching a surreal climax during these past two months.--Ty 14:41, 7 March 2013 (EST)

Veterans criticize new medal for drone pilots

They derisively call it a "Nintendo award." Perhaps this would be a good story for In the News?--CamilleT 09:31, 7 March 2013 (EST)

Does he really believe this?

Just saw this on Bill Moyers PBS show:

We need to change that attitude. I mean, we need to be teaching evolution and embryology and the big bang theory because, you know, while [Cong. Paul Broun] may think they're lies from the pit of hell, they're not. They're good, established science. And if our students don't learn it, they're going to be at a disadvantage to the rest of the world, to China, to Britain to France. And we're not going to do what we need to really make the advances to keep our way of life and ensure the survival of the human race, if we don't teach our students science.

What scientific evidence is there for proving that survival of the human race is dependent on the teaching of science? Without the teaching of science, boys and girls, men and women will no longer fall in love? and the species will stop reproducing? Perhaps our friends at the RW website should investigate the spread of these crank science ideas. OscarO 21:42, 7 March 2013 (EST)

Moyers hasn't figured out yet that France and the UK are not competing too well and are deeply mired in debt.[42] And liberal notions, like high government spending, helped put America deeply in debt and made it less competitive. I know plenty of people who don't believe in evolution and are very productive members of society. John C. Sanford is a very productive biologists and he doesn't believe in evolution. Moyers is just a whiny liberal who throws tantrums when people don't buy into various aspects of the liberal ideology he likes to push. And when push comes to shove due to another economic crisis worse than the last one, Mr. Moyers and PBS will be weaned off the government teat. Conservative 01:02, 8 March 2013 (EST)
Yes, but survival the human race, i.e., human reproduction, is dependent on the teaching of science? What scientific evidence exists for this absurd statement? Especially coming from the mouth of a supposed advocate of science? OscarO 12:35, 8 March 2013 (EST)
Oscar, don't you find it even the slightest bit ironic that you are demanding scientific evidence to support the claim that teaching science is important? --DonnyC 13:45, 8 March 2013 (EST)
Perhaps there's hyperbole on both sides of this argument; but it's decidedly unscientific to claim survival of the human race is dependent on teaching science in schools. The teaching of science has nothing to do whatsoever with men and women reproducing. Statements like this just make the speaker look ridiculous. It's just an attack on religion, nothing more. And serious advocates of the scientific movement should be concerned when idiots like this get elevated as spokesmen. OscarO 00:38, 9 March 2013 (EST)
Think of all of the advances in public health and agriculture. We have billions more people on earth than during the time of the Bible. In the Bible, entire nations were wiped out by the plague or natural disasters. Scientific medicine and scientific agriculture have improved lives since then. Wschact 05:56, 9 March 2013 (EST)
From the time of the big bang or Adam or whatever, until the Enlightenment and public education, human reproduction, agriculture, and health did quite well, thank you. Survival of the human species was not then, nor is now, dependent on teaching science. The claim is unscientific, a scare tactic, and anti-relgion. This should give science advocates cause for concern. OscarO 13:26, 9 March 2013 (EST)
I found Mr Moyers' statement to be rather simplistic but functionally accurate. To continue to enjoy our present way of life, and to support current population levels, requires the teaching of science. Now, if you're willing to return to population levels and a lifestyle that was suffered by pre-neolithic humanity, then no scientific education is required. --DonnyC 16:12, 10 March 2013 (EDT)
Yes, but it's only speculative. To say, "I believe to ensure the survival of the human race we must teach our students science", is no different than saying "I believe Jesus was born of a virgin and the Son of God". There is not a shred of scientific evidence for either statement. OscarO 18:55, 10 March 2013 (EDT)
Both are probably true statements. Can't prove either scientifically but that doesn't mean that both shouldn't be believed. Bit of hyperbole perhaps, but probably not that much given the massive populations we have now and the potential for disease and environmental damage that we can now contribute to. --DamianJohn 20:00, 10 March 2013 (EDT)
So you would agree then, the statement, "the survival of the human race is dependent on the teaching of science", is a rather unscientific, emotional statement, and not based on science, nor can be? OscarO 22:38, 10 March 2013 (EDT)
Well it is a hypothesis, perhaps an untestable one, so to that extent it is unscientific, but that is hardly a massive blow to it. Probably he said it with a mind to things like bugs becoming immune to antibiotics, rising pollution levels and issues around trying to find more efficient ways to feed large population levels with natural fertilizers starting to run out(amongst other things). I doubt it was meant as being a literally true statement. It is an interesting topic for discussion though. I do think, like the guy you have quoted that teaching science to schoolkids is very important, and is a key for a country remaining successful economically. Don't really see the issue to be honest. --DamianJohn 23:45, 10 March 2013 (EDT)
Those would be plausible arguments, though still lacking any scientific evidence that survival of the species is stake without teaching science. The exact context these comments were made is in response to Congressman Broun (who serves on the House Science & Technology Committee) saying evolution and the big bang are "lies from the pit of hell". It's a bloated emotional response to a religious and political argument, and denigrates advocacy for science. OscarO 14:26, 11 March 2013 (EDT)
Yet surely less bloated or emotional than Mr Broun's thoughts on the matter? --DamianJohn 16:14, 11 March 2013 (EDT)
Yes and no. Perhaps hyperbolic on both sides, however Mr. Broun's comments probably can be backed up by his literary sources, although I'm sure it's a matter of interpretation and controversy. Whereas the comment (from a Moyer's guest) is really a statement of faith in his beliefs, and like Broun's, not based on any science. OscarO 22:32, 11 March 2013 (EDT)
Speaking as a liberal and an atheist, the claim that "(we will endanger) the survival of the human race if we don't teach our students science" is patent nonsense. Regardless of whether humanity started a million years ago or 6000 years ago, we obviously managed to get this far without formal science education for the vast majority of the time. Voxhumana 23:15, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

The View

Since it is mentioned in the article that "market research revealed that she isn't popular with TV audiences", and that "the viewers they polled all said she was too extreme and right wing" it's simple market economics - all media outlets do market research into what their viewership/readership wants to see and hear, and if the audience doesn't want someone, then they're going to be moved along. Same went for Glenn Beck, same went for many excellent TV series that were cancelled after a season or two. Critical approval matters not a bit, it's all about the eyeballs on the advertising they sell. JOBrien 13:15, 9 March 2013 (EST)

Betting site Offers 666:1 odds Richard Dawkins will be next Pope

Really. Who would bet on that? Although I think it's a joke, judging by the odds. Gregkochuconn 22:52, 9 March 2013 (EST)

I dunno; I heard the next Pope is gonna offer a twofer: he's gonna be gay and not only allow marriage for priests, but gay marriage for priests as well. Seems kinda unlikely, though. OscarO 08:42, 10 March 2013 (EDT)
I would say an ultra-conservative such as George Pell would be a much better choice than Cardinal Arinze as he is quite a bit younger (Arinze is too old to be able to elect the new pope so I doubt he will be picked). George Pell is a great advocate of conservative values here in Australia. He also has a good track record of wins against liberals and evolutionists, with him convincingly trouncing Rictard Dawkins in a QandA debate a year ago. Dvergne 07:45, 12 March 2013 (EDT)
The Brazilian guy should be the best pick. He's young, and can recruit Brazilian youth into the priesthood for several decades to fill worldwide demand. Brazilian priests could become a major export. The US alone has 5000+ unfilled parishes; the job pays way more than an Brazilian kid from a backwater village with no running water could ever hope to earn, plus perks like housing, company car, etc. etc. OscarO 14:58, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

@Dvergne, I don't think George Pell is sufficiently conservative enough for some people. In the very Q&A appearance you mention, Pell denied the literal truth of Genesis. Instead, describing it as a "mythological account" and as simply a "religious story told for religious purposes" and that it shouldn't be considered a "scientific truth". --DonnyC 16:04, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Is it really liberal bias?

Considering that Liberty was 10th out of 12th in the Big South, with a losing record both in conference and overall, isn't Liberty making the conference championship factually unlikely? Chipper 16:24, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

If it had been an atheistic school, the media spin would have been something positive, like calling it a "Cinderella Story." Liberty had a poor start to the season but has played well since, almost defeating Georgetown, for example.--Andy Schlafly 16:26, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

Lesbianism and obesity

Aside from the dubious quality of the page cited, I really don't see how it supports homosexuals and obesity, unless gay males are not homosexuals. The page revision ishere brenden 21:58, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Just because male homosexuality does not reach the 3/4 threshold obesity problem of lesbians does not mean that there not an male homosexuality obesity problem. See: Homosexuality and obesity as far as teenage homosexual obesity. Often teenagers carry their obesity problem into adulthood due to their bad habits. Second, there is a Lesbianism and obesity problem. Conservative 22:29, 12 March 2013 (EDT)
Actually, although there is circumstancial that male homosexuals maybe have an obesity problem (teenage homosexual obesity, sports issue, more secular (see: Homosexuality and obesity and Atheism and obesity), etc., it is not as conclusive as lesbianism and obesity. So due to space limitations on the main page to explain matters, I decided to pull the news item. Conservative 22:43, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

MPR trimming

I can't help but notice that many of the stories trimmed in this edit happen to come from one particular editor. Perhaps it would be good to revisit Talk:Main Page#In the News guidelines to help improve the quality of our news picks for both us editors and for visitors who may use Conservapedia as a portal to conservative news. GregG 22:42, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Why does it matter how long the MPR is? Also, why do you assume it's one person's edits that are being trimmed. Perhaps (as we've been told before) it's a group of men full of MA-CHEES-MO and their long haired Christian ladies that are driving the final nails into the coffin known as Darwinism? -EdgarP 22:48, 12 March 2013 (EDT)
Stop trolling. Both of you are being provocative for no good reason. I want to see both of you make some productive edits in the next few days. --DamianJohn 23:07, 12 March 2013 (EDT)
GregG, how is Kenneth Miller doing on those 15 questions for evolutionists? Any news yet? It appears as if the Question evolution! blog is gaining more contributors. Soon a man with a doctorate will be posting at the blog and recently a college professor gave his two cents at the blog. More and more people in the intelligentsia are coming aboard the Question Evolution! Campaign train! :) Conservative 08:11, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

Cultural Christian

This is nothing new for Richard Dawkins - he's said the same thing for years. I think it means he enjoys the "spirit" (as opposed to the true meaning) of Christmas, for example. RyanFT 08:50, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

I hear very few people talk about "atheist culture". In all too many cases, atheists are arrogant and low class people and that is why atheist websites are often laced with profanity. See: Atheism and morality and Indian Christian culture is better than low class atheist "culture" Also, The Barna Group found that atheists and agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.[43]
The data certainly supports the fact that "atheist culture" is dysfunctional and evil. See also: Atheism and mass murder and Atheism and uncharitableness Conservative 09:12, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

Back on topic. Here's the quote: "I guess I'm a cultural Christian," Dawkins said, adding more specifically that he would be a cultural Anglican, similar to some people calling themselves "cultural Jews." "But to tie that to belief about the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the nature of life, etcetera, is clearly ridiculous." Onestone 09:48, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

The point remains. Christian culture is superior to "atheist culture". Atheism has a poisonous culture and is low class. Conservative 09:59, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

This is all redundant anyway because he explained all this at some length in 2007's "The God Delusion". Strangely enough, this WAS covered in the MSM when it came it out. Generally, it helps to understand what atheists are actually saying. Putting words in their mouths convinces nobody and makes us look silly. Rafael 10:10, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

In February of 2010, the news organization The Telegraph reported Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."[44] We know what kind of influence Darwinism/atheism/agnosticism has on the culture and it is not good.[45] If he hadn't been exposed to Christian culture Dawkins would be the worse for it. A study was done showing that not only are Christians more charitable, but atheists exposed to Christianity to a greater degree are more charitable than atheists with less contact with Christianity.[46] Conservative 10:48, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
We know many things: "Atheists More Motivated by Compassion than the Faithful" [47]. Onestone 12:28, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
I don't think the term "atheist culture" can really be used as a contrast to "Christian culture" or the more precise "Anglican culture". Culture takes generations to form and evolve and there is no society around today that been predominantly atheist for anything like that long. Even if there had been, it might not produce a recognizably atheist culture, since atheism is by definitely an absence of belief, and so other dimensions of opinion, such as politics, might predominate to be the major influence on culture in such a society. --DHouser 15:43, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
If culture takes generations to form then atheists are bad at creating even bad cultures since the atheist population has a sub-replacement level of birth. See: Decline of atheism. Also, your definition of atheism is poor. See: Atheism. Conservative 08:25, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
That assumes that atheism is transmitted chiefly through inheritance, which is evidently untrue give its minuscule levels a few centuries ago. Even so, I think we both agree that atheism is bad a generating culture - hence "atheist culture" is not a useful term. --DHouser 14:43, 14 March 2013 (EDT)

New Pope

Identity of the new Pope is reported to be Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina, who will take the name Pope Francis I New York Times article--DTSavage 16:10, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

waiting on Conservapedia to claim being "proven right once again" even though they have been touting the liberal's worst nightmare, Arinze, for a while now. (although I'm not sure why any atheistic liberal would actually care who is chosen as would just be nice to see the Catholic Church actually be held accountable for the pedophiles they have been protecting). WillyMay 17:28, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

Steubenville rape case

Could anyone help on this article? I don't know enough about it. Steubenville rape case

Also, this probably deserves a spot on mpr. brenden 20:34, 17 March 2013 (EDT)

evolution PhD employment rate

This statement is not supported by the blog post (by an anonymous author) or either of the two sources linked. The graph in the first source simply reveals that more than 2/3 of Life Sciences Ph.D.'s go on to either a job or postdoctoral study, the latter of which is, to my understanding, fairly common (according to the second source, the majority of Ph.D.s in biological sciences plan to do post-doctorate work). In the second source, it is actually revealed that only 10% of biological sciences Ph.D.s are either working part time or not in the labor force. This shoddy misreading of statistics has no place as a featured story on our main page. I would again like to see some guidelines established to ensure that stories like these do not compromise our integrity/image. GregG 10:35, 18 March 2013 (EDT)

EDIT: The false statistical conclusion drawn by the anonymous blogger is akin to seeing statistics that most M.D.s go to residency rather than directly to a job and concluding that the employment rate of M.D.s is very low. GregG 10:40, 18 March 2013 (EDT)

ANOTHER EDIT: I will ignore ALL off-topic replies, including any reference to Ken Miller or the 15 questions for evolutionists, and I will treat such off-topic replies as an admission to the validity of my arguments. GregG 10:42, 18 March 2013 (EDT)

GregG, you are either being obstinate or you are a poor reader. The field offers dismal job opportunities. I cite: "Summary: Employment opportunities are relatively bleak for newly trained in biological sciences".[48] GregG, what part of bleak don't you understand? Second, how is Kenneth Miller and you doing on those 15 questions for evolutionists? Any news yet? Lastly, I thought you were terribly busy and could not look at the 15 questions adequately. But you seem to have a lot of time to make unreasonable complaints. Why is that? Conservative 13:26, 18 March 2013 (EDT)

GregG, the anonymous bloggers seems to have a better vocabulary than you. He/she seems to have a better grasp of words like bleak. The anonymous blogger is fond of the word "doomed" as well. :) It must be depressing to hold to the Darwinian worldview which has spawned so much misery even among its adherents (many of whom have bleak futures in their field!). Conservative 13:54, 18 March 2013 (EDT)

Paula Stephan is Professor of Economics at Georgia State University. I find it unlikely that she'd agree with your analysis of her presentation. Her email is pstephan AT gsu DOT edu if anyone would like to enquire... JohanZ 17:50, 18 March 2013 (EDT)

Graduate students are often good, bright people, but the PhD system has developed some severe defects at many universities. For example, an astoundingly large percentage of doctoral students are never awarded a PhD despite earning one.--Andy Schlafly 20:58, 18 March 2013 (EDT)

How do you mean? Are the universities refusing to give them their doctorates after they've defended their dissertations, or what? What percentage, exactly? JesseQ 21:21, 18 March 2013 (EDT)
Barely 50% of doctoral candidates are awarded the PhD for which they worked so hard. Can you imagine a company paying only 50% of its workers at the end of 4 years?--Andy Schlafly 21:39, 18 March 2013 (EDT)
But did those 50 % actually finish all the requirements -- including producing and defending an original work of scholarship that is a substantial contribution to the field? If you don't do that, you have not worked hard enough to get a Ph.D. JesseQ 21:48, 18 March 2013 (EDT)

Nevermind that it's people with graduate-level training in the life sciences who cure diseases and increase crop yields and such, their work is completely worthless...--JHunter 00:24, 19 March 2013 (EDT)

JHunter, two things: 1) Darwinism impedes science so there are definitely too many evolutionary biologists. 2) I don't have the power to cancel the law of supply and demand in labor economics. There is a glut of life science majors compared to the current demand, hence unemployed biology PhDs. My suggestion to spur the demand for biologists is to increase the creativity/innovation of biologists though evolutionists becoming creation scientists. Please see THIS ARTICLE. Conservative 16:50, 19 March 2013 (EDT)
As a scientist, I can confidently tell you that the theory of evolution does not impede biomedical research. In fact, it is quite useful in answering several molecular biological and human genetics questions. I have already attempted to argue with you on this point, but you couldn't stay on topic so I doubt that arguing with you here would be at all productive.
The thing is, you misrepresented your sources in this particular instance. And the biggest reason that people with advanced degrees in the life sciences are having trouble finding employment is that voices from the right have effectively limited federal funding of biomedical research (and, yes, the federal government is the primary financier of basic science research in this country--discoveries made with federal funds are in the public domain and contribute hugely to innovation and private enterprise).
If you wish to persist in your delusional assertion that the theory of evolution is detrimental to life science research, please present evidence corroborating you claim.--JHunter 02:30, 20 March 2013 (EDT)

JHunter, I would suggest asking your fellow Darwinists to stop jabbering about your evolutionary gibberish. It is most unattractive to reasonable conservative businessmen in the private sector. And if more private sector money was available to the life sciences, you and your fellow evolutionists wouldn't be pleading as much to suck the government fiscal teat. Just have your evolutionist religion be a private matter. Conservative 04:13, 20 March 2013 (EDT)

Ah, yes... the invisible creationist hand of the market. JohanZ 17:05, 20 March 2013 (EDT)

"Or are you A dull evolutionist/atheistS

You really ought to check your singular/plural agreement before insulting other people's intelligence, champ. --DGalore 14:19, 19 March 2013 (EDT)

I have never seen a study showing that high typing test scores are correlated with high intelligence!
By the way, have you seen THIS and THIS and THIS and THIS?
Atheists are the ones who are outfoxed: "My dear brethren, do not ever forget, when you hear the progress of lights praised, that the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he does not exist!" - Charles Baudelaire Conservative 15:37, 19 March 2013 (EDT)
I really like the evolutionist/atheist mental fitness tests. I am going to tell JP Holding about them. Robertturkel 17:02, 19 March 2013 (EDT)

Bon appétit

There's a headline on the mainpage which reads: "Give it up, liberals: Montana plans to repeal "nanny state" ban on salvaging roadkill for food." I must admit that this headline confused me a bit. First I wasn't aware that eating roadkill fell anywhere on the liberal/conservative political spectrum. Secondly, I'm not sure what liberals specifically need to be giving it up. After all, those moonbats at PETA have been trying to promote the eating of roadkill for over a decade now. --DonnyC 23:34, 21 March 2013 (EDT)

The ban on converting roadkill to food illustrates the nanny state - which certainly is liberal.--Andy Schlafly 23:52, 21 March 2013 (EDT)
Andy; would you eat roadkill? And, if not, why not? AlanE 00:23, 22 March 2013 (EDT)
OK, Mr. Schlafly. Since you seem to be well-versed on all things political, maybe you can help me with something. How come things like Bloomberg's "Big Gulp Ban" are considered an example of the nanny state, but religiously-motivated "blue laws" aren't? --DonnyC 00:27, 22 March 2013 (EDT)
I might humbly suggest that it's because conservatives don't believe in subjective morality and Christianity is objectively the best morality. Also forcing people to do the right thing is better than letting them do the wrong thing, but I see your point. JasonBullman 01:36, 22 March 2013 (EDT)

"A Tea Party activists contrasts"

There's a singular-plural agreement issue with this headline on MPR. GregG 11:42, 23 March 2013 (EDT)

Reddit Challenge

It seems the anonymous blogger has given no information or proof that the atheists on Reddit it have been challenged. How are we to believe what she says when she doesn't give any proof of what he has done ? Such is the vagueness of the blog post (if I can call it that. I've seen longer twitter messages !) I don't really think it belongs as news on the mainpage. Of course the mainstream media are not going to cover that story because it isn't a story it is essentially not even news as there isn't anything to verify it. Dvergne 07:02, 24 March 2013 (EDT)

Sorry you feel this way. I suggest contacting Reddit atheists if this is a big concern for you. Conservative 08:32, 24 March 2013 (EDT)
Dvergne, I've noticed that the author of this blog is prone to issuing challenges and dropping gauntlets. Atheists on Reddit have been challenged. The gentlemen at an unnamed website have been challenged. And every single soul foolish enough to leave a critical comment on this blog have also been offered a debate challenge. When not issueing challenges to debate Shockofgod, the blog typically features recycled CMI content, or news of the latest plan that will never come to pass. Regardless, all of the events of that blog (from the mundane to the miraculous) will be covered breathlessly here on Conservapedia. --DonnyC 14:47, 24 March 2013 (EDT)
DonnyC, 2012 was the WORST year in the history of atheism/Darwinism just like that blog predicted.[49][50] It also predicted the USA public school system starting to crumble and that now is happening, just like that blog predicted.[51] The blog had made a number of predictions and announcements that come true and that is why you are so upset! By the way, 2013 is already starting to be a BAD year for Darwinism. [52] I hope that clarifies things. Conservative 17:03, 24 March 2013 (EDT)
Interesting. Of all the assertions I made in my original comment, you chose to address the accuracy of that blog's prognostication abilities, a topic which I did not even mention. Stranger still, you accuse me of being upset because said predictions allegedly came true. If anyone should be upset about the content of that blog, I think it should be you. After all, it appears that they are simply doing a cut-n-paste of all of your best material from here on CP. But I guess there's not much legal recourse for you, since the blogger appears to be as skilled as you are at concealing their true identity. --DonnyC 17:40, 24 March 2013 (EDT)

DonnyC, you certainly have a knack for making accusations without backing them up. For example, you just said, "it appears that they are simply doing a cut-n-paste of all of your best material from here on CP". I will cut this discussion short as I have bigger fish to fry in my life than your petty bellyaching. Conservative 18:16, 24 March 2013 (EDT)

Perhaps our more savvy readers will appreciate the irony of Conservative's statement given that he/she/it/they/I said "You [GregG] keep saying you are too busy to really to examine the 15 questions sufficiently, but you seem to have time to post on this talk page and read the blog? Something is definitely amiss!" as well as "Lastly, I thought you were terribly busy and could not look at the 15 questions adequately. But you seem a lot of time to waste making unreasonable complaints. Why is that?" GregG 18:35, 24 March 2013 (EDT)
No problem Cons. Thankfully the internet has a built-in "pause" button. So when you're done frying your fish, I'll be here waiting. Oh, and while you're enjoying your fish dinner, here's another accusation to think about: Even though Conservapedia graciously provides heavy rotation for the QE fansite blog on it's mainpage, a search of the same blog did not reveal one measly mention of Conservapedia! Talk about ungrateful! --DonnyC 18:47, 24 March 2013 (EDT)
Nice of you to not answer my original question conservative. You seem to be quite close the the anonymous blogger, have you passed on my complaint to him ? There is no point in saying or reporting something without having some proof to back it up. I thought you of all people would have known that given your endless talk about evolution and how there is no proof Dvergne 19:28, 24 March 2013 (EDT)
I should add that "15 questions for evolutionists" from the blog seems to be a huge fan of Conservapedia; when I pointed out a spelling error in a blog post, it was fixed on the blog within minutes. That's dedication. GregG 19:51, 24 March 2013 (EDT)

GregG, first of all, you have no real proof of your claim. I looked at the time of your Conservapedia edit according to Conservapedia. Second, you are being hypocritical. As an evolutionist, if such an event occurred, you should say it probably was just a matter of unlikely occurrences just happening. No apparent cause. It was just an appearance of design. Some lightening storm struck a computer server several times. By the way, how are you and Kenneth Miller doing on those 15 questions for evolutionists. Has he responded to your email yet. Did you call him? Leave a message for his office? Did he call you back?

Also, has the new Pope started the process of "cleaning house" yet? A whole lot of corruption there for him to help sweep out if he was serious. But maybe he is part of the problem. Oh, I forgot. It is just a coincidence he has not started the process of sweeping house. But then again, maybe the guys who elected him knew he would not be the type of person to help sweep the house of corruption. Do you think He is going to suggest closing down the Vatican Bank? Not! Feel free to start your "these things take time" rhetoric. Conservative 02:18, 25 March 2013 (EDT)

First, I recall the events well. Second, the post was made at 21:09 EST, and WebCite captured the revised version of the blog post at 21:18 EST. Third, your statement "[a]s an evolutionist, if such an event occurred, you should say it probably was just a matter of unlikely occurrences just happening" is a straw man and you know it. I'm pretty sure that I have enough knowledge of human behavior and website design to know how humans operate and how to use data recorded in online logs. Finally, with regards to Our Holy Father, I appreciate your interest in his activities. I had a conversation about a week ago at a church dinner the Knights of Columbus organize during Lent about Pope Francis, and one man I talked to said that he found the media accounts troubling, treating a new Pope like a new political leader who changes executive policies, rather than as the successor to Peter to guide the church Christ founded. I can say that everyone I've talked to at my parish is excited about Pope Francis. GregG 08:01, 25 March 2013 (EDT)
GregG, again you have no real proof if the wild, weird and implausible world of Darwinism is your benchmark. The so called "chemical evolution" of life (Origin of life) is far, far, far, far, far more improbable than the event at a blog you are describing and so is the so called evolution of the various kinds of animals/plants without leaving the expected millions of transitional fossils.[53]. Again, you are being hypocritical.
Second, you referred to the current Roman Catholic Church pope as "Our Holy Father". He certainly isn't my father nor is he the father of anyone else. Jesus said, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9). See: Calling a spiritual leader father is unbiblical. I hope that clears things up for you. Conservative 09:38, 25 March 2013 (EDT)

All very interesting, but nobody has addressed the original post yet: "It seems the anonymous blogger has given no information or proof that the atheists on Reddit it have been challenged. How are we to believe what she says when she doesn't give any proof of what he has done ? Such is the vagueness of the blog post (if I can call it that. I've seen longer twitter messages !) I don't really think it belongs as news on the mainpage. Of course the mainstream media are not going to cover that story because it isn't a story it is essentially not even news as there isn't anything to verify it. Dvergne 07:02, 24 March 2013 (EDT)". Anyone care to comment or are we stuck with the same old embarrassing "no, you're a poopie head" defence that is allegedly destroying atheism (in an alternative universe perhaps)? Rafael 09:52, 25 March 2013 (EDT)

The anonymous blogger doesn't answer questions - or debate challenges. Given the blogger's unresponsiveness and cowardice I'm surprised that User:Conservative promotes him so heavily. After all criticizing evolutionists for not debating while running away from repeated challenges yourself isn't very Christian, is it?--LuciaB 11:09, 1 April 2013 (EDT)
I would have to sort of agree with that statement. Alot of this debating nonsense seems to be more hot air than actual substance. If it keeps up, global warming may actually occur and Al Gore will be right. Dvergne 11:23, 1 April 2013 (EDT)