Talk:Main Page/Archive index/127

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Trustworthy? Unbiased?[edit]

This wiki was created because wikipedia was "biased", that's probably right. However, instead, you created a wiki that no matter how close it is to the "truth" it's definitely biased and you should know it.

For example, god, here's the viewpoint of conservapedia:

"God is the sovereign creator and eternal ruler of all things and beings that exist, whether in the physical universe or in the spiritual realm"

Now here's an example of the same from a fictional liberal wiki:

"God is an invention created by man. Many people believe that there's a supreme being that has created the world and that rules it, this belief has been disproven by science repeatedly"

What's biased? If you're conservative then the second, if you're liberal then the first. The truth is that they're both extremely biased. Now here's an example of the same from wikipedia:

"God is often conceived as the supreme being and principal object of faith. In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. In deism, God is the creator (but not the sustainer) of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself"

No bias here, if you're conservative then it's alright because it doesn't say anything wrong, if you're liberal then it's fine because it's perfectly right.

So, please, even though I know I'm only wasting my time here, please stop this nonsense of telling the world that you're unbiased. I don't have any problem with a wiki for conservatives, but please don't say that it is unbiased because it isn't, period.

Thanks for your attention.Miguelinileugim

Thank you for your comment. But Wikipedia's description is biased in implying that God is merely "conceived" and merely an "object of faith." God is as logical as 2+2=4. Would anyone objective say that "2+2" is merely "conceived" as being equal to "4"???--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 27 July 2013 (EDT)

A News Story Worth Looking At[edit]

Student to be denied opportunity to walk at her High School graduation because the school doesn't want her to wear cord and medallion earned through National Society of High School Scholars.

Proposal for a Main Page Committee[edit]

Keeping track of current events and CP content worth featuring is a very demanding and time-consuming task. All volunteers burn out eventually, so it is best if such duties are rotated on a regular basis. I propose that we form a three-person Main Page Committee that would be responsible for updating all of the main page (both left and right) columns. Each member of the Committee would serve a 9-month term and would have to take at least 6 months off before being eligible to serve again. Initial members would be appointed for terms of 3 months, 6 months and 9 months, so that every three months, one person would rotate off the Committee. If there is a disagreement about Main Page content, the three would vote and a majority would decide. Andy could appoint the Committee from among those who volunteer. In this way, Committee members would give their best efforts every day because they would know that they have only 9 months on the job. More people would have an opportunity to edit the Main Page, so there would be less reason to sit on the side lines and snipe at the Committee's work. Please comment on this proposal. Thanks, Wschact 09:33, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

As things stand, only administrators can edit content on the main page. The only admins that regularly add content are Andy, Conservative, and TerryH. Also toss in the occasional contribution from Karajou and Joaquin Martinez. A quick review of user stats reveals that there hasn't been a new admin promoted in over 4 years. So who exactly is supposed to be rotated on and off of this news committee? Logistics aside, what is the ultimate goal of this committee? If it's to change the editorial tone and content of news items, I'm all for it. I just don't see that as a remote possibility. --DonnyC 20:10, 1 May 2013 (EDT)
Whatever the mechanism, any improvement in the main page would be welcome. This project started with high aspirations, and I would welcome a return to those aspirations reflected in more care attention being paid to the quality of material presented to newcomers who are curious about the site. Most days it seems to have set itself up to compete with some of the more unhinged conspiracy websites, rather than to attract contributors capable of building one of the most authoritative reference guides in the world. --TonySidaway 01:17, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
I set up a debate page to (hopefully) get everyone's opinion, pro and con, on what should be done with the Main Page in general and MPR specifically: Debate:Should there be a separate section on the main page for blogs, advertisements and other non-news items?. I'm sincerely hoping that getting all of the arguments for and against down in one place will allow Aschlafly and the other senior members to voice their opinions along side the rest of us. This will allow everyone too compare all of the facts and opinions without having to jump all around the site. Fnarrow 02:11, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Atheism and corruption[edit]

I think the author of the recent question evolution blog post linking corruption and atheism hasn't looked at the full picture. Three of the top four least corrupt countries are also listed among the most atheist countries, and these countries are all considered more atheistic than North Korea. Further to this, most of the countries considered highly corrupt are also highly religious. I think what this blogger has failed to realise is that they have succeeded only in identifying the one corrupt outlier among atheist nations. WilcoxD 22:54, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

Atheists/agnostics are terrible when it comes to historical ignorance and historical revisionism. See: Soviet Union and morality and Atheism and mass murder and Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism and Atheism and uncharitableness and Militant atheism and Atheism and morality and Atheism and bestiality and Bestiality and Sweden and Atheism and deception and Sexual immorality and Sweden.
I hope that clarifies things. Conservative 23:44, 1 May 2013 (EDT)
No Cons. It didn't. At least not on the subject being discussed. AlanE 23:57, 1 May 2013 (EDT)
I would read all those but they are too wordy. Also, you have failed to show that the person who wrote the QE fan blog did not engage in data cherry picking while attempting to make their point. WilcoxD, with tongue in cheek (olé) 00:34, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
I will make things more concise for you. The best mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to atheism is approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987 (this does not include pro-abort advocacy).[1] See: Abortion and atheism. Conservative 01:17, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
... but we're talking about government corruption WilcoxD 01:32, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
....and government corruption would perhaps include the established churches that have not been exactly innocent in the mass murder of many over the years. AlanE 01:58, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
AlanE, I notice you failed to put up mass murder statistics relating to Christendom that even remotely compares to the atheism and mass murder figures I cited. Don't think I didn't notice. I did. Conservative 02:11, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
Wilcox, you don't think that governments that engage in mass murder and promote (or fail to keep in check) other moral rot are invariably corrupt as well? If not, why not? Conservative 02:11, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
Cons, there are not a lot of definite statistics concerning the Albigensian crusade, the pre-Soviet pogroms, the massacre at Acre, the St Bartholomew Day massacre, the thousands of burnings at the stake enacted over the years (let's not just kill the non-believers - let's make it as painful as possible - a good Christian thing to do) and so on and so on. Check out the drop in Europe's population from the Thirty Years War in the early 17th century. It goes on forever. Yes Cons. I know so many died in the 20th century, but are you telling me the same would not have happened in previous centuries if the technology had allowed it? Look at history from both sides of the fence, Cons. AlanE 02:45, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
AlanE, what technology did Stalin and Mao use that was so revolutionary in terms of killing their own people? We have the same technology, why isn't it being used now on the same scale? Was there a significant decline of atheism in the world in terms of the percentage of people who are atheists? See: Decline of atheism. Also, evolutionists killed a lot of people through incompetence too! See: Trofim Denisovich Lysenko and Great Chinese famine. Also, see this article. Conservative 05:45, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
I'd have to agree with AlanE there mate. He is entirely correct on this matter. Dvergne 05:47, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
Also when are you going to un-protect April Fools Day so I can reformat and fix the article as it seems someone has reverted it too its previous dreadful state before you protected it. Dvergne 05:51, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
9 out of 10 of the least corrupt countries in the world have a cultural legacy of Protestantism.[2] Just as I suspected! Please read what Malcolm Gladwell says about cultural legacies in his book Outliers. [3] I hope that clarifies things for you all! :) Conservative 01:55, 20 July 2013 (EDT)

Darwinism and meteorology don't mix well?[edit]

Darwinism and meteorology don't mix well? [4] Conservative 05:33, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Ouch, pretty dramatic drop off in readership of your blog over the past few weeks, maybe you should start promoting it more on twitter, facebook, google+, myspace, soundcloud, vine, foursquare, youtube, vimeo, pinterest, path, badoo, bebo, cyworld, formspring, reddit, 4chan, Hi5, instagram, Mobli, Renren, Yammer, Linkedin, Researchgate, wordpress, geocities, Ning, Tumblr and Tea Party community. Successful marketing and promotion through these mediums will almost certainly send your readership through the roof. If it was really effective you may even end up rivaling the pageviews that this great site gets. Dvergne 05:45, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
Who said it was my/our blog? I/we certainly did not. Since you are obviously the web traffic expert at Conservapedia, I was wondering how much traffic have you generated to Conservapedia via your content/links/PR? Is it possible the blog author(s) are engaged in activity that you can not readily discern, but will have a long term impact? "...when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near." - Sun Tzu. "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." - Sun Tzu. "The quality of decision is like the well-timed swoop of a falcon which enables it to strike and destroy its victim." - Sun Tzu. 微乎微乎 至于无形 神乎神乎 至于无声 故能为敌之司命 - Sun Tzu. Conservative 14:07, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

I had trouble getting past the first sentence:Great tasting news blog posts....Less analysis and commentary filling! What a terrible opener. I can now see why the author of that blog chooses to remain anonymous. --DonnyC 14:30, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Who is DonnyC? Conservative 15:04, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
Who am I? Someone who's not afraid to walk into the lion's den and maul some lions. --DonnyC 18:05, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Michael Weinstein[edit]

Is Jewish. He is also a registered Republican and worked for three years in the Reagan administration (you know, Ronald Reagan, the conservative icon). He started the Military Religious Freedom Foundation because while at the United States Air Force Academy his sons were accused of killing Jesus, and were told they would burn in hell by senior cadets.--CamilleT 17:52, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Some help please[edit]

I have added a section reguarding the 2011 referendum to: but I have made a mistake in referencing and don't know how to fix it. I would appreciate it if one of you good folks could fix it for me. Many thanks--Patmac 21:43, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Fixed. --DonnyC 22:01, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
Thanks mate. --Patmac 22:04, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Request for a news article[edit] There is a potential big change in British politics. Although you can't rule out the usual mid-term protest vote, there is a real chance UKIP could usurp the Lib Dems as the third party in the next general election. And they are taking votes from all the major parties. It seems that the voters are seeing the EU, or at least British membership of, for what it really is, a mistake.--Patmac 10:11, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Ok don't bother then, I guess real news has no place here--Patmac 08:20, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

CNS on repeal of death penalty in Maryland[edit]

A very interesting read. GregG 14:20, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer"[edit]

I don't know why this quote is on the main page; Dr. Scott Todd was clearly making a hypothetical statement about data pointing to an intelligent designer (meaning that he does not concede that it's true) and how the conclusion that there was an intelligent designer is outside the realm of science. Again, this reflects badly on our project, so I will request its removal from the main page. Thanks, GregG 09:11, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

GregG, where is it written that science must exclusively use naturalistic explanations and be illogical? See: Rules of the game. That sounds like atheism to me! Why should scientists allow the religion of atheism to warp their view of reality? Last time I checked the scientific method was originated by a theist and not an atheist. Many miracles never occur in Christendom because of individuals who lack faith and whose worldview is too naturalistic.
Second, history is a social science. Using your false view of science. the resurrection of Jesus could never be considered by historians as ever happening. Archaeologist never could consider the possibility that Walls of Jericho fell down by supernatural means.
Next Christians having an overly naturalistic worldview is unbiblical. Jesus said: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father." (John 14:12). The Apostle Paul wrote: "For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:2). The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy: "But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Timothy 3:1-5).
Next, your objection to the use of this quote reflects badly on you and not on me or this project.
By the way, has Kenneth Miller gotten back to you concerning the 15 questions for evolutionists? You still haven't gotten back to me on this matter. Conservative 14:29, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, I don't know if Dr. Scott Todd is an Atheist or not, so that is not the point I'm going to make here. However, when you say "Sounds like Atheism to me" in reaction to his statement that "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic", you're mistaking the intellectual process of Agnosticism as originally defined by Huxley for the refusal to accept God no matter what. As neither the existence of God as an entity or a person's belief in it, can be physically tested, it therefore cannot be admitted into the scientific process. You have also made this mistake when calling me an Atheist in the past, I very much believe in God, I simply consider myself an "Agnostic Christian" as his existence has not and cannot be proven through the scientific method. Science and Religion should not be forced to confront one another, (an unfortunate activity which both sides tend to partake in...) but rather should be used to support and reinforce one another. Fnarrow 14:47, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
Every reputable science text and class since the late eighteenth century says, explicitly or implicitly, that science must exclusively use naturalistic explanations. Any theory that uses non-naturalistic or supernatural explanations is not science. This is nub of the whole science v religion, reason v faith dichotomy. Rafael 14:47, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
Rafael, the argument that "every reputable science text and class since the late eighteenth century says" is not a compelling argument. It is not even true. There are certainly Christian schools who don't take this view and their academic performances often exceed the public schools who hold to a naturalistic worldview. Second, even if your claim were true, it is a blatent appeal to authority and illogical. Conservative 14:53, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

Fnarrow, the term "agnostic Christian" is an oxymoron. You are merely double-minded and Scripture warns about being double-minded. James wrote: "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." (James 1:8). Conservative 15:11, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

Perhaps you should stick to the fifteen questions because you are way, way off the mark on the philosophy of science. Science insists on naturalism because it is an empirical method - the antithesis of a blatant appeal to authority. Note that word: method - not a body of knowledge, not a popularity contest but a process.
Yes, Christian schools often do very well academically - I went to one myself - but literature, philosophy, art, languages, history, economics and any number of other disciplines - including arguably psychology and some branches of psychiatry - don't require a naturalistic world view. Social sciences are not science; although they use some of the techniques science uses, the scientific method does not fit them properly.
The priests and brothers who ran my school were very clear on the difference between the world of the flesh, the concrete world, the world of reason, and the Kingdom of God, the realm of values, faith and the metaphysical.
Please, please, don't embarrass yourself further - you are trying to compare apples and bricks. Both are necessary, but a house built of apples is as pointless as a brick sandwich. Rafael 16:57, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
By the way, churches which have embrace Darwinism and a more naturalistic worldview, not only do not often experience miracles, but they are often shrinking. And this is happening particularly in the Western World. These churches are often dead churches which deny the power of God. Christian groups which embrace the supernatural and in regions where a naturalistic worldview is less prevalent among Christians, there is a big growth in the number of adherents of Christianity. For example, in Germany, creationist churches are growing while Darwinist churches are shrinking. In addition, pentecostal/charasmatic churches are growing quickly in both the Western World and globally as well.[5]
In addition, not only are biblical creation and biblical creation growing in adherents, but they are both true as can be seen HERE.

Conservative 15:30, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

Conservative, are you perhaps confused by the distinction between Philosophical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalim? It is difficult to test for , or take into account, the existence of God in any way that holds scientific rigor. This does not mean that God does not exist; it merely means that God is ineffable to scientists.--DTSavage 15:39, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

DTSavage, I am not confused. It is you who are confused. Why don't you show me an ardent advocate of methodological naturalism or group of people who have done this who are known to have the miraculous in their lives. It is the impotent, foolish, sickly, and dying so-called Christian groups who are advocating methodological naturalism while the vibrant and intellectually honest Christians are opposing this ideology. Again, not only are biblical creationists/Christians growing in adherents, but they are advocating a true worldview as can be seen HERE. The lack of intellectual honesty among ardent evolutionists is not surprising given that a university study showed a morals decline among adherents of Darwinism.[6] The university study showed that evolutionists are more likely to be whores and whoremongers than creationists. Conservative 16:51, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, I am currently doing my best to do scientific research, at least in the field of ecology (which is not identical to evolution), which is what I am studying. How would you suggest I go about including God in my research in a way that is scientifically rigorous?--DTSavage 19:26, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
DTSavage, I don't believe you are sincere in your question. Why don't you demonstrate your sincerity by having you and another Darwinist debate Shockofgod and VivaYehshua on the 15 questions for evolutionists. Unless of course, you are too afraid to do so! Conservative 19:44, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, I will happily discuss (I don't believe it needs to be a debate) whether or not God is a factor that can, or should, be included in scientific research. I don't believe that the 15 questions for evolutionists are relevant to the current discussion.--DTSavage 19:58, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

Rafael, re: the European priests/brothers: What is European Roman Catholicism know for? A shrinking body of adherents and pediphilia scandals. As you know, I am a Protestant, but even I will admit that charasmatic Catholicism is growing. They hold less to the anti-supernaturalism that infects so many European Roman Catholics. I am betting that they are more supportive of motherhood (less selfish, etc.) and lose less of their adherents to atheism/agnosticism (atheism is a weak ideology that tends to lose more of their adherents[7]). Again, as far as Protestant Christianity, not only are biblical creationists/Christians growing in adherents, but they are advocating a true worldview as can be seen HERE.

Darwinism is know for uncharitableness (Social Darwinism), evolutionary racism, sexual immorality and it underpins the murderous regimes of Communism and Nazism. See: Social effects of the theory of evolution. And again, the lack of intellectual honesty among ardent evolutionists is not surprising given that a university study showed a morals decline among adherents of Darwinism.[8]The university study showed that evolutionists are more likely to be whores and whoremongers than creationists. Conservative 18:01, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

As usual, you fail to engage with question at hand and instead run around like a terrier in a field full of rabbits, wagging your tail with glee while not catching anything. Stick to the fifteen questions and name calling and stuff that doesn't require any rigour. Rafael 14:10, 6 May 2013 (EDT)


Please read this:

This is the charitableness of a mostly "Darwinist" nation. Converted to USD that is about $1.50 given per person. Have you any reference to a "Creationist" country giving more? And your link to Whores and Warmongers, despite being offensive, I would like you to think of which side of the political spectrum supports war more, you don't see many conservative anti war protestors, they are overwhelmingly liberal. And please don't accuse me of being anti-war, I am not, In fact I have been there and got the T Shirt to prove it. I am in support of the Afghan war in particular, and not for any ideological reasons. If the Taliban win control in Afghanistan there is a good chance they will gain control in Pakistan, who have the bomb, drop one on Delhi and we will have a bloody mess like the world has not seen since WW2. --Patmac 18:21, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

Patmac and other liberals: Please don't waste my time with anecdotal evidence. Give me evidence that holds up to more Ceteris paribus like conditions. And we know that American religious conservatives give more to charity per capita than American liberal evolutionists. See: Liberals and uncharitableness and Atheism and uncharitableness (We know that liberals are more likely to be Darwinists. See: Evolution and liberalism). Furthermore, we know that liberal religionists and atheists/evolutionists tend to be more superstitious than religious conservatives. See: Irreligion and superstition. Why are liberals/Darwinists/atheists/agnostics such big tightwads and so prone to believing bunkum?Conservative 19:24, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

Since this discussion of the role of methodological naturalism and the philosophy of science has been effectively derailed, I would like to interject with a question for User:Conservative: Can you provide an example of something miraculous that has occurred in your own personal life? --DonnyC 19:44, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

DonnyC, I have had several supernatural events occur in my life. And no signs or accounts of the supernatural will be given to Darwinists until you agree to the debate Shockofgod and VivaYehshua in an oral creation vs. evolution debate on the 15 questions for evolutionists which will be distributed to tens of thousands of people! Show me your sincerity and that you are not merely a stubborn lot of liars and insincere posers! Conservative 19:51, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, I can understand your reluctance to share your supernatural experiences. Whatever those experiences were, I am sure you reached the conclusion that they were supernatural/miraculous because you were unable to find a naturalistic explanation for the event. As I am sure you don't regularly attribute mundane events like finding your freezer stocked with your favorite flavor of Hot Pockets to supernatural causes. That is all science is, it is the attempt to exhaust all naturalistic explanations for an observed phenomenon. And factoring in the supernatural from the beginning, completely defeats the purpose of doing science. --DonnyC 20:18, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

Attention Darwinists: I am afraid you have been so thoroughly put to shame in this debate/discussion that I am just going to have to declare victory at this point and attend to more important matters. Feel free to engage in last wordism though. :) Conservative 20:10, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

Is this the same shockofgod who was banned from you tube for phishing? Stealing others log on details? Does not sound like someone who can be trusted to me. Oh, you may declare victory but I for one, do not admit defeat--Patmac 20:13, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

First of all, history is NOT a science. Secondly, I may be wrong in what is the intent of the statement here, but naturalistic ideas are a necessity in science because science requires theories and hypotheses to be testable. Religion fundamentally asks that we take the belief in God on faith, and that it is not something that can be tested but must be based on trust. That is why religion is not and never can be science. SJCootware 20:15, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

Conservative, what gives you the right to judge the sincerity of my belief in God? I am not of two minds, I am of one mind and that mind is both clear and stable. Due to this, I am able to separate Religion (which studies and explains the SUPERnatural) from Science (which studies and explains the NATURAL). These are two entirely separate systems and therefore cannot possibly contradict one another in the mind of someone who is being honest with themselves and with others.
Also, I'm increasingly concerned with your misunderstanding of the definition of "Agnosticism" for it is not a religion but merely a logical process in which one studies the physical evidence available with no regard for preconceived notions or beliefs and thereby allows himself (or herself) to discover the truth of anything with is knowable through scientific discovery. Therefore, there is contradiction in considering myself an "Agnostic Christian" as it simply means that I believe God lies beyond the detection of science (Supernatural and therefore a subject of religious study) and cannot be proven nor disproven through any physical means; this is the "Agnostic" part of the label. The "Christian" part of the label is defined through the fact that I know in my heart/mind/soul/whatever you want to call it that God exists.
I will close by saying that I find it not only personally insulting, but insulting to Christians everywhere when you start labeling those who disagree with you as being a "Darwinist", "Atheist" or other title while knowing nothing about what truth God has placed in their heart. When you use these label people with these names and then proceed to state that "evolutionists are more likely to be whores/whoremongers" you are indirectly suggesting that the users of this site whom you are attacking are themselves likely to be "whores/whoremongers." I don't know what particular branch of Christianity you identify yourself with, but I've never personally experienced one which would encourage their followers to make blind accusations like that. I know I have no power here, but I have to say that I would much appreciate it if you could from this point forward debate the topic at hand instead of making personal attacks on the other members here. Thanks, Fnarrow 23:17, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
Leave him alone mate, he is right here, it seems you are too afraid to debate the 15 questions of evolution. You are narrowminded Fnarrow.Snarrow 08:09, 6 May 2013 (EDT)


Maybe it is against my better judgement, but I am responding to your post. How is naturalism/atheism or methodological naturalism testable? Do you possess some crystal ball showing that the miraculous does not happen in the course of past events? Did the apostles of Christ, who claimed to be eyewitnesses, die for a lie and the resurrection of Jesus Christ never occurred despite the excellent evidence for it? If so, what is your alternative naturalistic explanation for the apostles' behavior and why is it better than the Christian explanation for Christianity? What proof and evidence do you have that naturalism is correct? What scientific proof do you have the methodological naturalism is a correct procedure and that it trumps logic and evidence?[9]

Second, I did not say history is science. I said history is a social science. And historians (at least good historians) weigh evidence using various reasonable procedures and logic.

Third, I cite: "The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques" by which to explain it." [10] Conservative 14:39, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

Pretty dogmatic[edit]


It seems that some here want to dismiss God with a simple "can't-pass-the-falsifiability" test. Since dogma can work both ways, here's an example from the pic on the right. The caption below reads "Heads of four titanotheres, showing progressive stages of development." This work was done by an evolutionist; this caption was done by an evolutionist. So, my questions are...

1. Is this a true statement?
2. How is this a true statement?
3. Was this example subject to "falsifyability" testing?
4. From where and by what methods did the author of this work get his evidence that makes the caption true? Karajou 01:31, 6 May 2013 (EDT)
I appreciate the example, but I at least, speaking as someone in the sciences, am not trying to dismiss God by saying that God can't be falsified. I'm just saying that I have absolutely no idea how to incorporate God into research in a Scientific context. I asked Conservative for his opinion on the subject, but he did not answer me. I am sincerely curious how this might be done, because I believe that if God could be incorporated into scientifically rigorous research, this would allow for increased cooperation between science and religion, which is likely far better for society than the two being at odds.--DTSavage 01:38, 6 May 2013 (EDT)
DTSavage, while I still have doubts about your sincerity of alleged evolutionary beliefs, I thought I would share these articles nonetheless since the expression of your so-called Darwinism beliefs seems less militant at this juncture: Ecology, biodiversity and Creation and Toward a biblical basis for ecology, with applications in mycorrhizal symbioses in orchids and Symbiotic relationships. Conservative 10:37, 6 May 2013 (EDT)
Thanks, Conservative. Reading those articles has definitely given me some food for thought.--DTSavage 13:24, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

As a variable, God is uncontrollable, undetectable, unpredictable, and most importantly, unrepeatable. So the question remains, how would a scientist incorporate God into their research? --DonnyC 14:30, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

Naturalism and methodological naturalism are untestable notions via the scientific method. Also, origins science is a historical science and not operational science.[11] Conservative 15:21, 6 May 2013 (EDT)
Abraham Lincoln was fond of this riddle: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does have a dog have? Four, because no matter what you call it, it's still a tail. Rafael 15:25, 6 May 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, you're not answering the question. My work encompasses both of what you would call "operational" and "historical" science. So my question is, how am I supposed to account for an uncontrollable, undetectable, unpredictable, and unrepeatable variable in my work? --DonnyC 15:28, 6 May 2013 (EDT)
DonnyC, origins science is a historical science and good historians (historians are social scientists) have reasonable procedures for weighing historical evidence.[12][13] Therefore, when evaluating claims of God intervening in history, there are reasonable methods to ascertain the probability of those claims being true or untrue. For example, see: Origins science and avoiding historical fallacies and Historicity of Jesus and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and History
Second, how are you going to account for the fact that naturalism and methodological naturalism are untestable notions using the scientific method - especially in the light of the fact that the scientific method was originated by a theist(s) and not an atheist and that modern science was launched in a Christianized Europe? See: Christianity and science.
Also, what dramatic breakthroughs did science have as a result of atheism? Is atheism testable using the scientific method? Can you show that atheism has had a better effect on science than Christian influence on science? See: Christianity and science
Next, if you contend that atheism/naturalism and methodological naturalism have had a better influence on science than biblical Christianity, how do you explain that the irreligious and adherents of liberal theology are more superstitious than theologically conservative, Protestant Bible believers? See: Irreligion and superstition.
Lastly, I cite: "The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques" by which to explain it." [14] 16:08, 6 May 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, could you please clarify this sentence "Therefore, God intervening in history has reasonable methods to ascertain various supernatural claims in relation to their historicity." I was with you up until that point but then lost the thread... I don't know if it was simply a typo/omitted word or something I'm just not reading correctly, but either way I'd appreciate some clarification as to what you meant so I can come to an accurate conclusion regarding your statements. Thanks, Fnarrow 17:01, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

Fnarrow, thanks. I revised the sentence (additional clarification was provided). Conservative 17:31, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

No problem, that's what I figured you had meant, but I didn't want to make any assumptions. Fnarrow 17:42, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

Is this a matter for debate? Naturalism and methodological naturalism are positions or stances, rather than theories which can be confirmed or disproved.

Atheists frequently resort to circular reasoning, out of desperation to deny any possibility of God's existence. First they confine science to physical science, insisting that the supernatural cannot be studied and should not be considered. Then they conclude that the only plausible source the multitude of species (current and historical) is the product of physical causes and "natural selection". Finally, if plants, animals and people have come into existence via physical causes alone, there is no need to postulate a Creator.

One flaw in this argument is the assumption that the supernatural cannot be studied. Another is the discovery, promoted by intelligent design theorists, that organisms like the flagellum are irreducible complex.

I suggest that we work together to describe all three theories of human and biological origins. Let's make the stances (and theories) easily understandable to our readers, and stop wasting editorial space trying to convince each other here.

I'd like to see comprehensive articles on Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, and the Theory of Evolution. After that we can more easily outline and describe the arguments for and against these ideas. --Ed Poor Talk 08:43, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

Election in Malaysia[edit]

Quite a bit of conflict, unrulyness and down right undemocratic things happening in General Election in Malaysia at the moment which mainstream media seem to be ignoring. Might be worth a link say what happens when military strongmen control government instead of the people, which is how it should be. DickVCome say g'day ay 09:23, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

Can you find a new conservative word?[edit]

No. Well actually I've found plenty, but they were in centuries that were already full. WilcoxD 19:36, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

Please go ahead and add the conservative word into the list under the correct century. The exponential growth theory is just a theory. The data should not be trimmed to shoehorn in the theory. Wschact 22:25, 6 May 2013 (EDT)
I've previously added several to different centuries, but it so happened that none of the ones that affected the geometric doubling were deemed Conservative enough. I've also tried correcting several erroneous entries, but if this affected the doubling then these corrections were also removed. WilcoxD 23:43, 6 May 2013 (EDT)
Wschact, when you say 'The exponential growth theory is just a theory', can you explain what that theory actually is? I understand that it's an observation (even though some may question the accuracy of the observation for reasons mentioned above), but to call it a theory implies a postulated mechanism for how the observed phenomenon comes about. What is that mechanism? --DHouser 08:15, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
I gather Andy is using terms like theory and hypothesis interchangeably. Don't read too much into it. He simply noticed that the number of terms seemed to be growing exponentially. Let's not get sidetracked. --Ed Poor Talk 08:29, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
I believe the theory has something to do with how ideas or ideology spread. In any event, one way to test the theory would be to divide the data by 100 year intervals that begin at a different point, say 1620, 1720, 1820, etc. If the theory was valid, and not the result of shoehorned data, it would fit no matter how you shifted the measuring intervals. Wschact 02:17, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
That's a nice way to re-analyse the data, but my interpretation is that the 'theory' is a bit more precise than that. We're not looking at just a general exponential trend, but precise doubling every century, with no margin for error. For that to occur would require some kind of supernatural (divine) intervention, and as such it would seem likely that the intelligence behind the intervention would base the sequence around accepted human time-scales such as the calendar century.--DHouser 08:11, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Heard about the vandalizing of three churches in Batavia, NY?[edit] Would anyone consider this "respectfully disagreeing?" ZetaSonic 01:54, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

He/they are just mad that the father of secular humanism, Paul Kurtz, who lived in the Buffalo metropolitan area, left no legacy and he received a "shattering blow" to this atheism related endeavors via the hands of his fellow atheists shortly before he died Et tu, Bruti? The Roman Empire was no match for Christianity and neither was the atheist faction "secular humanism". Conservative 23:14, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
I think I'm starting to enjoy your version of reality Conservative. I'm sure the vandal(s) was choking down God-hating tears as he whispered "this is for you Paul Kurtz" while he/they committed his/their crime. --DonnyC 23:42, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

Attack dog[edit]

Love it!! Absolutely love it!!!! "Ripped to Sheds indeed. Made my day! Thank you! AlanE 01:46, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

The ideology of Democrats is a loser even when the opponent has a big scandal[edit]

The district is an R+11. This statement would be like saying the ideology of Republicans is a loser even when the opponent has a big scandal when having looked at Charles Rangel's results in 2010. Just as Rangel took a D+43 and got a result consistent with a D+31, Sanford took an R+11 and got results consistent with an R+5. --SJCootware 2:08, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

Hello Mr. Orwell...[edit]

It seems to me there was a very large debate in this area earlier today when I was unable to edit... guess I must be misremembering.

The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

Welcome to 1984, I guess old Mr. Orwell was off by less than 30 years, not too bad in the grand scheme of things. Fnarrow 23:51, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

Ascension of Jesus[edit]

May 9, 2013: Ascension of Jesus --AugustO 05:36, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

Thank you introducing some substance. It's far more important than the "amusing" creationist vs evolutionist story et al. I'm starting to wonder whether this site hasn't reached a tipping point of irrelevant and unimportant nonsense. Rafael 08:35, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
Thanks - unfortunately, it didn't make it to the main page. What a pity - another chance missed to remind us of our Christian teachings. --AugustO 01:56, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Darwinism will be ripped to sheds[edit]

Sheds? Really? Seems to be an error. The question for me is: should I point it out or follow User:DonnyC's advise: I'd point out a spelling error in your post... but I'm worried that in your excited state that you would rip me to sheds. This is even more a conundrum as User:DonnyC was ripped to shreds by User:Conservative: a block of three month for a quite productive editor (see e.g. Judges 1-7 or Habakkuk) - seems to be only a sign of a bruised ego...

BTW: User:DawsonT should not have been blocked for violating the 90/10 rule, but for trolling: He made only one edit - a total of five words - and was answered with a 500+ words diatribe! Very effective trolling indeed. And after writing some thousand words, User:Conservative was to tired to even read a paragraph of less than 150 words, but instead blocked the editor under some pretext some time later. IMO, this block should be undone, and User:DonnyC reinstated without silly conditions like If you decide to return after your 3 month block, there will be a 3 month probationary period where you will not have main page talk privileges.

--AugustO 07:57, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

AugustO, I am not ever going to change my view of the 90/10 rule. My view is that if someone creates some worthless contribution on a talk page on his first edit, I can block them. They created poor content and have a 100/100 talk page ratio. Second, changing DonnyC's block is not on my radar as far as my priorities because I am not changing it. If DonnyC engages in that type of behavior again, the block is going to be longer. Conservative 12:12, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
changing DonnyC's block is not on my radar as far as my priorities because I am not changing it that doesn't make much sense, I'm afraid: it's just circular reasoning... --AugustO 12:20, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
BTW, could you please bother to correct the typo on MPR? I don't care what your blog looks like, but on the Main Page of Conservapedia, I prefer correct spelling - that has nothing to do with style over substance, but with looking professional. --AugustO 12:30, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

AugustO, for someone who is interested in good writing, you are being very unclear about what typo is on the main page. Second, I am not going to spend a lot of time justifying my block with DonnyC with you. The block was just and if you don't like it, I don't care. I think you are being unreasonable. I have discussions with evolutionists like HunterC as he will actually have a discussion and address what the other party is saying. I also find liberals are often not willing to debate anyone of the opposition because they have little to no confidence in what they are spouting. Penn Jillette is a prime example. DonnyC just wants to be a heckler and ignore what the other party is saying. He also has not created much content in terms of articles. I am not going to put up with it. Conservative 12:52, 9 May 2013 (EDT

You must be kidding - on both accounts! Haven't you been quite successful in a spelling-bee? --AugustO 12:47, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
I revised my above post. Second, if you are going to be purposefully obtuse about a matter that you supposedly want fixed on the main page, then I have a very low priority with both of your requests. Conservative 12:52, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
This begs the question who or what is obtuse:
  • The section is titled Darwinism will be ripped to sheds
  • The first sentence of this section is Sheds? Really? Seems to be an error.
Even Dr. Watson could have figured this one out!
--AugustO 13:04, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

Thanks. Second, I have a number of deadlines I have to meet. I wasn't going to search the main page for a typo for someone who was purposefully being unclear. If you don't like that, that's tough enchiladas, my friend!  :) Conservative 13:13, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

Conservative, less than 3 weeks ago you said you were going to tone it down, when in fact you have got worse. You are banning people for breaking the 90/10 rule, and at the same time you have filled this talk page with enough words to fill a small novel, a novel where the same chapter is repeated again and again, accusing good honest folk of being Darwinist, liberal etc, etc. Please, pause and take stock because right now you acting like a dictator, and dare I say it, you are showing many liberal traits in doing so. Act like a good conservative, argue and defend your view but show some respect to those who hold differing views. Respect is a conservative value yet you show none and then wonder why you receive none. --Patmac 13:14, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

purposefully being unclear? I wasn't unclear at all - and especially not purposefully. Please refrain from such groundless accusations. Frankly - as AlanE above - I thought you were able to remember and recognize what you have written on the Main Page only yesterday. --AugustO 14:12, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
In your spelling bee snarky comment you were purposefully being unclear about the typo. Anyways, I met my most pressing deadline. By the way, please refrain from snarky comments. Frankly, I thought you were capable of less snarky comments! :) I do recall someone recently asking for more decorum. My razor sharp mind definitely does recall you wanting more diplomacy/decorum on this talk page. I guess that doesn't apply to you. Typical liberal/Darwinist hypocrisy! :) Conservative 15:33, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
Above, your razor-sharp mind seemed to have failed you. The typo was mentioned three times, by User:AlanE, User:DonnyC and me. It just seemed to be inconceivable that you didn't recognize the phrase Darwinism will be ripped to sheds which you have written a couple of hours ago and which is cunningly concealed in the very title of this section. BTW, I asked for manners, that doesn't mean that you may not get testy - but you shouldn't sling words around which are seen as insults on this site, like liberal. --AugustO 16:06, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

I do regret that deadline pressures contributed to me missing AlanE's notice of the typo.

I don't regret not paying close attention to recent DonnyC posts subsequent to him intentionally dodging my recent response to him. You don't have to worry about DonnyC. Now that he is being held accountable and actually has to respond to creationist interlocutors on the main page talk page instead of stonewalling their responses, he has been effectively defanged. And I hear some howling on the horizon. It sounds like a like a pack of hungry biblical creation dire wolves ready to rip big chunks of meat out of Darwinist bunkum! :) Those 15 questions for evolutionists are not going away and it is VERY OBVIOUS that evolutionists have not satisfactorily answered them. Conservative 17:36, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

Conservative, you totally ignored my last entry, you still attack. And I for one support Donnyc. How about we have a vote about Donny being unblocked. I vote yes--Patmac 18:29, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

Feel free to have as many votes as you want Darwinists. It is not going to change my decision! Personal remark removed. The atheist/evolutionist who tried to ignore my questions to him and the data I provided and not offer a response. Let's have a pity party! Conservative 21:11, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
Your precious 15 questions have been answered in innumerable venues. That you lack the competence to recognize that is your fault, not ours. JimmyDykes 13:07, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

JimmyDykes, I notice you didn't challenge VivaYehshua to a debate on the 15 questions for evolutionists. Afraid to? Conservative 03:09, 13 July 2013 (EDT)

Unblocking of DonnyC[edit]

If you support it, please feel free to take it up with Mr. Schlafly. brenden 13:23, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Darwinism will be ripped to shreds round the clock!!!!!![edit]

Chuck Norris endorses the Total Gym exercise system.

"In a previous post, I pointed that wolf packs can be very aggressive and sometimes conduct their attacks for over 24 hours on a particular prey. Wolves have a lot of endurance. I have been thinking of working out twice in a day at a local Young Man Christian Association. In case you are an atheist, I am referring to a YMCA! The Question Evolution! Campaign is a worldwide grassroots movement that will see a lot of expansion in 2013. When creationists intensify their round the clock attacks on Darwinism, I certainly don't want to experience fatigue when I join the fray!"[15]

He/she must have a Chuck Norris Total Gym too. :) He/she does not sound like an evolutionist slob who is not familiar with exercise science, nutritional science and medical science. See: Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese. I thought evolutionist loved science and had a fundamental understanding of applied biology! Conservative 21:52, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

If you do work out twice a day, my advice would be to take advice on what you are doing. Muscle building works by ripping or tearing existing tissue and protein through diet "mends" the tears and builds more muscle tissue. I don't know your age but I am guessing 35+ and after that age the whole process of repair takes longer and it is not as efficient, the main reason that endurance sportsmen retire at about that age. Without knowing your circumstances, I would suggest 45 mins to an hour once a day is enough, and try to do different things each day, example would be weights on one day, cycling rowing or running on the second etc, and give yourself 2 days clear a week.--Patmac 22:19, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

Jack Lalane pulls 70 boats on 70th birthday Evolutionists are such wimps! Conservative 22:28, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
I would be very interested in seeing your progress Conservative. Perhaps if you post a before photo now and then in a few months and after photo. Perhaps a lovely photo with your lovely wife and children also, will really show up those evolutionists and convince them that you will tear them to shreds. Darwinism could not possibly survive your assault!! Ole Ole. --DamianJohn 22:29, 9 May 2013 (EDT)


I don't believe Ranulph Fiennes is a creationist, but then he is only 68.--Patmac 22:39, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

I would like to see a before and after picture of Trent and Ed Brayton, but I am not holding my breath. From what I understand Trent isn't a big fan of motivation speakers who stress the importance of goals such as Zig Ziglar. :) Zig Ziglar lost a lot of weight. Has Trent? To use a favorite saying of Trent, "The proof is in the pudding!". :) Conservative 22:49, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
I agree with you Conservative. So many of the evolutionists are fat and living alone. Hell, I'll bet half of the faceless Darwinists that hang around on the internet are in some form of institution. If they would only turn to the power of Creationism run through the QE! blog they would instantly become more popular with the ladies, especially Latinas!!! Care to share some more of your secrets for living well? --DamianJohn 22:57, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
Damian, I see you left out an Ole a while ago...and three acutes - here, have these... é, é, é. AlanE 23:08, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

Oh, and by the way, Cons. the verb is "breathe", the noun is "breath". You breathe (at least I do) you have a breath. So, it should be "I am not holding my breath", not "I am not holding my breathe" as you wrote above. It's all do to with the wonderful complexities of our beautiful language. I spell this out because I don't want to have to plough (plow) through another 1000+ words of sheds v shreds. Okay? ````

According to most dictionaries, "anyway" is the correct spelling of the word. :-) Wschact 02:09, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

"Atheist Wiki" title[edit]

I was under the impression that we had agreed upon a more comprehensive policies of using informative titles on the Main Page right, a while back? brenden 13:38, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Specifically, I think it could be reworded as

Prominent leftist websites experience drop in traffic According to Alexa, total net traffic for some atheist websites is decreasing... (continue on) brenden 13:41, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Brenden, I don't think that website has much influence. The intelligentsia certainly don't respect it and I don't think that they have there own Wikipedia article yet. If course, this is quite ironic since the founder of that wiki was booted after he insisted via an edit war that intelligent design is not science because it did not have enough high profile science journals endorsing it (science is not a voting both. For example, Galileo Galilei and Nicolaus Copernicus were in the minority but they were right).
In addition, if austerity measures fully hit the Western World which seems likely, I don't think their leftism will be very fashionable. Communism is certainly less popular in Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed economically.
Lastly, I couldn't put their crowning achievement on the main page because the topic of colonics would be off-putting to a lot of people. :) Many people are enjoying their Spring in North America, but the editors of that wiki are obsessing about other people's colons. :)Conservative 14:17, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Editors other than "Conservative" - I've got a serious question for you. It's even more difficult to take this site seriously when so many people are doing what is tantamount to trolling. "Conservative" posts something stupid and sometimes even trolls you guys by repeating it on this talk page. You guys predictably post some concern. Here's the question - have you ever once, one single time, ever had a satisfying exchange with "Conservative"? He does not admit fault. He is not humble. He taunts and insults you, calls you names, and raises absurd irrelevant nonsense, anything but responding to you seriously. What is the point of even talking to him? Seriously. Has it ever been a productive use of your time? Just don't do it and you'll find that you can go along and get along a lot better in this world. Get over yourselves and do something better with your time. Nate 14:31, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Seriously. User:C. All it would take is 20 seconds to highlight the rewording, press Ctrl-C, open up Main page right, and replacing your previous title. brenden 14:33, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
Nate, I see the proud, liberal Roman Catholic predictably defends the atheists.
You did say you were proud to be a Roman Catholic and then cited some family history and relatives who had some posts in the Roman Catholic Catholic Church, didn't you? The Apostle Paul wrote: "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" - Philippians 3: 3-9.
Nate, the Apostle Paul did not emphasize his family line (the flesh) in relation to his religion, why do you?
Just admit it. This is a case of my enemies enemy is my friend. Conservative 14:43, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Am I missing something? The graph on the QE blog shows the atheist site is GROWING in popularity.

I checked on Alexa itself and, yes, there it is. The atheist wiki is showing an upward trend.

Then I compared the atheist wiki with this site and I was shocked. Deeply shocked. Even allowing for the blip at the end of last year, this site is trending DOWN and quite dramatically down.

What's more, the atheist site has much higher rankings in Global and US traffic.

I wondered recently if this site had reached a tipping point. The data says "more than likely".

So, instead of endless links to yah-boo-sucks blogs that often backfire - like this one - we should take stock and work out how to stop the rot. Rafael 14:44, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Rafael, who am I going to believe? You or my own eyes? I can see that the global marketshare of the website has dropped since the beginning of 2013 according to Alexa. Stop making excuses for them. Conservative 14:51, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
Brenden, I notice you did not answer my question about your worldview. Just as I suspected! Another public school indoctrinated atheist who can't spell the word atheist due to his substandard schooling! Conservative 14:56, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

User Conservative. Can you please post the graph in question here? It's beyond my technical skills.

That way, our colleagues can see for themselves and decide whether my conclusions stands. Rafael 15:07, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Two questions, What is a voting both and why does being a member of the old established church make somebody a liberal? Insulting RCs won't help fight atheists CamD 15:10, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Rafael, a few other points. First, you do not know how far my/our arm reaches on the internet! :) The internet is a very big place with many websites/blogs/social media accounts. "Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu.
Second, you are not privy to Conservapedia's plans for the future. Only the select few in the innermost of innermost circles know this! Are some articles targeted for higher prominence in the future when the timing is right? "When torrential water tosses boulders, it is because of its momentum. When the strike of a hawk breaks the body of its prey, it is because of timing. The quality of decision is like the well-timed swoop of a falcon which enables it to strike and destroy its victim." - Sun Tzu.
On the other hand, for all you know, my/our could be merely active at Conservapedia! Conservative 16:20, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Both very good points, User C. I hope the plans for Conservapedia can turn it around and give it some credibility again.

Talking of your global reach, do you remember the Whitehouse petition to stop commemorating Darwin Day? The one you and the QE blog promoted back in January? It barely achieved 100 of the 100,000 signatures needed. It doesn't take an MBA to hear the alarm bells and see the red lights flashing there but has anyone taken stock? Has anyone stopped to work out how it could be better next time around? Or is doubling down the only strategy they know?

By the way, can you please post the graph I asked for? A similar Alexa graph for this site would also be enlightening, but I realise you are a busy man. Rafael 15:47, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Rafael, you don't need a graph. You can can see for yourself at the blog article.
Second, how much was that survey promoted? Did someone post it on the internet and then move on to other things. Many people start things and then don't complete their work. That is very common. What is your point? If you are making a point, I don't think it is a very big one. Bottom line, global creationism is growing rapidly and unlike Darwinism, it is true.[16]
Lastly, why are you referring to me/us as you? Also, why are you saying I/we are a "busy man". Do you know the gender of me/us? Do you know my/our schedule today? Conservative 16:16, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

I strongly suggest our colleagues follow the QE link and see for themselves. They might also wonder why you didn't want to post the graph for discussion here. Rafael 16:32, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

I suspect Rafael uses the pronoun "You", because typing out I/we or me/us or you/you people is pedantic, and frankly looks as if the person was addressing an imaginary set of people. brenden 17:26, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Brenden, you still haven't said whether you are an atheist yet. Given the deep shamelessfulness of being an atheist, I can understand if you don't want to say that you are. Was this just an oversight on your part? There must be a reason why you are not answering this question. What is it? Conservative 17:52, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu. In all seriousness, my religious views are none of your business, and any further requests about them will be ignored. We are at Conservapedia to build an encyclopedia, not to engage in silly side-shows every time a suggestion or criticism is raised on the Main Page Talk. brenden 23:30, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

A matter of perspective[edit]

Here's the current rankings (and logically their impact) for a few websites:

Wikipedia- Alexa Traffic Rank: 6 United States Traffic Rank in US: 8

The - 'Athiest wiki' (RW) - Alexa Traffic Rank: 36,464 United States Traffic Rank in US: 12,452 (CMI) Alexa Traffic Rank: 68,730 United States Traffic Rank in US: 22,752

Conservapedia - Alexa Traffic Rank: 69,714 Traffic Rank in US: 19,144

The Question Evolution! Blog - Alexa Traffic Rank: 3,418,874 United States Traffic Rank in US: 494,937

EJamesW 15:25, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

You do not know how far my/our arm reaches on the internet! :) The internet is a very big place with many websites/blogs/social media accounts. "Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu.
You see, unlike some proud liberals who brag about their family in relation to their religion (despite the fact that the Apostle Paul did not), I/we could be quite content to quietly exert his/her/our influence on the internet. "Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious, he is inaudible. Thus he is master of his enemy's fate." - Sun Tzu
On the other hand, for all you know, my/our could be merely active at Conservapedia! Conservative 15:57, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

I don't think EJW was talking about you. Rafael 15:59, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

No problem, my/our mistake. Conservative 16:00, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
-) Rafael 16
32, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
By the way, we all know: why a certain website was launched, why they obsessively still focus on CP and why they scurry around like hamsters creating content when I/we point out their Alexa rankings are dropping! Dance gentlemen, dance!
And remember, no matter what heights they may achieve in web traffic, it will always be a reflection of how utterly obsessed they are with Aschlafly, lowly me/us (a bondservant(s) of the Most High who mostly cites the work of others in CP articles and has some essays and humor pieces) and with God Almighty! "Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist there is no God." - Heywood Broun Conservative 16:40, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
Given that the website site traffic is irrelevant, should the article be removed? Especially since it's about an atheist Web site that matters little. Nine 17:07, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

I think it is best left up since it humbles their socially challenged, oversized, atheist, nerd egos. It will serve as a reminder to them of their lowly place on God's earth. In addition, it directs them to the blog article which reminds them that there is more to life than colonics and colons. Conservative 17:41, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Why is this site so focused on atheism rather than on conservatism?[edit]

A few things that have me scratching my head a bit about the site...

1. Why is there so much focus on Christianity, atheism, spirituality, secularism, etc. rather than on actual conservative issues? Why are there over 10 "atheism and ____" pages, and yet the page on free market, supply side economic, investment, and other important conservative issues practically untouched?

2. Why are the pages about opposing world views (e.g. liberalism, Keynesian economics, Barack Obama) so much longer and so much more frequently updated than pages about our own views? Conservatism is about so much more than attacking non-conservatives. call me crazy, but I feel that conservative views are strong and substantial enough to stand on their own merit, and informing people of our own view is far more effective than dismantling opposing views.

3. Why is everyone on this site so obsessed with atheism? If someone could answer this without reversing the question to something like "Why are atheists so obsessed with gods?", that would be all the more substantial. Attacking atheism isn't going to get us back the senate and the Whitehouse, and it certainly isn't going to get us out of the recession that was brought on by liberal fiscal policies.

So someone please address these issues so that perhaps the site can really be a good representation of the American conservative world view? KatieKomori 17:19, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

I totally Agree. As a Conservative Atheist sites like these make me disenchanted with conservatism. I wonder when users like Conservative and the owner himself will realize that the silent majority of Atheists are conservative by nature. We believe in looking at what is true and what is not and discerning it for ourselves through independent thought. When looking at politics from an intelligent perspective that looks at all the evidence the result will normally be conservative. it is only the small, yet very loud, minority who are liberals who are anti-religion. I don't care what religion you are so why are some people so insecure that they cannot sleep at night without attacking me for my mere existence. Atheist Conservative rant over. Ryancsh

5 truths which cause Darwinists and atheists to fly into uncontrollable bursts of rage[edit]

"For example, I just had an atheist threaten me with hellfire. The atheist said that if my God is real, he hopes I burn in hell. Of course, this "atheist" was an "agnostic" since "atheists" have no proof and evidence that atheism is true. And we know that deep down that "agnostics" and "atheists" know that God exists. For example, children see the world as designed - even in Japan which is largely non-Christian. See: Children see the world as designed

Question: Is there anything more sad and pathetic than an atheist/agnostic threatening a Bible believer with hellfire?

"Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." - Francis Thomson

Please see: 5 truths which cause Darwinists and atheists to fly into uncontrollable bursts of rage

Why do the Darwinists rage? Why do the atheists imagine a vain thing?" Conservative 16:33, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

Indeed. But how is this news? Seriously, can we not have a dedicated question evolution debate page? As for rage, sometimes I think you have a fear of water.--Patmac 17:17, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

I agree with Patmac, this topic seems to always find its way into every talk page, somehow. Shouldn't this be in the evolution talk page, Conservative? KatieKomori 17:23, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
Liberal Darwinists, I think you want Christian conservatives to ignore the main weapon against Darwinist/liberal public school indoctrination in 2013. That is not going to happen in 2013. Remember Darwinists and atheists, the religious right and creationists are the potter of the culture war and you are the clay! [17] Why do you have to be so reactionary?
Just accept that creationism is growing in the USA, Europe and the world at large and you just have that it will lead to more and more social conservatism.[18][19] The sooner you accept the inevitable, the easier it will be for you to look at the main page and main page talk page. And remember, as soon as you satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists, then you will have the right to complain, but not before then. Conservative 17:56, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
Well, speaking as an atheist, the only thing those five "facts" made me fly in to was uncontrollable bursts of laughter. I especially enjoyed the part about how "God can outperform evolutionists and atheists on cognitive flexibility tests and emotional intelligence tests." --EEdwards 18:01, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
If you want to call trying to de-noise the site by creating more cohesion between topics "reactionary", then that's your prerogative, I suppose. KatieKomori 18:05, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

I agree with you Conservative, but I as asked, how is this news?--Patmac 18:03, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

How is it not news? Conservative 18:04, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, are these claims new? Is this an event that has recently taken place at a definite point in time? KatieKomori 18:07, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
Gentlemen, PZ Myers recently said that atheism is on the cusp of an atheist nerd crisis and now creationists are fixing their bayonets and about to charge and take advantage of this crisis. And creationists will conclusively demonstrate to many people that Darwinist nerds are pushing foolish fantasies via enhanced dissemination of the Question evolution! campaign message. How is this not news? Conservative 18:10, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
Because this is a vague promise of a future event that, like all your vague promises before, will never actually happen. News is things that actually happen. Let us know when the creationist bayonet charge actually occurs, it'll be amusing to watch 50 and 60 year old crazies puffing and wheezing in column of companies with bayonets fixed. --EEdwards 18:14, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
EEdwards pretty much hit the nail on the head. That's like saying that "we will have a conservative in the Whitehouse at some point in the future" and calling it news. KatieKomori 18:16, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

My right to complain is exactly what it is, a right, not a condition of answering questions about which I cannot answer because I am not qualified to answer, I would not know where to start. Not that it was a complaint in the first place, it was a suggestion. To cede a point, my answer to question 1. God created it--Patmac 18:12, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

Patmac, my apologies. Personal remark removed you. For example, children see the world as designed - even in Japan which is largely non-Christian. See: Children see the world as designed. "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to little children." - Jesus Conservative 18:20, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
So you're determining the validity of your world view by the number of children who believe it? KatieKomori 18:22, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
Of course he is. He's a big believer in Santa too. And the monster that lives under his bed. He also has an imaginary friend called "Jesus." --EEdwards 18:24, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
Jsuk, a lot of people here believe in an imaginary disorder called Santa Syndrome. It's supposedly a leading cause of atheism, though mention of it in any psychological circles is deafeningly silent. KatieKomori 18:31, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

Contrary to belief us Brits are not indoctrinated in evolution, I never learned anything about it. When I was at school at least it was only taught to over 14's after the option to drop subjects. I dropped biology so my knowledge of the subject is limited, I know nothing of DNA other than it is helix-ed and is a code for life. However I can answer 2 of them. Question 1: I believe that God created life, but I am sure evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life so an irrelevant question. Question 13: Again,irrelevant. --Patmac 18:28, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

EEdwards, all true Bible believing creationists would never lie to their children because the Bible says not to lie. It is the compromisers to biblical authority and those who rebel to biblical authority who lie about Santa. By the way, it sounds like you have Santa Syndrome. :) Conservative 23:06, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

7 reasons why young earth creationist men get more of the beautiful girls than atheist men[edit]

From #4: "In 2011, only two of the Miss USA beauty pageant contestants thought evolution should be taught in schools. Evidently, most beautiful women find the "Argument from beauty" argument for the existence of God to be quite an attractive argument." See: Argument from beauty.

Taken from: 7 reasons why young earth creationist men get more of the beautiful girls than atheist men

Does anyone know if Beth Ditto is an evolutionist? Conservative 01:18, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

All this reminds me of the guy who slipped and fell from the top of the Empire State Building. As he passed the 100th floor, he thought "it's OK, I haven't hurt myself". At the 99th floor, he thought "so far so good, I haven't hurt myself". At the 98th floor he thought "I don't know what the fuss is about, I haven't hurt myself". At the 97th floor... Rafael 10:08, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
Rafael, setting aside your irrelevant comment, is it true that atheist men are less likely to be involved in sports? If you deny this matter, why do you do so? Conservative 10:49, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
See the Alexa traffic data above. 96th floor..."I'm OK, I don't see what all the fuss is about". Rafael 11:07, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
Rafael, if you don't answer my question above, then you are admitting defeat. By the way, have you figured out yet how many web properties I/we contribute to yet? Conservative 11:13, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
Rafael, one last thing, I/we are going to write the content for two web pages today and they are going to posted on the internet tomorrow. If you can oblige, please tell me where they are posted. :) Conservative 11:20, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
95th floor..."I'm not falling, I'm flying!" Rafael 12:54, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
I hope the young earth creationist men are not having sexual relations with the beautiful girls. That would be fornication. CamD 13:17, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

Rafael, there is one other thing, what do you think of our/my blog that was created on May 4, 2013. Do you like the design? :) "...just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions. He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain." - Sun Tzu.  :)

Also, I/we received some encouraging feedback about some new content that I/we created which is being published to the web this week. The review was: "Nice. Sounds good. Strong .....". Have you figured out where it is being published yet? :)

And Rafael, let me know when you find all my/our website/blog content at various web properties. It is going to be challenging! "Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious, he is inaudible. Thus, he is master of his enemy's fate." :) Conservative 13:22, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

The question is does anyone care?. Probably just another worthless blog to spam the news page with. It's funny how spamming links to external sites is a blockable action. But the rules don't apply to you, do they Conservative?--Patmac 13:43, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

For Heaven's sake, has anyone actually read the article? It's clearly a spoof. Whether the Question Evolution blog has been hacked, or whether the whole site is a set-up, I'm not sure, but no one could be writing this sort of thing without their tongue firmly in their cheek.--DHouser 14:02, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

I was wrong to call questionevolution a worthless blog, I am sorry. Evolution, just like any other scientific theory should be questioned. It is not however a valid news source--Patmac 15:28, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

Patmac, for a person who doesn't care what I do, you sure do post a lot to me. Conservative 15:39, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
After reading the blog entry in question, I'm happy to crown its author as the undisputed McGonagall of creationist internet evangelism. JohanZ 14:50, 13 May 2013 (EDT)

JohanZ, were you on any sports teams in high school? :) Have you ever heard the song "You gotta be a football hero"? :) Conservative 09:43, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Aye. Played no.4 lock forward for the school and for my local side. Played at U-19s level aged 16 and gave as good as I got. How about yourself? JohanZ 13:38, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Adult stem cell item is not amazing nor is it a breakthrough[edit]

Give me a break, the first paragraph of the cited article completely refutes the assertion, Replacing missing teeth with new bioengineered teeth, grown from stem cells generated from a person's own gum cells, is a future method that could be superior to the currently used implant technology, but for now not all required pieces are in place. --NormaN 22:16, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

It was notable enough to be announced on a Scientific website. You're just being bitter.--Jpatt 22:01, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
Of course it is notable my good sir, it simply is neither amazing nor a breakthrough. Facts can be stubborn things.--NormaN 21:12, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Embryonic Stem cells[edit]

Here's a partial list of advancements made by using embryonic stem cell research. BlakeJay 10:57, 13 May 2013 (EDT)

Really? Seems more like propaganda than advancements. "Could be" conclusions "might be" , "scientists hope" and more wishful thinking. Nice try.--Jpatt 21:59, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
Opening paragraph of the article cited on the main page (emphasis added):
"Replacing missing teeth with new bioengineered teeth, grown from stem cells generated from a person's own gum cells, is a future method that could be superior to the currently used implant technology, but for now not all required pieces are in place"
Same thing. WilcoxD 00:47, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
I understand WilcoxD, you want to point out the hypocrisy. The fact is they are growing teeth with adult stem cells. The teeth are not grown in humans at this point: (emphasis subtracted) If you can show me some other entity already accomplishing this feat I will bow down. --Jpatt 22:09, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Tamerlan Tsarnaev committed a triple murder in 2011[edit]

Help me out here....what is the "Obama Administration" supposed to admit to? Is Obama now in charge of Boston Homicide? Is the Obama Administration performing the murder investigations now? -Winger77

OK, maybe this will "help" you here: the Obama Administration is investigating Tamerlan Tsarnaev and has his DNA. It also has the DNA from the 9/11 triple-murder. Even liberals are smart enough to realize that the next step is to compare the DNA to solve the crimes.--Andy Schlafly 11:48, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
As a lawyer, I am sure that Andy realizes how prejudicial such statements by the President or senior Justice Department officials would be to the pending cases against his brother. Anyone who believes that accused people should receive a fair trial with a minimum of prejudicial pre-trial publicity (as well as anyone who feels some moral compunction to refrain from accusing a dead person who cannot respond to accusations) would not want to see the investigation of the earlier deaths politicized. All Americans want to see the Boston Marathon bombing and any related crimes investigated with professionalism. It may prove to be the case that there was a wider conspiracy which involved earlier acts, perhaps including the prior killings. But, this episode should not be politicized; rather it should be left to law enforcement professionals to handle in a dispassionate manner. Wschact 11:55, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
The Obama Administration is the one playing politics with its liberal denial in refusing to admit how Tamerlan Tsarnaev's DNA compares with the DNA of the 9/11 triple-murderer. The DNA almost certainly match, and the public should not be kept in the dark because Obama cares more about his approval ratings than the truth.--Andy Schlafly 14:37, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
"the DNA almost certainly match"...well, I guess you got it all figured out then Schafly. Although, what exactly would a be the benefit of keeping America in the dark on this? Wouldn't it be better for the old approval rating that Obama apparently cares about in his final term to announce how he has solved this murder mystery? - Winger77
Andy; your comment that a president should make statements about cases that are sub judice is frankly disturbing. How on earth can the justice system operate if comments are made which prejudice the whole system? And how on earth can you, as a lawyer not know this? As a criminal defence lawyer myself, if a person in authority made a statement indicating my client's guilt, I would have an automatic grounds for appeal, and in some cases the charges would have to be thrown out. --DamianJohn 21:36, 13 May 2013 (EDT)

Winger77, your issue aside, don't refer to contributors by their surname.--Patmac 15:49, 13 May 2013 (EDT)

Why should this case be treated differently than any other "cold" homicide case? Assume that there are DNA samples from the tripple murder, and assume that law enforcement is actively pursuing the possibility that more than one person was involved in the tripple murder. Would not the best approach to be to keep the details of the investigation private until additional arrests can be made? Certainly the defense counsel to any person arrested for those crimes or for some conspiracy related to those killings will get access to the DNA test results and to the DNA samples for further testing. Why should CP get worked up about the Obama Administration not taking a high-profile role in a law enforcement matter? This is not worth the front page of CP and is not worthy of "CP proven right." Nobdoy was actively arguing that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was definitely not involved, they were saying that it was too early to tell if he was involved or not. Thanks, Wschact 23:19, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
But it is obviously not "too early to tell," and there is no prosecution against Tamerlan Tsarnaev that could possibly be influenced. When you do you think the DNA match should be released by the Obama Administration, if ever?--Andy Schlafly 23:37, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
It should never be released by the Obama Administration, that much is obvious. It may be tendered as evidence in a judicial proceeding, including a coronial enquiry and/or a trial. Once tendered into evidence the fact-finder in that instance will be able to make a determination on its probity and accuracy. --DamianJohn 23:46, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
The goal is to bring all those involved in any possible conspiracy to justice. It is obvious that two brothers would be unlikely to act alone. We already have three other people who are now in the criminal justice system for aiding them after the fact. It is possible that some person or persons were involved in radicalizing them and possibly aiding them before the fact. It is possible that the conspiracy extended back to 2011 and to crimes committed in that year. All Americans want this investigated by law enforcement professionals rather than a CP posse. Four people are currently facing criminal charges, and we should respect their rights. I would hope that the CP front page would be written from the prespective that all citizens, including those accused of doing terrible things are presumed innocent until proven guilty and that the Constitution with its Bill of Rights must be valued even in the face of horrific acts. A conservative would demand a Constitutional perspective rather than mob rule and trial by internet. Wschact 04:46, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
Hear hear. Regardless of your politics, surely one tenant that is absolutely non-negotiable, is that a person accused of a crime is entitled to due process of law, which includes the presumption of innocence. Cases like these are not particularly unique in a country with on average 40 homicides per day. Just let the justice system operate. It is one of the USA's best contributions to the world, and shouldn't be messed with just because you happen to not like the politics of the current administration. --DamianJohn 05:06, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
There will not be any trial of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. So is your position that the match of his DNA with the 9/11 triple murders should never be released to the public??? If so, the result would be to keep the public in the dark, and make it more difficult to prevent future recurrence of horrific crimes, just as the Boston Marathon bombing was tragically not prevented.--Andy Schlafly 10:02, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
My position is three-fold.
(1) It should never be released by anyone other than a relevant judicial body, and in particular should never have anything to do with an elected official of the executive. It is a Judicial matter and should be handled by the judiciary. Turning the criminal process into a political football cheapens the political process and will entirely destroy your justice system.
(2) Evidence of a DNA link between a suspect (even a dead one) and a past crime is simply that, evidence. It needs to be weighed and assessed for it's probity by a body capable of doing so. Unlike what you see on TV, in my experience, trials rarely turn on one specific piece of evidence, and releasing one piece of evidence outside it's proper context is likely to have a far more prejudicial than probative effect on any future trial.
(3) Releasing evidence of such a technical nature to the public would have literally no effect on the USA's readiness to fight terror in the future. The proper use of any such evidence (if that is what you are concerned about), will be in a coronial or legislative enquiry into shortcomings in the justice system. Unfortunately, given the overly-partisan nature of the USA political scene right now, all we will see is people attempting to score political points and nobody will attempt to fix any procedural shortcomings if there were any (and that very much remains to be shown).
I liken the situation to when General Macarthur returned home in 1951 after being sacked by Truman. He came home amid a wave of fury and emotion, all and sundry accusing Truman and others of betrayal and treason and it looked like democracy itself might have been in peril had their been a march on Washington. The reality was coolly shown in a Senatorial enquiry that the positions that the positions that Macarthur was advocating sounded good in a headline, but were not sound given the world political situation (he advocated inter alia nuking China if necessary to win the war in Korea, and was not concerned about the reaction the USSR might take). Much like here, cool heads need to prevail, the criminals should be tried and sentenced in accordance with law, and any evidence relating to those crimes should be handled according to the laws of evidence that are in place. Every defendant, whether they be principle offenders, parties or accessories after the fact are to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and no person in authority should make any statement prejudicing the judicial process. --DamianJohn 17:53, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Andy, Tamerian's brother has been arrested and is facing trial. Three other people who assisted after-the-fact are facing trial. If your theory is true, there may be others who will be arrested and face trial. Shouldn't those trials be fair ones? Thanks, Wschact 11:02, 15 May 2013 (EDT)

Andy seems to have gone quiet on the subject. Are we witnessing the very first time in Conservapedia's history that Andy has changed his mind about something? --DamianJohn 17:54, 15 May 2013 (EDT)

Atheists are so illogical[edit]

Look at this atheist committing the slothful induction fallacy and the fallacy of exclusion in the blog comment section of the blog article HERE. Obviously, he lacks machismo which certainly can mean: an "exhilarating sense of power or strength".[20]. Olé! Olé!Olé! Señor 15 questions for evolutionist! Conservative 13:48, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

94th floor "I'm not falling, I'm rising!" Rafael 14:19, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

The whole atheism/creationist debate is a current and serious one but is not going to be won by constantly portraying the opposition as fairies, wimps, bad with girls, fat, of low IQ, immoral etc. Can you not see that these tactics only hurt your position? I know many irreligious men here in my small town who would eat me for breakfast and I am no softy, and some of them have very hot wives or girlfriends, because in my experience some women love a bad boy. I don't see CMI using such tactics,

--Patmac 16:24, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

What creationist ever said that atheists have lower IQs? While it is true that medical science suggests that overweight and obese atheists suffer brain impairment, who said that the atheist population has a lower IQ? Is it not atheists who often falsely claim to have higher intelligence than theists? See: Atheism and intelligence and Brights Movement. If you could support your claim, I would appreciate it. Conservative 20:06, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Every time I read a post of yours my belief in creationism diminishes--Patmac 20:11, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Patmac, I don't believe you. See: Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation and Atheism and deception and Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality. Conservative 20:15, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Sorry, I can't take any of your articles seriously. Something I wrote earlier but deleted as I did not wish to cause offense but as you have hit the ball into my court, here we go:


Points 1, 2, 5, (arguably 6) and an inverted point 9 (Shockofgod)

--Patmac 16:24, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

You know what Conservative, I give in, you win, I will not react to your posts anymore unless it is a direct insult of myself or someone/thing I hold dear--Patmac 20:27, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Patmac, I have pointed out that I don't want your attention and that it is you who keep posting to me. With your repeated cries of attention from me, you are being inconsistent in trying to paint me with liberal style. Conservative 20:37, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
Patmac, if evolutionists/atheists/agnostics want to stop being seen as wimps, the solution is so easy. Debate VivaYehshua! Conservative 10:41, 15 May 2013 (EDT)
Question for Conservative: why do you lump people who believe in evolution with atheists and agnostics, as if the three groups were interchangeable? As a Roman Catholic who believes that evolution is a well-tested scientific explanation for how life, once already created by God, became diverse, I would certainly object to being lumped in with people who do not believe in God. GregG 10:50, 15 May 2013 (EDT)
Conservative can obviously correct me, but my take is this Greg, if you believe that evolution is the mechinism for how life became diverse, you have essentially conceded that Gensis is not literal, as Adam and Eve, as complex humans, could not have been created directly by God. As a result of this, there would be no original sin, which would make Jesus' sacrifice useless, and as a result, make Christianity false. I think Conservative views this as a serious issue, and therefore, if you reject a literal interpretation of Genesis, you are rejecting Christianity, despite your stated religion. --Krayner 11:07, 15 May 2013 (EDT)

GregG, I asked you about 2 Peter 3: 3-7 (along with the underlying Greek) before and I don't believe you gave me a satisfactory response in terms of a good faith response and due diligence. The same applies to the 15 questions for evolutionists. I am also not convinced that you do strongly believe in evolution and believe it is well-tested scientific explanation. I have seen to many stubborn and prideful Darwinist posers in my life. Also, you have the evolution article at your disposal which shows it is not well-tested scientific explanation if you look at the article's content, its sources and the recommended resources (external links, etc.). Now you want me to answer your question. Given my current priorities and your past behavior, that is not going to happen.

Lastly, I am not convinced of the sincerity of atheists/agnostics. Many times I have seen Shockofgod ask so called atheists in debates if they thought God was evil. They say yes which means they concede that God exists. If someone asked me if leprechauns are evil, I would say that that I don't believe they exist. I certainly wouldn't say that I believe leprechauns are evil. I think atheism, agnosticism and Darwinism are jokes. And often when you ask people probing questions about their supposed atheism, agnosticism and Darwinism they exhibit the types of behavior associated with people who engage in insincere denialism and/or willful ignorance and stubbornness. They most certainly do not behave like sincere inquirers of the truth. Conservative 17:41, 15 May 2013 (EDT)

@Krayner: I do believe in original sin. I also think that there were original humans who committed the original sin and from whom all humans are descended.
@Conservative: I will try to respond point-by-point so that we don't get sidetracked by distractions:
GregG, I asked you about 2 Peter 3: 3-7 (along with the underlying Greek) before and I don't believe you gave me a satisfactory response in terms of a good faith response and due diligence.
I am not aware of such a request until now (and, unfortunately, since you did not provide a link, I cannot evaluate whether or not you asked me before; please accept my apologies). From my research, it seems the passage treats creation metaphorically. The point of the verse 5 is not a modern scientific explanation of the origin of the Earth (like something from a science textbook); it is an explanation of God's authorship of all creation, written for people living around the 1st to 2nd centuries A.D., about 1500 years before the scientific method, and who, if they knew any science, would likely know Greek "science" such as that of Democritus and Aristotle. With regards to verse 6, I do believe that there was a Great Flood, although the extent may be overstated in the Bible for allegorical effect.
The same applies to the 15 questions for evolutionists.
I think I've stated my position on this numerous times, and since you have a knack for writing, I will quote you about why I don't answer/debate the 15 questions: "Given my current priorities and your past behavior, that is not going to happen."
I am also not convinced that you do strongly believe in evolution and believe it is well-tested scientific explanation.
It depends on what you mean by "strongly believe in evolution." I do not study biology (as I've said before, my biology expertise spans two years of high school courses, the latter of which was AP Biology), I do not teach biology, and I do not do biological research, so in that sense I guess one can say that I do not strongly believe in evolution. I will say that, based on my understanding of biology and the evidence regarding evolution, it is not a close call for me as to whether evolution is a well-tested scientific explanation.
I have seen to [sic] many stubborn and prideful Darwinist posers in my life.
I certainly don't see myself as "stubborn and prideful."
Also, you have the evolution article at your disposal which shows it is not well-tested scientific explanation if you look at the article's content, its sources and the recommended resources (external links, etc.).
Turnabout is fair play. You have the TalkOrigins FAQ and website "at your disposal which shows it is ... well-tested scientific explanation if you look at the [page]'s content" and the linked pages and their bibliographies.
Now you want me to answer your question. Given my current priorities and your past behavior, that is not going to happen.
I see this as ironic coming from the same party that relentlessly promotes (and possibly authors posts on) a blog where answering questions in a live debate format with a fourth party is a requirement for unrestricted posting of comments.
Lastly, I am not convinced of the sincerity of atheists/agnostics. Many times I have seen Shockofgod ask so called [sic] atheists in debates if they thought God was evil. They say yes which means they concede that God exists. If someone asked me if leprechauns are evil, I would say that that I don't believe they exist. I certainly wouldn't say that I believe leprechauns are evil.
I find this passage quite illuminating of Shock's debate style: apparently resorting to loaded questions and trick questions instead of addressing the merits. By the way, from what you describe of the atheist's response, I don't see it as an admission that God exists; I see it as saying "If God exists [possibly with the characteristics attributed to Him in the Bible], then He is evil." I could say "Santa Claus is a generous man" without admitting that he exists.
I think atheism, agnosticism and Darwinism are jokes.
I personally think the RIAA, Monsanto, and Microsoft are corporations I think are not behaving as ethically as they ought to be. This doesn't make them interchangeable.
And often when you ask people probing questions about their supposed atheism, agnosticism and Darwinism they exhibit the types of behavior associated with people who engage in insincere denialism and/or willful ignorance and stubbornness. They most certainly do not believe like sincere inquirers of the truth.
I can't speak about this as I am not an atheist and do not have regular conversations with atheists about atheism. I will say that I am a "sincere inquirer[] of the truth." GregG 19:16, 15 May 2013 (EDT)
GregG, I am not going to spend my time wrangling with Personal remark removed. I made this decision concerning you shortly before I got the above message from you (Your message at 10:50, 15 May 2013) and I decided to limit my interaction with you as much as possible and put the time to better uses. My decision was timely as it will prevent me from wasting a lot of time in yet another unproductive discussion with you. I am sorry to report this to you, but you have not given me a better alternative. Conservative 21:28, 15 May 2013 (EDT)

Did Conservative just get owned?--DavidS 19:03, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

VivaYehshua vs. Fergus Mason - VivaYehshua won hands down![edit]

"And whenever an evolutionist debate opponent backs out of a debate that he agreed to of course that means that the creationist debate opponent won the debate by default. VivaYehshua won the debate by forfeit. It is like a chess match where the opponent tips over his king as his first move!" [21]

When is Fergus Mason going to debate VivaYehshua liked he promised to?Conservative 22:11, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Mr. Mason is being shown the French pause. :) He knows what he needs to do! Debate VivaYehshua. Conservative 22:51, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
Did your big sister used to take care of school bullies for you too? WilcoxD 02:01, 16 May 2013 (EDT)

Mr. Mason is bulldog with no teeth. That why he backed out of his debate with VivaYehshua. He knows this, I know this and VivaYehshua knows this. Conservative 02:25, 16 May 2013 (EDT)

There's an easy way for you to prove that, User:C. Seeing as Viva has been banned, why don't you debate me? Viva tells me you're not so good at oral debates, so we can have a written debate here if you like (unless you're, you know, a bit lacking in the old ma-cheese-mo.) Just get Popeye to keep his banhammer in his pocket for a couple of hours and I'll happily wipe the floor with you and your 15 stupid questions. Now that your excuse is blown it's time to put your money where your mouth is and debate me like a man. Otherwise get back down your hole with those bunnies.--Fergus Mason 09:13, 19 May 2013 (EDT)

How does one debate VivaYehshua?[edit]

I have searched on how to do this, the closest I got was finding a chat room where he has not be seen for weeks. So instructions on how debate this fellow would be appreciated. Thanks --Patmac 10:37, 16 May 2013 (EDT)

What is the point of your question? Are you just trying to be a Personal remark removed and seeking attention? We know evolutionists quake in their boots at the mere thought of debating VivaYehshua! Let a Darwinist make a debate challenge. Then VivaYehshua will emerge from the fog of creation vs. evolution war and do battle! And remember, the debate must be on creationist terms and certainly not Darwinists terms as their empire is crumbling. See: Infrastructure of Darwinism is crumbling HERE and HERE. Conservative 10:41, 16 May 2013 (EDT)
I did make a debate challenge, User:Conservative. I made it to YOU, and you ran away and hid behind Viva and Shock. Are you willing to debate me about your ridiculous questions or not? Don't try the "obscure internet evolutionist" excuse either. You know who I am, whereas you won't even reveal your gender, species or numbers (although we all know EXACTLY who you are, despite your farcical attempts at generating mystery.) So come on: put up or shut up. Either debate me or get back down your hole with the other coprophages.--Fergus Mason 10:17, 19 May 2013 (EDT)

I was not addressing you Conservative. Can anyone advise how I can contact VivaYehshua please. Not so much for a debate but to ask him if he knows that his name is being used as a pawn in someone elses crusade--Patmac 11:59, 16 May 2013 (EDT)

Patmac, Viva is one of my Skype contacts. If you like I can ask him if it's OK to give you his contact details. You'll find me on Skype at fergus.mason1. In any case he knows that User:Conservative has been doing this. I did try to debate Viva, although he doesn't like the 15 questions and wanted a general debate about evolution instead, but I kept getting banned by other moderators. That wasn't Viva's fault; he's actually quite a cool guy.--Fergus Mason 09:29, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
I believe User:C posted a while ago, a link to a chatroom frequented by VivaYeshua. brenden 13:41, 16 May 2013 (EDT)
I hunted through the links and eventually ended up in this chat room which I found near the bottom of this blog post. The people in that room are pretty cool, I stayed a while and had some good conversations. However, they said that VivaYehshua was banned about a month ago and basically said, I'm paraphrasing here, that Conservative should fight his own battles... sorry Patmac, I tried to find an answer to your question. Fnarrow 23:07, 16 May 2013 (EDT)

to: Fnarrow, VivaYehshua, a chat room moderator of Shockofgod, was banned from Shockofogod's chat room? I don't believe it. Your claims lack credibility - especially in the light of your absence of evidence presented for your claims. Conservative 23:30, 16 May 2013 (EDT)

I just left the chatroom as well, and great discussions, but VivaYehshua was indeed banned for a month, and Conservative, they did say you should debate on your own. --Krayner 23:36, 16 May 2013 (EDT)
Head over there now and ask the Mod named ActuarialNinja he's the one who told me... And many other who were there when it was discussed are still there. I have no desire to debate anyone and therefore have no dog in this fight, I'm just passing the facts along. Fnarrow 23:54, 16 May 2013 (EDT)

Creationist ladies vs. evolutionist nags[edit]

Should be on main-page-right. brenden 20:21, 16 May 2013 (EDT)

Is it news or more yah-boo sucks from the blogger that can't read a graph? Rafael 12:03, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
== Christianity Declining In The UK ==

[[22]] I wonder if there's something Conservapedia can do to stop this change JRegden 01:16, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Faux Christianity (Liberal Christianity) is declining, Bible believing Christianity via immigrants and their children is increasing.[23] Conservative 01:49, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

In one word, JReg, no. The will is not here. You and I can do what we can but don't expect any sense, let alone help, here. Rafael 10:53, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

What right have you to label any form of Christianity false? I am Anglican, are you telling me I am not a real Christian? Does respect mean anything to you?--Patmac 11:39, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
Patmac, what are your thoughts about David Jenkins, former Bishop of Durham, who called the resurrection a conjuring trick with bones?[24] Is there sound evidence supporting the historicity of the Bible and the divine inspiration of the Bible and Bible inerrancy? See: Biblical archaeology and Bible prophecy and Bible history. Why do you think that liberal Christianity is shrinking within global Christianity? Do you believe in the law of non-contradiction? Do you believe it is possible to ascertain religious truths (Jesus is reported to have said it is possible to know religious truth in the gospels in John 8:32)? Why did Paul and Jesus warn about false teachers and false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing? Have their ever been wolves in sheep's clothing as far as Christianity? Why did the Puritans/pilgrims come to America and did they have a right to publicly disagree with the religious officials/teachers in Europe and say that they were teaching error? Conservative 13:41, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

I agree with some of your points but that is not what I asked. I challenge you to give a one word answer. I am Anglican, are you telling me I am not a real Christian? Yes or No--Patmac 13:44, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Patmac, which points do you disagree with and why? Also, do you think that respect should be automatically given or do you think it is earned and that dishonorable behavior can cause people to be rightfully disrespected? I say this because often the people who demand respect the loudest are the ones who least deserve it. Conservative 13:49, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Ha, I just knew you could not give a one word answer. Reading between lines though, you do not consider me and my fellow 73 million Anglicans Christian. By extension, and because of the similar doctrine, I take it that you do not consider the circa 1 billion Roman Catholics as true Christians either. What about the hundreds of millions who are members of The Eastern Orthodox churches? Together we make up over 75 % of Christians and close to a quarter of the World's population.--Patmac 14:00, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Patmac, two points. First, you are creating a false dilemna and being illogical. There are theologically conservative Anglicans, particularly outside of the UK/Europe/Western World, but inside the UK/Europe/Western World, errant theological liberalism has often been more prevalent in Anglicanism in recent times.
Second, you have shown yourself to be theologically liberal and unable to defend it. You have also demanded respect for liberal Christianity, but given your inability to defend your theology, you have shown that respect to be undeserving.Conservative 14:10, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

To answer some of your points: The Bishop of Durham was wrong and does not represent the majority view. No, I do not believe in Bible inerrancy. The Pilgrim Fathers migrated because they were discriminated against. Until you just mentioned it I had not heard of the law of non-contradiction. Jesus and Paul were both of course correct about the wolf in sheeps clothing, all that glitters is not gold and beware of Greeks' bearing gifts are two similar sentiments. You are correct in calling me theologically liberal and I am secure enough in my faith that I have no need to defend it. I will leave that to the Queen, she is "The Defender of the Faith"

However, back to the point, Am I a Christian? --Patmac 14:00, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Why would I allow myself to be dragged into a discussion of theologically conservative Protestantism vs. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity or discuss other matters with you, when you have dodged some of my questions above plus displayed illogical behavior on top of this matter. If you are being unreasonable, why would I want to have a protracted discussion with you? Conservative 14:24, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
Conservative believes in only the true sort of Christianity as spread in God's chosen country. Anglicans and Catholics are simply wrong. CamD 14:27, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

I HAVE NEVER INSULTED YOUR RELIGIOUS FAITH. And I would never do so. If you can't answer my question perhaps you can ask VivaYehshua to do it for you? --Patmac 14:31, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

I asked above: "Why do you think that liberal Christianity is shrinking within global Christianity? Do you believe in the law of non-contradiction? Do you believe it is possible to ascertain religious truths (Jesus is reported to have said it is possible to know religious truth in the gospels in John 8:32)?" There must be a reason or reasons why you are not answering these questions? Tell me why. Conservative 14:35, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

I answered some of your points above, take a look. Other points: I have no idea why Liberal Christianity is shrinking.Yes I believe it is possible to ascertain religious truths . As I said above until you mentioned it I had never heard of the law of non-contradiction. Points answered. --Patmac 14:43, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

I have just read your article Cons, at least the bullet points and it does seem logical but I would suggest, and I am really going out on a limb here, that Quantum Mechanics, which is not logical, "seems" to contradict it. This is the best I can do at the moment.--Patmac 15:06, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Patmac, if want me to continue this discussion, you are going to have to show me via a gesture of good faith that it is worth pursuing the discussion further. Please do some research on why liberal Christianity is shrinking and get back to me. I certainly do not want to spend a lot of time in a discussion with a person who will not accept any reasonable criticisms of Liberal Christianity or could not accept that it could be shrinking due to teaching error, spiritual deadness or other causes indicating its unsoundness. Theologically conservative Protestantism is experiencing explosive growth within the world and within global Christianity and many of its adherents are reporting credible reports of the miraculous (I would be glad to discuss this with you, but first you have to show your gesture of good faith). Conservative 15:10, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

I do not want to debate, I want you to answer. I have addressed all your points. Now, do you consider me to be a Christian? Liberal or otherwise?--Patmac 15:15, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Patmac, please do some research on why liberal Christianity is shrinking and get back to me. I certainly do not want to spend a lot of time in a discussion with a person who will not accept any reasonable criticisms of Liberal Christianity or could not accept that it could be shrinking due to teaching error, spiritual deadness or other causes indicating its unsoundness. Conservative 15:20, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

I will do the research but I place my own caveat, that you answer my question. Am I a Christian?--Patmac 15:22, 17 May 2013 (EDT)?

Public notice from User: Conservative account[edit]

Due to various people wanting more of my time, I will not be reading any talk pages of Conservapedia in 2013, 2014 and 2015. In addition, I will not be posting to any talk pages of Conservapedia as well during this period. Conservative 22:44, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

  JohanZ 23:17, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
So there is just one of you? Rafael 01:38, 18 May 2013 (EDT)
This illustrates my previous observation about competing demands on the valuable time of volunteers. No volunteer can contribute at a peak level for a long period of time. There is always the danger of burn out or other deferred time commitments catching up with the volunteer in the long run. That is why we should have a three person committee editing and updating the Main Page. Each member would serve for 9 months and then rotate off, with the terms staggered, so that every calendar quarter, one new committee member would join and one would rotate off. If there is a disagreement between the members, it would be decided by a majority vote of the three. This would allow other editors to make suggestions on this page about the Main Page and be assured of a fair and prompt consideration of the input. It would also result in greater civility, because everyone would know that they may have a turn in the "hot seat" and would not launch into intemperate language out of frustration. Since User:Conservative is not available to respond to this page and to edit the Main Page at the expense of "people wanting more of his time", I believe this is the ideal time to implement the Committee approach. Thanks! Wschact 18:27, 18 May 2013 (EDT)

My 2¢[edit]

I thought a little bit about User:Conservative's announcement, and while I was at first very annoyed (see here), I'm now taking it cum grano salis:

  • I assume that someone advised User:Conservative neither to provoke fights at talk-pages nor let himself drawn into those.
  • In one of his strange face-saving maneuvers, he decided to make the absurd announcement above.
  • Over time (i.e., the next few days) we will get back to some kind of normal routine...

It would be nice if I were wrong and User:Conservative graduated from University in three years time, stating in his address as valedictorian that this was only possible because he put the time he gained by ignoring talk-pages to good use. --AugustO 09:06, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

An addendum and clarification[edit]

I/we underestimated the amount of speculation my announcement would cause. Plus, I/we will confess that I/we was/were a little curious about the reaction it would cause and took a few peeks as far as the reaction. In doing so, I/we saw that GregG was being taken to task over his unbiblical views about the Great Flood which pleased me/us greatly. :)

Some clarification:

I/we do have some people who are asking me/us for more of their time for various reasons. In addition, I/we set some new goals for myself/ourselves. New goals often require new priorities be set. Next, nobody advised me/us to establish this new policy which will be in effect until 2016. It was done on my/our own initiative and without influence from other parties. Conservative 16:16, 24 May 2013 (EDT)

What strength of character! What self-discipline! What magnanimousness!
--AugustO 16:28, 24 May 2013 (EDT)
AugustO, from this point onward you will see User: "ironwill" Conservative perform a feat of wiki willpower that will be completed January 1, 2016! Second, when a proud man receives a comeuppance for trying to turn a Great Flood into a not so Great Flood, it is only fitting that Bible believers be pleased. :) Conservative 19:25, 24 May 2013 (EDT)

Small amendment to my/our aforementioned policy[edit]

The purpose of my/our aforementioned policy was to replace my/our interactions with evolutionists who are unwilling to debate VivaYehshua on the 15 questions for evolutionists via a debate offer that has been repeatedly offered to various evolutionists and instead spend that time on more productive endeavors. This has been very successful and I/we should have done this earlier. Other than tying up a few loose ends in the community portal, interacting with insincere evolutionist posers has been dramatically reduced.

I/we are making a small amendment to the policy, but nothing that will dilute the original purpose of the policy. I/we may make posts to talk pages from time to time for administrative purposes (collaboration on worthwhile projects, warnings to editors, wiki technical matters (dead links, etc.) , etc. Conservative 21:38, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

By the way gentlemen whose website still does not have a Wikipedia entry on it and is losing web traffic[25], the Sysops at Conservapedia think you are highly neurotic and have Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder.  :) Conservative 12:52, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

Atheist wiki down[edit]

They should pray more. CamD 09:43, 18 May 2013 (EDT)

Did they suffer some kind of overload following the announcement above? BBRodriguez 21:47, 18 May 2013 (EDT)

Great Flood/Astronomy[edit]

Can anyone tell me what orbital regression software was used in these calculations? I didn't see it mentioned in the article and I can't find any way to make the claims fit the actual physics. Thanks, Fnarrow 10:13, 18 May 2013 (EDT)

Turkey, a world leader in anti-evolutionism, had its Moody’s credit rating upgraded to investment-grade quality.[edit]

Could someone trim this headline into oblivion?

  • Baa3 is a good, but not a very impressive rating! Other nations which are often bashed as being secular by User:Conservative have much better ratings, like Sweden or the UK.
  • From the link „ The Islamic anti-evolution campaign is taking place in Turkey, and not Egypt or Saudi Arabia, because it is the Muslim nation where evolution has been taken most seriously.” So, maybe Turkey will become a world leader in anti-evolutionism, but it isn't there yet.
  • „Imagine how it would be doing if it adopted the Christian creationism over Islamic creationism.” Imagine what could happen if pigs could fly! That's not news...

--AugustO 03:07, 19 May 2013 (EDT)

Who are you talking to August? Remember that Conservatve will not read any talkpages in the years 2013,2014 and 2015. I have my suspicions that by 2016, new events will have taken our attention. --DamianJohn 03:16, 19 May 2013 (EDT)

I'm asking for any sysop to remove this item. It gets even worse when it is in juxtaposition with the new one „The UK has just had one lost economic decade, and it's about to enter a second. When is the UK going to remove Charles Darwin off its currency? ”: the UK's Moody-ranking is Aa1, while the ranking of Turkey is Baa3 - still behind Bulgaria!

BTW: I think it is absurd that someone who doesn't read this talk page is allowed to make edits to the main page: how does he expect a simple typo to be corrected? --AugustO 05:46, 19 May 2013 (EDT)

I am in two minds about that. On the one hand you make a good point about typographical and other corrections, but then I understand that Conservative is an extremely busy person who is making significant progress in the battle against the Darwinistic agenda. --DamianJohn 06:37, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
100 percent agree AlheeG 07:51, 19 May 2013 (EDT)

Yeah of course. the economic problems in the UK are all caused by having Darwin on its currency. No other country has Darwin on is currency , whats their excuse? What is America's excuse? For over half a decade Conservative has been spreading his hatred on Conservapedia, when is Mr Schlafly going to ban him? When is Mr Schlafly going to realise this man is destroying Conservapedia's reputation? How long is he going to be allowed to post articles that would land him a criminal charge in many western democracies, all on a supposedly family focused encyclopedia? I bring up a post(s) from Conservative where he states The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is gay bathhouses! and By the way, is your "liberal Christianity" "pastor" a lesbian or sodomite? Theses phrases are borderline criminal and have no place on a family focused encyclopedia. I would suggest his rhetoric is better suited on the Westboro Baptist Church's website--Patmac 11:58, 19 May 2013 (EDT)

Can everyone agree that reading Talk:Main Page and responding to concerns noted here is an integral part of editing the Main Page. That is, no person should be allowed to edit the main page if they refuse to read this page, or lack the time to read this page. Thanks, Wschact 23:55, 20 May 2013 (EDT)

So the global chief economist of[edit]

HSBC thinks that he is in some way qualified to tell the governer of the Bank of England how to run things. Perhaps if he spent more time stopping his bank laundering drug and terrorist money then more intelligent people may pay more attention to his protestations as opposed to the easily duped and led. Davidspencer 12:40, 19 May 2013 (EDT)

The whole article should be taken with a pinch of salt. Lost decade? Until HSBC and the corporate socialist comrades ran the global economy aground in 2007, the British economy was doing quite well. Osborne's austerity measures are not enough? There's some evidence that it's those very measures, with their obsession with ecoomic liberalism, that are hamstringing a recovery. Wealth inequality is a problem but we shoudn't do anything about it? He would say that, wouldn't he. The hard reality is that nothing is going to change until HSBC and the rest of the corporate comintern stop feeding at the taxpayers trough. Rafael 15:00, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
Oh I know Rafael, it's utter rubbish. If this person, who has been Group Chief Economist at HSBC since 1998, says anything I suggest that everyone treats it with a pinch of salt the size of the Cheshire Plain. This man has been Group Chief Economist at HSBC during the time that the company almost went bankrupt and was involved in laundering money for drug runners worldwide resulting in the bank being fined hundreds of millions of pounds in multiple countries for breaking the law, this and this being just 2 examples. They were fined 1.9 BILLION DOLLARS by the US authorities but User:C thinks that the man in charge whilst all this law breaking was taking place is someone worth listening to? Ridiculous quite frankly. Davidspencer 15:40, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
Incidentally, it's a good job that user:c is so busy he can't read any talk pages otherwise he may have spent most of his day editing here at Conservapedia. Davidspencer 16:20, 19 May 2013 (EDT)


... is today. --AugustO 15:35, 19 May 2013 (EDT)

Is this right?[edit]

I see that Conservative blocked someone today for edits he did not even read! In fact he seemed to take pride in it. I think that these two may have some history based on Conservative's behavior, but is this kind of banning normal? Am I likely to be banned for using a talk page too much as well? BBRodriguez 08:17, 20 May 2013 (EDT)

It happened again! Someone else replied to my topic and was immediately banned for talk page edits he didn't even read!

Oklahoma Tornado[edit]

Would think that the absolutely horrible devastation caused by the Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma would be worth a mention on your main page and maybe a link to donate to Red Cross appeal for it.

Praying for the Oklahoma victims would be a better suggestion - which I will do personally now.--Andy Schlafly 10:12, 21 May 2013 (EDT)
He that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him: how doth the charity of God abide in him?

Nonsense. Christ admonishes us to pray in private and love our neighbors. Christ truly loves a gift of charity. Show me where He favors prayer for our brothers and sisters over helping them in their time of need. Nate 13:01, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

It's great to give to the unfortunate and poor (which is not necessarily the same as the Red Cross). But that is not what Jesus did. Jesus prayed, often publicly, for people.--Andy Schlafly 13:33, 21 May 2013 (EDT)
Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

(Matthew 25:34-46, Douay-Rheims) (This reminds me that I should also create an article on the works of mercy [26].) GregG 18:23, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

The Bible quotes are great. Jesus expressly talked about the Great Flood, and how people misbehaved right up until the Flood occurred. See Luke 17-24 (Translated)#17:27. Do you think Jesus was somehow wrong, and liberal denial right?--Andy Schlafly 23:17, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Jesus is incapable of lying. I do think a Great Flood occurred, but I don't think the Bible is making a scientific statement as to the precise details of the flood but is rather (in this case) using literary techniques that the people to whom it was first written would be familiar with. My personal opinion is that based the scientific evidence we have, it's not likely that the flood occurred with the precise details specified in the Bible. GregG 23:24, 21 May 2013 (EDT)
EDIT I also find it intriguing that User:Conservative posted several stories about the Great flood immediately after Mr. Schlafly and I were discussing it, even though User:Conservative says that he no longer reads these pages. GregG 00:06, 22 May 2013 (EDT)
Jesus is quoted in describing the Great Flood. Is the quotation authentic in your view, or not? Liberal denial is a stubborn thing, but logically there is no reason to deny the authenticity of the quote, or the Flood itself.--Andy Schlafly 20:00, 22 May 2013 (EDT)
I believe that the entire Bible, including the Deuterocanonical books and the entirety of the four Gospels, is authentic. This, of course, does not mean that Jesus is making literal statements every time he speaks. Indeed, in John 11, Jesus speaks metaphorically at first about Lazarus's death and then, when the disciples misunderstand, clarifies that Lazarus has died:
These things he said; and after that he said to them: Lazarus our friend sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him out of sleep. His disciples therefore said: Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. But Jesus spoke of his death; and they thought that he spoke of the repose of sleep. Then therefore Jesus said to them plainly: Lazarus is dead.
(John 11:11-14, Douay-Rheims) GregG 20:00, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Jesus prayed, often publicly, for people[edit]

Andrew Schlafly, could you give some examples for this? As far as I know, Jesus prayed privately, as he taught his pupils:

But you, when you pray, go into your private room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father Who is hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden manner, will reward you openly. Matthew 6:6 (CBP)

Yes, Jesus gave thanks publicly and made public blessing, but he prayed in private...

--AugustO 02:10, 22 May 2013 (EDT)

This quote is taken out of context. Why didn't you include the context, by which Jesus was urging people not to be like liberals?--Andy Schlafly 20:02, 22 May 2013 (EDT)
  • „Why didn't you include the context, by which Jesus was urging people not to be like liberals?” I just assumed when talking about iconic verses with knowledgeable Christians that they would recognize the verse and therefore the context: the Sermon on the Mount.
  • „This quote is taken out of context.” In which way does the context change the meaning of the verse? Pray in private vs. don't behave like a liberal: pray in private - what difference does this make to the validity of the advice?
  • I'd rather like an answer to my question above: Andrew Schlafly, could you give some examples of Jesus praying, publicly, for people?
--AugustO 01:05, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Liberal denial of 2011 triple murder[edit]

The item at the top of the front page reads, "Associate of Tamerlan Tsarnaev confessed that they did the 9/11 anniversary triple-murder. But then the associate is shot dead by an official, and liberal denial persists about Tamerlan's murderous past." I have not seen any evidence of any "liberal denial" on this issue. We already discussed above that neither liberals nor anybody else was arguing that Tamerlan definately was not involved in the killings, but rather felt that it was premature for law enforcement to announce that he was involved. Now, there are wide-spread press reports saying that Tamerlan's friend admitted that he was involved, before he was shot. I would remove the "liberal denial" comment at the end of the item. I believe that both liberals and conservatives agree that the Constitutional presumption of innocence requires that the government should be careful when disclosing information while people are facing trials. That is completely separate from liberal denial, and the front page item is not a good example where liberal denial can be criticised. Thanks, Wschact 04:34, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

I would have thought that this new information (if it is true) is validation of the reasons why the DNA results should not have been released. How would you like to explain to the public that because you prejudiced a trial for political gain, a murderer would have to be set free? It isn't something that I imagine would be pleasant. --DamianJohn 05:14, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
Aside from a sense of fairness, main stream media are very careful about the reporting of pending criminal proceedings out of a sense of self-preservation. A key to the long-term survival of a media organization is avoiding defamation lawsuits from those accused of a crime or their families. I hope that CP will be around for a long time, and has proper procedures in place to avoid making unsubstantiated accusations of specific individuals committing criminal acts. Thanks, Wschact 14:05, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Obama & Sergio Garcia[edit]

Racist "fried chicken" remark + some very twisted logic = Obama calling a woman heckler a "young lady"

only on Conservapedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winger77 (talk)

I looked at the video: Barrack Obama addressed the woman as "Madam" - a male heckler would certainly be addressed as "Sir" - and he said about her:
The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to. Obviously I do not agree.
Yes, he said „cut the young lady some slack”, but while the lady was certainly out of her teens, that seems to be quite mild, compared to paternalistic, sexist references which you can find on the main page of Conservapedia, like:

Also, many of their atheist nerd editors still lose ladies to creationist men!
So, I'm quite baffled by this news item - surely, I don't understand the subtleties of American politics. --AugustO 18:28, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
Had the same remark been by, say, Todd Akin, the liberal media would be smearing him now. Does anyone seriously think that Sergio Garcia is a racist, as the liberal media almost imply?--Andy Schlafly 19:16, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
Probably not, although it was a stupid thing to say. I don't understand the whole fried chicken business, but I do know it is a remark calculated to offend, even if it doesn't necessarily mean that the speaker himself is racist. One of nasty, petulant or rash would be more appropriate to describe Garcia. Still, I have no idea why you think Obama was being misogynistic in the slightest. I think it is ironic as someone who calls out "double standards" whenever the media give a liberal an easy time on something you seem to be very tough on liberals for things you wouldn't care about had they been done by conservatives. --DamianJohn 19:47, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity[edit]

I take offence to this article and strongly request it's removal--Patmac 12:24, 26 May 2013 (EDT).

I agree. I also think that these edits are unacceptable, and unbecoming of an administrator, no matter what rank. brenden 18:25, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

None of this makes any sense?[edit]

As a daily reader for well over two years now, I repeatedly see the phrases liberalism is declining Evolutionary belief is crumbling and today's declaration the secular left is collapsing . . . and yet there seems to be no predicted liberal apocalypse (my own words). None of the sources point to anything that hasn't been going on for a while already, and if my opinion matters, the liberal/conservative balance seems to be quite steady, has been for a while, and seems to be for the future?

Polling shows gains for conservative truths among the public. Liberal beliefs have virtually collapsed in several key areas, such as gun control. global warming, and communism. Pro-abortion views are declining among youth. The phony theory of evolution is being questioned far more than before.--Andy Schlafly 09:14, 27 May 2013 (EDT)
It makes perfect sense to me, guessing you where not reading it properly or you where drunk/impared. - Warick

Why do people deny global warming? The only thing I can think of is that it would hit them financially. --Patmac 16:41, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

Sometimes people act against their own interests. Just think of Lenin and the Mensheviks. Rafael 08:33, 28 May 2013 (EDT)
Perhaps someone will write an article or essay on the Decline of Liberalism and give the long-term data. I have not found short-term data to support the claim. Both "liberal" and "conservative" public policy positions evolve over time with events. In the 1920s conservatives were arguing in the United States for temperance and the prohibition of alcohol, and liberals were arguing for legalizing alcohol. In the 1960s, conservatives were arguing for an aggressive war in Southeast Asia, while liberals were arguing for a withdrawal from Viet Nam. Eventually, public policy debates get resolved, without either side "crumbling" -- they just move on to other issues that they believe are more important to the country. Wschact 06:38, 28 May 2013 (EDT)


Google also estimates 150,000,000 search results for the search "creationism and just so stories".

To be fair, better targeted searches would be 'evolution "just so stories"' and 'creationism "just so stories"', which get 139,000 and 101,000 respectively.

To be fairer still, such searches make no indication of whether a website article approves of or dismisses the concept searched for, so these sort of hit counts are of little use in get a feel for popular opinion on either matter. --DHouser 10:14, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

Also I have to add that not all those who searched will necessarily agree with the assertion that evolution has just so stories. I certainly have never came across any "just so" stories and, after googling it, I still have yet to find a credible "just so story." --Ryancsh 16:44 29/05/13 (GMT)

Headline: 54% oppose Obamacare according to CNN[edit]

Does Conservapedia think (or hope) that people do not actually click on the links and read them? A quarter of that 54% oppose the law because it's doesn't do far enough ("not liberal enough")....basically, approximately 60% either approve Obamacare or think it should be expanded. While "According to the survey, 35 percent of Americans said they are opposed to Obamacare because they believe it's too liberal" - Winger77

Lebron James[edit]

The rap on James is that he is probably the most gifted athlete to ever step on a basketball court, but he's a punk - how he left Cleveland was inexcusable - and he doesn't have the mental toughness to consistently close out games - which is a problem that his contemporaries, Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan, never had. But this headline has issues. The media over-promotes him? How many conservative basketball athletes have we shed light on in the past month? The fact is James is currently the best player in the NBA without question; he is so good that every time his team doesn't go 4-0 in a series and win a championship, it's apparently a news story here.--IDuan 11:46, 29 May 2013 (EDT)

And before someone who doesn't know about basketball tries to say that Kobe is better or that Durant or Melo are better because they score more - the fact is none of these players have the well rounded game that James has. Durant is probably a better shooter, but doesn't have quite the rebounding skill and certainly lacks the defensive presence and the passing skill. Bryant is probably the best one-on-one player in the league (although who knows what he'll be like after injury), but is terrible at off-ball defense and tends to force shots (to be fair though, again, there was a long while when his options were: shoot with all 5 guys guarding him, or pass to Smush Parker). Melo was the league leading scorer and the only player to get an MVP vote besides James (he got one) - but again he isn't the passer, rebounder or defender that James is. But ultimately what it comes down to is people expect him to win. We didn't run a story when Durant's Thunder got eliminated by the Grizzlies who were then easily handled by the Spurs. (Although it probably would've at least been a tighter series with Westbrook, but then the knock on James is that he couldn't do it without Wade.) But the Pacers even the series with the Heat and we need a top-of-the-site headline that James is, in fact, fallible.--IDuan 11:56, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
Statistically LeBron doesn't measure up to the media hype about him, and he has won only one NBA title after joining a team with the best players. The bottom line is that the media declared him long ago to be the best, and is sticking to their story with an absurd amount of promotion.--Andy Schlafly 12:54, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
Yes there's been a huge amount of hype - but statistically he is the best active player - and he probably is one of the most versatile players since magic - how would anyone expect the media not to over-report on him? It's basic sports media capitalism that stories on superstars get readers or viewers.--IDuan 13:03, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
"Statistically, Lebron doesn't measure up?" How does one qualify that? What stats does he have to have in order for you to say that he does measure up? Face it,for whatever reason, you don't like him so he's a target. Never, in the NBA, has there been a player with his combination of skills. He most certainly demands media coverage, whether you like him or not. He may only have one ring but he's got one more than your "outspoken Christian," Kevin Durant.


LeBron can't win the scoring title, and has trouble defeating weaker teams in the playoffs. This warrants the overhype???--Andy Schlafly 19:44, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
What overhype? He's an astonishingly good basketball player. One of the best in the history of the game. It's very easy to equivocate by saying that he "has trouble defeating weaker teams in the playoffs" but you're making excuses - (a) he's got a ring, (b) he's a member of a team, not responsible for the fate of them all, and (c) how do you personally determine which team is weak that he nonetheless defeated and what does that even mean? Who are these outspoken Christians who don't get the coverage you think they should? $100 says they're nowhere close to the player LeBron James is and therefore don't deserve additional coverage for their playing. They may deserve extra coverage for bending their knees in public as you seem to want but that's a completely different issue. You should note that when his teammate had a seizure on court he gathered both teams together to pray in the middle of the court and later mentioned Jesus Christ on national television. He's a Christian man. He's as outspoken as circumstances call for. Nate 20:22, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
Amen Nate. And if Lebron did win the scoring title, he'd be called a ball hog.


I don't think Lebron is the best ever. By a fair shot. I think he's probably the most versatile ever, but not best. I also do think - and no one who knows basketball would argue this - that he is the best player today. Carmelo Anthony won the scoring title - I promise you he is not the best player in the league. Thinking that players go out and play the game to win scoring titles is a gigantic misunderstanding of basketball.--IDuan 21:01, 29 May 2013 (EDT)

LeBron ranks #31 in field goal percentages in this postseason, despite lots of easy baskets. [27] For such a performance he is given the nearly unanimous MVP, and declared one of the greatest players of all time???--Andy Schlafly 23:57, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
Even in that category, look at the FGM (field goals made) column. There's nobody above him in FGM/game and nobody near him in total FGM. It's a lot easier to average 100% when you have 1, 2 or 3 attempts than James with 218. MelH 00:30, 30 May 2013 (EDT)
Andy, you're joking, right? First of all, the MVP was awarded May 6th and does not take postseason stats into consideration. Secondly, even if it did, a cursory look at the postseason leaders in FG% reveals that the three players tied for first played one, one and three games, rendering the statistic meaningless. Marcus Camby, tied for number one, took ONE SHOT IN THREE GAMES and made it, giving him a field goal percentage of 1.0000. Lebron is shooting 52% (@25.2/g). Where's Durant? #78, 46%, 31 ppg. Face it, he's the best player in the game right and he gets media attention because of it. Kevin Durant and any other player would get just as much attention (and Durant gets a lot) if they were as good. The glaring irony here is that the Christian sports star who DOES get overwhelming, yet undeserved, media attention is Tim Tebow, who has accomplished virtually nothing. Why isn't he on your list of overrated sports stars?


Name one player above him on that list who you would pick for MVP. This is just a continuation of a misunderstanding of basketball - this notion that the best player needs the most points scored and the highest field goal percentage - or even moreover that the postseason is a large enough sample size to determine anything - as everyone else has already noted. But AndyHill has a good point that MVP decisions are based on the regular season - for which Lebron was #5 in FG% - only outranked by four post players and scoring almost 10 points a game more than any of them. [28] --IDuan 01:57, 30 May 2013 (EDT)

Andy, I appreciate that Lebron is not your favorite player, he is certainly not mine either, however, Lebron's 2012-13 season is one of the greatest seasons from a statistical standpoint in NBA history. Lebron averaged 26.8 ppg, 8 rpg, and 7.2 apg while shooting 56.5 from the field and 40.6 from 3, all while leading his team to the best record in the NBA (66 wins) and the second longest winning streak in NBA history with a 27 game run. This doesn't even begin to address the advanced stats on Lebron which are out of control. I would challenge you to find 5 other examples from any other player in NBA history with that kind of season. You may dislike Lebron for political or religious reasons, though I'm not sure exactly what he has done to anger you, but it seems to me the attention Lebron gets is extremely well-deserved.--Krayner 09:24, 30 May 2013 (EDT)

Oops: Overrated sports star Lebron James scores 30, adds 8 rebounds and 6 assists to lead the the Heat over the Pacers for a 3 games to 2 lead over the Pacers. I give you permission to use this headline. - AndyHill

Get the game right at least[edit]

"Evolutionary racism directed towards an accomplished soccer player puts a sour note on a soccer match." Read the bloody thing! It was a game of Australian Rules! Not soccer. Even Americans know Aussie Rules.... Don't they?

Anyway...the person who called this player an "ape" is thirteen. She's what you Americans would call "trailer trash". She has no more idea of "evolutionary racism" than she has ideas on the personification of the Greek myths. AlanE 04:36, 30 May 2013 (EDT)

You can at least get your sport correct. How is that Rugby Union player Tim Tebow doing this season? And it does not mention that the person was liberal, In fact I doubt at that age their political beliefs would be clear. I think I know why you run from debates, you can't get simple facts right--Patmac 09:02, 30 May 2013 (EDT)

I reckon Tebow might go alright in rugby - maybe as a second five eighths. Can he kick would be the only issue. --DamianJohn 03:37, 31 May 2013 (EDT)

An after note, I have never been down under, but I know English and Australian culture are closer than either are to American culture. And racism here is far more likely to be expressed by right wing scumbags like the EDL, BNP, or National Front. I guess it is similar in Australia. These people are not liberal --Patmac 09:45, 30 May 2013 (EDT)

Well, User:Conservative seems to have realised his mistake and corrected it without reading this talk page, so that's good, however Creation Ministries' have a few facts wrong in their article. WilcoxD 20:23, 30 May 2013 (EDT)
As a collingwood supporter myself I would have to say to you AlanE, which sport do you follow ? Wogball ?

Adrian Peterson[edit]

How exactly has free speech been limited? Adrian Peterson said what he did, and he wasn't shouted down. Rather, most news outlets seem to have picked up the story. Over half the country now supports the idea of gay marriage, but nobody's right to speak their views on either side have been taken away. Good grief.---eg

Tim Tebow had to cancel an event at an anti-gay-marriage church because of valid concerns about exclusion by NFL teams and, indeed, he's been excluded for even lesser speech. The media is publicizing the speech by the NFL MVP in part because some want to see his career limited because of his views.--Andy Schlafly 22:28, 30 May 2013 (EDT)

"Because of valid concerns about exclusion" and "some want to see his career limited because of his views." Really. Where's your evidence? Who is "some?" The punter for the Vikings was cut, and he supported gay marriage. So who was really "excluded" for his speech? (no one, that's who.) You can make up whatever scenario you want want and splash it on the main page but it doesn't make it so. To sum up: Petersen said what he said and nobody has or will silence him. Tim Tebow was cut not because of his opinions, but because he's a bad QB. Reality. Join us here. - AndyHill

Yeah, I have to agree. Andy, do you have a single shred of evidence to support your paranoid claims? AP is one of the most beloved players in the league right now. The same media who voted AP as Most Valuable Player over "overrated" Peyton Manning now wants to destroy his career? This site becomes more of a farce with each passing day.---eg

9/11 anniversary murders[edit]

I believe that the question of why was the only witness to the tripple murders killed is a valid one. However, I believe the article on the tripple murders leaves much to be desired. I have left comments on the article's talk page. In addition, I have seen a lot of main stream media coverage of the FBI internal investigation into the shooting. For example, the Washington Post ran a story. So, I do not believe CP is correct in claiming that the MSM is ignoring the question of how the only witness was shot during questioning. Thanks, Wschact 03:50, 31 May 2013 (EDT)

The lamestream media are NOT calling for an independent investigation, and merely an internal investigation is obviously meaningless.--Andy Schlafly 12:33, 31 May 2013 (EDT)
If your concern is the editorial page advocacy of the main stream media, say that (and give sources). Instead, there is a false claim that the main stream media has not be covering the fact that there has been a shooting and that the FBI has an internal investigation into the shooting. So, the statements are incorrect and do not say what was meant. Thanks, Wschact 09:31, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

Anti-Catholic Comments about Notre Dame[edit]

How about a front page item on this bigotry.[29]

The Jets[edit]

Hi. I'm confused. I read the article on the Main Page and it says the Jets and Giants just don't want the amusement facility to expand or have events during their games because of traffic concerns, not that they are trying to stop it entirely. Also, what does any of this have to do with Christianity and how is the NFL "increasingly non-Christian?"

Thanks, Johnfitz

What the Jets are doing could make the amusement park unprofitable, which would block it as a practical matter. Also, the complete exclusion of Tim Tebow by the NFL is an example of its increased hostility to Christianity.--Andy Schlafly 12:36, 31 May 2013 (EDT)
It seems to have survived OK so far.--MasonFergus 19:25, 31 May 2013 (EDT)

Could it be that Tim Tebow is just not good enough?--Patmac 12:44, 31 May 2013 (EDT)

He's clearly good enough not to be completely banned by the NFL.--Andy Schlafly 12:59, 31 May 2013 (EDT)
Well, of course he hasn't been banned from the NFL. The League isn't going to ban any player who hasn't committed an egregious violation of its rules and/or ethics. I haven't been banned either, so that must mean I'm good enough, too.---eg
I'm not banned from the NFL either and I can't even play American Wendyball. Rugby's a better game anyway.--MasonFergus 18:25, 31 May 2013 (EDT)


Mr. Schlafly, you said "could make the the amusement park unprofitable." How do you know this? And if the builders of the park agreed to certain parameters and are now exceeding them, then it's their fault. As far as Tebow is concerned, he's not the only player in the league who is an outspoken Christian. In fact, I have a friend who plays for the Raiders who is an outspoken Christian and he has no trouble at all. I would like to see some evidence of your charge. I'm new here but it seems like some of the statements that are made here are pure speculation. Doesn't that go against the Conservapedia Commandments?

Thanks, Johnfitz

Apologies, I have to say I know little about football and am not suggesting Tim is not good, but he is at about that age (24 I guess) when great young players in team sports mature into great players or fail to make that step, just as Wayne Rooney has failed to do. I am only suggesting that he may have not made that step yet and at the moment he may not be good enough for the top 3 or 4 teams--Patmac 19:23, 31 May 2013 (EDT)

15 Questions book[edit]

Hey Ken, if you need any help with your book why don't you just ask me? Unlike your "Canadian author" I'm actually capable of getting books written and published (search my name on Amazon for details) and I'll be happy to write it for you for $2,000. You know how to contact me.--MasonFergus 18:21, 31 May 2013 (EDT)

Yes, but the QE! book has several children interested in maybe reading it. For some reason, the Lamestream Media doesn't want to report that. Rafael 14:34, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
Fergus, given your latest screwup, I don't think CMI will be wanting to use you as an author for any book. By the way, if you read chapter VIII of this book, you will see that the agnostic Richard Dawkins made factual errors that a fact checker could have easily found.
Fergus, why are agnostics so prone to making factual errors when railing against God? Is agnosticism based on emotion and not on facts/logic? Logic certainly does not support agnosticism (See: Agnosticism). In addition, the evidence does not support agnosticism.
Fergus, as far as book authors, CMI is not looking for a "short order cooks". They are looking for chefs. You need to understand the difference between activity and productivity. Conservative 11:14, 24 June 2013 (EDT)
"Logic certainly does support agnosticism". I'm guessing you meant to write "does not support agnosticism"? - Markman 11:10, 24 June 2013 (EDT)

Why is user:Conservative blocking people for not debating VivaYehshua‎? or for lacking machismo.[edit]

Is this now a pre requisite for being allowed to edit Conservapedia? (MasonFergus ). Especially as VivaYehshua‎ has absolutely no intention of doing your dirty work for you. Stop your attacks on moderate christianity. I really am beginning to think you are nothing but a cowardly bully who hides behind the big boy when someone fights back, the big boy in this case being the block button. (Block log); 19:50 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs) changed block settings for MasonFergus (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2015-05-31T23:49:39Z (account creation disabled) (lack of machismo - still has not debated VivaYeshua like he said he would). You would not know what machismo is if it bit you on the bum.--Patmac 11:07, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

I cannot speak for Conservative, but my understanding is that Mr. Mason has been banned from Conservapedia under a different account. I changed the block reason to reflect this. As far as I am aware, refusing to debate a third party is not grounds for a ban from Conservapedia. Also, to Mr. Mason, all further ban appeals should go directly to Mr. Schlafly by e-mail. GregG 11:14, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

Which Greg, is more than fair, so why did he not state that? I know I should not react to conservative the way I do but I am very bitter about being labelled as whoremonger, atheist, faux christian etc without a hint of contrition from him--Patmac 11:21, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

Greg: At 21:12 on 31 May, you reblocked MasonFergus on the grounds of being a sockpuppet, after (quite rightly) chewing out Cons for blocking with gratuitous remarks like "lack of machismo".
It is true that "MasonFergus" was a sock, but I consider this account creation to be justifiable under the circumstances. His earlier account "MasonFW" had been blocked, by Cons of course, at 01:11 on 21 May. The block reason at that time was simply the URL of a YouTube video! Of a song by Joe Jones!! Furthermore, that earlier account had challenged Cons to a debate. You can see it on this page in the section "VivaYehshua vs. Fergus Mason - VivaYehshua won hands down!" and the following section "How does one debate VivaYehshua?". Cons has continued to make libelous accusations that Mr. Mason refuses to debate this person of questionable connection with Conservapedia, while himself refusing to debate Mr. Mason. Blocking someone, with a block reason that is a Joe Jones song, for challenging Cons to a debate, and then accusing that person of cowardice, is not the sort of behavior that you should be supporting in any way.
SamHB 21:12, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
My understanding is that Karajou was the first to block a Fergus Mason account (User:FergusMason, As I said, all further ban appeals should go directly to Mr. Schlafly by e-mail, who I trust is adept at examining the contributions, the stated block reason, and the appeal rationale, and, if necessary, contacting the original users responsible for the block. GregG 19:58, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

Another blow to the 'Question evolution! Campaign '[edit]

User:conservative, have a look at this piece of research[30]

It shows:

Global religiosity drops by 9%, while atheism rises by 3%.

College educated are 16% less religious than those without secondary education.

The United States has seen a 13% drop in religiosity since 2005.

These findings seem to contradict the claims made by user:conservative and his/her/their/it's continuing linking to the Question evolution! Campaign blog. EJamesW 17:35, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

You know, it's funny: atheists like you two toss around words like "free-thinking", "reason", "rational", and "logic" around like snowballs... but that whole worldview, on average, has the most illogical people I have ever seen. It's a worldview built on jingoes and slander.

Also: this[31], this[32], and this[33].

Do svitaniya, comrades. ZetaSonic 20:59, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

I wonder how James researching actual statistics is cause enough for Zeta to attack him for no apparent reason other than the implication that he is an atheist. Tell me Zeta, why would you instantly resort to what I would call a liberal tactic of mud-slinging simply because someone decides to bring up a valid and supported statistic? Ryancsh 07:35, 3 June 2013 (GMT)

Zeta, do you know what semantic analysis is? And why would a Sysop use a sock? Rafael 08:00, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

"Whom will that be?"[edit]

The pronoun whom should be who, as who is acting as the predicate nominative of the verb "to be". GregG 18:42, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

Voter Guide[edit]

MainPageRight has an item "New Jersey voters! This Tuesday is Primary Day. Herewith a voter guide." However, the voter guides again promotes certain blogs and does not reflect the consensus views of CP editors (many of whom do not follow New Jersey politics.) I do not believe that CP should engage in promoting specific candidates or in engaging in partisan political activities. We are here to write an encyclopedia. Thanks, Wschact 09:20, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

This is a conservative encyclopedia. Your moral neutralism in which nothing can be condemned or approved might work on wikipedia, but not on this website. It is our duty to support candidates who will promote sound policy and morality. - Markman 18:14, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

I'm looking for a news item on the results of the New Jersey primary. Will there be a news item on Main Page Right with this information? -AndyHill

I guess I'll do it. Doesn't look like our candidates did so well:


"lacks the 60 votes needed to pass the U.S. Senate"[edit]

This should probably be worded "lacks the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster." Legislation in the Senate passes by majority vote. GregG 11:26, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

Meanwhile, in the real world[edit]

While mainpage right continues to bring us the latest op-eds from the blogosphere, it manages to miss the biggest news story in the world this morning. Rafael 09:06, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

I think you misunderstand what "What the MSM ins't fully covering" means. MPR is not intended to be a comprehensive news aggregation service. That news story is being fully covered by the MSN: it's front page of NPR, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN and so forth. Stories like Common Core and the Missouri Congressional election are not receiving (sufficient) MSM coverage. Thanks, WilliamWB 10:25, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
And speaking of the MSM, reports are circulating that the NYT has radically toned down an earlier editorial from "The Obama Administration has lost all credibility" by quietly inserting "on this issue." afterwards. Another example of the media capitulating to liberal interests, I think. Thanks, WilliamWB 23:07, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
To be fair, the wiretapping started under the Bush administration. However, the Obama administration is guilty of extra-judicially expanding information collection to an unprecedented and dangerous degree.--JHunter 01:32, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

William: Apologies for my delayed response. I got a week's ban for raising this issue.

I agree with your point about stories the MSM ignores. The battle between liberals and conservatives for the soul of the Anglican (Episcopalian) Communion, for ecample, is important and alive. Only this week, the bishops in the British parliament caved in gay marriage, despite pressure from bishops and archibishops in the developing world.

However, I don't accept the MSM will cover the NSA / PRISM story fully. It's in damage limitation mode and trying to bury it as fast as it can.

Let's be blunt. This is THE issue that can hurt Obama. The birth certificate, the IRS, Benghazi, all those are easy for liberals to ignore. The NSA / PRISM issue was raised by a liberal journalist in a liberal newspaper and is tearing the liberal community apart around the world.

It's also a live issue at internationally. The Chinese already used it as leverage last weekend. This week, Merkel is asking why Germany is under greater surveillance than Russia.

The whole world can see the Emperor is naked.

This is the best leverage conservatives have had aganist liberalism in years. It needs using. Rafael 14:41, 12 June 2013 (EDT)

Credibility context[edit]

Only one month ago in the context of a Biblical passage debate, we were talking about the importance of context. Now we're chopping a New York Times quote - when the last two words of that sentence drastically limit the scope by comparison. Is context only necessary when it's conducive to the point we're trying to make?--IDuan 11:21, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

Debt to revenue ratio[edit]

I am bit confused by the news item on main page about UK having a debt to income ratio of 212%. The same guardian article says this about USA "The US is in even worse shape than Greece. Its $16tn (£10tn) debt ......more than 560% of government revenues". So how does it make Britain bad? It is my beloved Ireland which is staggering under debt.

Maria O'Connor 09:27, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

You are using relativistic morality in terms of the debt to income ratio. You need to ask yourself WWJD (What would Jesus do) in terms of handling a counties finances. Comparing Britain to Barack "Hey big spender" Obama and George "compassionate conservatism" Bush does not make the British handling of its finances any less bad. Both Bush and Obama come from the baby boomer generation which experienced great prosperity and their moral reflexes in terms of fiscal discipline when it came to their countries finances was quite lax. But even if I were to grant you relativistic morality, Britain's external debt to GDP ratio is horrible compared to many countries and it is over 3 times worse than the United States. [34] I generally don't comment on talk pages anymore, but I felt your question was sincere.
As a side note, I do think that Britain and the UK would have better finances if they got involved in less warfare. Israel sent out assassins to seek justice in terms of the Munich Olympic Games terrorism. America and Britain got involved in the Afghanistan and Iraq boondoggles (Obama stepped up the warfare in Afghanistan). Some might say Obama had no choice but to continue the war in Afghanistan due to national pride. Last time I checked, pride is still a sin. :)
Also, the data suggests that if more Irish had the Protestant work ethic (like Bible believing conservative Protestants in Northern Ireland) then Ireland would not be staggering under so much debt. Please read the Guardian articles HERE and HERE and this will provide further data to buttress my case. This is due to a the respective cultural legacies of these countries. (please read the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell which discusses how enduring cultural legacies are). Conservative 09:53, 10 June 2013 (EDT)
I would simply like to point out that, if you are going for a purely atheistic viewpoint, China's debt to GDP is (as you would expect) very low. Also, Australia and Canada are slightly lower than US. I also want to say that I don't think external debt to GDP is a very valid way of determining the state of a country's economy, mainly because of how external debt factors in private entities. An example of what happens when there is little private debt because of a small economy would be a Iran, with only a 4% ratio, other examples include Nigeria (5%), Paraguay (13%) and Haiti (5%). I don't think you could claim that their economies are better than the US economy, for example. JAnderson 10:26, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Debt is a burden. The is no way around that. And economic data indicates that a large debt burden on a country slows down their economy.[35] Also, high debt burdens increase economic instability. If a country's economy slows down too much, it can collapse.

Next, the 3 Cs of creditworthiness are: cash flow, collateral and character. Just because a country is not creditworthy or cannot incur debt to sanctions, that does not mean that excess debt is good. Conservative 11:42, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

2 things I don't understand or necessarily agree... 1. Why do you say your faith (protestant) has a better work ethic than mine (catholic). 2. How do you know what Jesus would do?--Maria O'Connor 12:44, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Maria, did you read the Guardian articles HERE and HERE? If you disagree with the articles, please tell me why and support your claim via evidence. Also, this 2011 Telegraph article said: "Either way, not a single Protestant or Germanic EU country has so far needed a bailout."

Also, please address this data on the degree of corruption in a country as it relates to it being more Protestant or more Catholic: Article on Protestant vs. Catholic religion and corruption.

I do think that evidence should drive the discussion and not merely the religion of one's ancestors or one's religious preference/sentiments. After all, Jesus said, "By their fruits, you shall know them." James, the brother of Jesus, said, "Faith without works is dead." Conservative 13:09, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Thanks. I think I understand your arguments. Thank you for substantiating it with the evidence. --Maria O'Connor 17:25, 10 June 2013 (EDT)
You welcome. Although I am a Protestant and have some differing theological views as far as Catholicism, I do try to work with Catholics on matters we agree on such as right to life issues. Conservative 17:37, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Rhythmic Gymnastics[edit]

How can Rhythmic Gymnastics be getting re-instated into the Olympics when it is already part of it ? I was there for the Finals at the London 2012 Olympics and it was certainly part of the Olympics!. PennyS

Thanks, I fixed it. Conservative 13:18, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Tim Tebow[edit]

Reports are that he will sign/has signed with the New England Patriots. WesleySHello! 17:47, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Wait, last week it was "the complete exclusion of Tim Tebow by the NFL is an example of its increased hostility to Christianity," and that he's been "completely banned by the NFL." Clearly, this was not the case. The fact that Tebow is signing with the Pats demonstrates that there is no hostility towards Christianity in the NFL and that he wasn't "banned." The Jets are no more or less "liberal" than the Patriots. I highly doubt football teams take ideology into account whilst making football decisions. And finally, ""Tebow"" will be able to crush the Jets? From what position? He will play a few downs a game, if at all. Hardly a position from which he could "crush" anyone.


Obama's Hypocrisy[edit]

Never mind that the problem of Big Brothering is endemic in the United States system - when Bradley Manning dropped the dox on Bush, the government went to the same great lengths to baww about it as well. brenden 13:31, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

What did the Manning case have to do with Big Brotherism? Apparently nothing. Also, the Manning case was about foreign issues, which is under military jurisdiction, not domestic spying as in the Snowden case.--Andy Schlafly 16:34, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

Snowden "Disappeared" story[edit]

The headline betrays the article, which while still very serious, explains the lighthearted nature of the overheard conversation. Of course the conversation is still inappropriate, but NOT to be taken seriously. Jacob Anderson 19:07, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

Aneesh Chopra[edit]

Wikipedia toady Aneesh Chopra has conceeded in his first attempt at elective office. On Tuesday, Chopra lost the Democratic Primary for Virginia Lt. Governor by a 54% to 45% vote. [36]. Perhaps this is worth a MAINPAGERIGHT news item. Wschact 21:28, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

Father's Day[edit]

Seriously? Liberals oppose father's day? Why on earth would this be said, and how on earth could you prove it? Everyone I know celebrates it in some way, from people who seem to be happy living on the dole their whole life to my girlfriends grandfather, who was quite happy about the recent stabbing of a muslim cleric. I have looked at the father's day article, which indicated one school, in one country, once tried to replace father's day with something more general. This does not mean that every liberal, or even a large minority of liberals, find disfavour with the holiday. KBeer 20:19, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

No one claims that "every liberal" finds disfavor with Father's Day. But liberal policies do tend to marginalize and disfavor fathers, something numerous father's rights groups can confirm.--Andy Schlafly 20:28, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
But the headline said liberals find disfavor with Father's Day. Which implies ALL liberals. And Andy, your rebuttal to KBeer refers to liberal policies and fathers, which isn't even close to "disfavoring Father's Day." That headline was disingenuous at best.


Global warming debunked (again)[edit]

Natural news as a reliable source? The New Age website?
At a tangent, the colder weather in the UK has been caused by disruptions to the gulf and jet streams. Global warming? No. Climate change? Definitely. Rafael 10:06, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

"The reason is because"[edit]

The wording "Is the reason why ... because ... ?" on MPR makes me a little uneasy - reasons aren't "because" they are "that", although please correct me if the case is different in US English. Also, there's a double "is" in there. WilcoxD 01:56, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

So nobody is interested in fixing the grammatical errors on the front page? WilcoxD 17:44, 18 June 2013 (EDT)
Is that headline still there?--Andy Schlafly 18:38, 18 June 2013 (EDT)
The double "is" is (... HAH!). Actually I hadn't noticed that the "because" had been corrected as I saw the two is's and thought the whole lot had been ignored, so sorry for my tone above and thank you. WilcoxD 18:45, 18 June 2013 (EDT)
Actually Andy, while I have your attention, have you given any thought to my suggestion of dropping main page headlines into the news column when they are removed or replaced? WilcoxD 18:49, 18 June 2013 (EDT)
Corrected the "is ... is", and your point about preserving the Main Page headlines is a good suggestion ... perhaps with placement below the top headlines on the MPR.--Andy Schlafly 23:53, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

In the News: Brazil[edit]

FOX News: Brazil congressional panel approves controversial bill that would allow 'gay cure' treatments (June 18, 2013). It's only the very first step. So far it's been approved only by one committee of Brazil's Chamber of Deputies. The proposal still needs the approval of at least two other committees before being sent to the Chamber's floor. And then it would need to be approved by the Senate, not to mention avoid being vetoed by the Brazilian President. --Ty 00:53, 19 June 2013 (EDT)

These treatements should be made mandatory, much like an instution for the mentally ill and deranged.
Bearing in mind, of course, that freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. How would that not fall under expression? GandooChuth 13:52, 19 June 2013 (EDT)

How does this fit into the concept of personal freedom and limited government? SamDavis 20:35, 19 June 2013 (BST)

But this is happening here:


A person can become an ex-homosexual without the use of psychotherapy bunkum.
In 1980 a study was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry and eleven men participated in this study. The study in the American Journal of Psychiatry stated that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a Pentecostal church (E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, "'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980).
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (King James Version)
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.Conservative 06:15, 23 June 2013 (EDT)


So, still waiting for Schafly or one of his minions to write about "overrated sports star" LeBron James taking his second title and championship series MVP in as many years. What, cat got your tongue? GandooChuth 19:12, 21 June 2013 (EDT)

The media hype for LeBron James is way over the top. The Heat underachieved in the playoffs, barely winning two 4-3 series with the home-court advantage.
Citing overhype in the media is not evidence that LeBron James is one of the greatest players ever. He joined a team of great players, and they have barely won.--Andy Schlafly 19:16, 21 June 2013 (EDT)
Show me your NBA titles and we'll talk. GandooChuth 19:19, 21 June 2013 (EDT)
What is that supposed to mean? Only people who have played basketball and been successful are allowed to analyze basketball?--IDuan 13:53, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

Conservative vs Liberal countries[edit]

There's irony in trying to make these countries left/right by the American political system. We're shouting that he's run off to the more conservative Russia - yay good! - and then we're saying he's headed to Iceland, Ecuador, or Venezuela via Cuba - which are all liberal.--IDuan 13:35, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

This is all yellow journalism - "Obama's nemesis"? Really? Furthermore even this issue is not clearly left/right - as our article notes on Snowden, Boehner has called for his arrest as well; he did leak classified information. Are we so Machiavellian that no matter what the cost, "embarrassing" Obama is worth it? I start to get the feeling that if bin Laden had flown a plane into the White House and killed Obama this site would have praised him as a great conservative hero.--IDuan 13:38, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

American politics are not tantamount to boxing matches; it's dangerous to act as if they are. Snowden is also getting help from WikiLeaks, an organization we've critiqued in the past - derided as liberal, founded by leftist Julian Assange.--IDuan 13:50, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

This issue does reflect the current state of politics - someone who is a critic of someone I don't support - must be good. As they say - Politics makes very strange bedfellows. Several conservatives have been using a UK Guardian as a source - which in the past they have called a left-wing rag. The edges of both Left and right have come together on the issue of privacy. Republicans were for it and now against it - Democrats were against it an now are for it. The media (depending what their politicial leaning) are quick to call out the other side for inconsistency. People like me - scratch our heads and wonder what to make of it all. Maybe if we had political figures who actually believe in something - and not continually trying to score points against the 'other side' something could actually get done. [[SamDavis}} 15:41 (BST)

Invasion of privacy on our main page[edit]

Not sure why someone who is not a public figure is being called out and ridiculed on our main page. Certainly we should have higher standards. GregG 14:08, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

EDIT: I am referring to this feature by the way. GregG 14:11, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

Also, it's featured on Conservapedia not, featured on some random unaffiliated website that merely happens to talk about creationism.brenden 00:27, 24 June 2013 (EDT)

Deliberate misrepresentation[edit]

Once again, not mentioning that conservatives such as John Boehner have also called for Snowden's extradition is deliberately misrepresenting the reality that this is not a party line issue.--IDuan 11:28, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

John Boehner has not been much of a conservative, unfortunately. Most conservatives have been unhappy with the House leadership.--Andy Schlafly 12:55, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
But you don't think it's disingenuous to suggest that one party is campaigning for Snowden's extradition? As our main page does.--IDuan 14:25, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

Supreme Court[edit]

The Supreme Court did NOT toss out the federal pre-clearance requirement of election procedures in the Voting Rights Act, that is Section 5. The Supreme Court struck down the formula used to determine the locations needing pre-clearance, which is Section 4. SJC 13:29, 25 June 2013 (EST)

You're right about the details, but the effect is to toss out the pre-clearance until Congress enacts a new formula, which Congress is unlikely to do.--Andy Schlafly 13:52, 25 June 2013 (EDT)


I find the various conservative positions on Snowden utterly perplexing. I believe him to be a traitor, so do John Boehner and Move America Forward, but many seem to think him a freedom fighter and a patriot. Nancy Pelosi too wants him arrested, but lots of liberals also support him as a freedom fighter and a patriot. But he has released secrets which will make it easier for foreign terrorists to kill Americans, but somehow we're supposed to support him, and yet we have hounded Bradley Manning and Julian Assange for releasing documents that "put American lives in danger". In WWI, WWI and the Cold War, there would have been no hesitation in condemning him and executing him as a traitor. But now he's someone we should support? I find this very at odds with morals - we really seem to be all over the map here, and my question is "Why?". Why is the issue of secret document release one that gives all sides of the political spectrum conniptions and a total inability to speak with one voice on a matter of what seems like common morality? Why is a position of these actions being right or wrong proving so difficult to come to a conclusion about? KBinbota 02:03, 26 June 2013 (EDT)

Opposition to gay-marriage at 2/3rds?[edit]

I don't see a source on that story. I was under the impression that it was 2/3rds of Republicans who oppose same sex marriage, and about 45% of the country as a whole. --HHB 18:51, 26 June 2013 (EDT)

One possible explanation is that only 13 states plus the District of Columbia, representing 30% of US population, have legalized same-sex marriage. Of course there are residents of other states that would support it but there are also residents of the 13 states and DC who oppose. MelH 19:10, 26 June 2013 (EDT)
Ah, that must be what the headline is referring to. Perhaps it should be rewritten to 37 out of 50 to avoid such confusion?Or just changed to 2/3rds of states? Since we don't need to specify the united states, because no one will think that we are talking about some other set of states. It's unneeded wordiness that is easily misinterpreted. --HHB 19:17, 26 June 2013 (EDT)
It does refer to states: 2/3rds of the United States. Far from being wordy, the headline is concise. It could even say "more than."--Andy Schlafly 19:59, 26 June 2013 (EDT)
Saying the United States not only refers to the states themselves, but also the country (meaning the people), easily 95-98% of the time people say the US they mean the country, rather than the states. Simply remove the word "United", and you are no longer refering to two different things, but just the one that you actually mean. An extra word making you harder to understand is textbook wordiness. --HHB 20:18, 26 June 2013 (EDT)
Without "United", the "states" could be misinterpreted in an international way. We have a significant number of international visitors.--Andy Schlafly 21:40, 26 June 2013 (EDT)

NFL values[edit]

That particular pro-bowl star is a conservative and even has several religious tattoos - is Andy suggesting this is a gun thing?

What makes you think he's a conservative? As to religious tattoos, they are not meaningful, except as indicator of interest. The problem is, the NFL discourages development and expression of interest in Christianity.--Andy Schlafly 10:23, 27 June 2013 (EDT)

A few things[edit]

I have had two ideas about Conservapedia to help further the project:

1. I know intermediate French, and so I believe I may be able to translate some more crucial articles, or at least summarise such articles into French. I think this could help further our international reach.

2. I think that a page should be created for general chat about the Conservative movement, Conservative beliefs and individual thoughts. I've looked at the debate pages and they are dead, but I think a more fluid single page would create useful discussion.

Any thoughts? Jacob Anderson 08:12, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

Really, no one ks going to respond to this? No one is interested in creating a more friendly community? No one wants to actually improve the wiki aside from putting their opinions on the MPR? We're better than this. Jacob Anderson 19:17, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

I've suggested making a seperate "social" section on Conservapedia, to replace the entertaining, but off topic banter that occurs here. Regarding the french fork, I entirely support it. brenden 19:20, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

Everybody Wins[edit]

"Nothing in the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on homosexual "marriage" affects Christian freedoms regarding the ability to follow Scripture or clearly teach the biblical view of marriage"

Finally! You admit it. Gay people are free to be recognized in marriage, and conservatives are free to not marry those of the same sex if they don't wish to. Win Win.--JasonKL 00:45, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

Homosexual "marriage" is lose-lose. Read the Homosexuality article. The only positive thing that happened is it was not a total fiasco like Roe vs. Wade which foisted liberal foolishness and alleged rights on the entire nation. Conservative
Canada hasn't degenerated into a third-world anarchy yet, and the more anti-gay churches, though somewhat displeased, have not been forced to go into gulags yet. brenden 18:18, 30 June 2013 (EDT)
Freedom of speech against homosexuality has been curtailed in Canada along with freedom of religion in relation to speaking out against the sin of homosexuality. In Sweden, a pastor was jailed for speaking out against the sin of homosexuality. See also: Homosexuality and Religious Liberty
Also, just because total anarchy doesn't happen, doesn't mean things are optimal. For example, see: Homosexuality and health, Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence and Homosexuality and murders. Per capita, homosexuality in a culture causes more problems the more prevalent it is in terms of people making this bad choice. See: Homosexuality and choice and Homosexuality Statistics. Conservative 18:55, 30 June 2013 (EDT)

Obama rubber bullets story[edit]

It looks like there is a set of empty parentheses where a link was meant to go. EddyJ 13:21, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

When is Britain going to remove Charles Darwin of its currency?[edit]

Soon it seems. --Tomqua 14:15, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

"Jane Austin was a creationist"[edit]

There is a spelling error: the author's last name is Austen, exactly as it appears one paragraph above the error. Thanks, GregG 22:47, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

Easy spelling mistake to make - thanks for catching it. The correction appears to have been made.--Andy Schlafly 23:12, 29 June 2013 (EDT)

Let me get this straight[edit]

You seriously support Rafael Correa, a socialist, hardcore Hugo Chavez worshiper, and someone who's thoroughly repressed free speech in his own country, over Barack Obama? I can understand not liking the Obama administration, but have you bothered to look at Correa for the monstrosity he truly is? No matter how much you dislike Obama, he has committed nothing like the gross human rights violations Correa is guilty of against his own people. ChamchaChodha 12:35, 30 June 2013 (EDT)

Which headline or statement are you referring to?--Andy Schlafly 13:05, 30 June 2013 (EDT)

"Jane Austen was a creationist."[edit]

Of course she was. She died some 40 years before The Origin of Species was published, before there were any developed conceptual alternatives to "creationism." To imply that Austen rejected evolution is like trying to argue that Woodrow Wilson didn't like rock music or that Johann Sebastian Bach didn't believe in relativity. EddyJ 14:25, 30 June 2013 (EDT)

Evolutionary naturalism: an ancient idea.[37] By the way, there are still no developed notions in terms of evolutionary thought that are remotely workable. Hence, Conservapedia's dearth of evolutionists willing to debate VivaYehshua on the 15 questions for evolutionists. Conservative 14:53, 30 June 2013 (EDT)
Never heard of him. Thanks for your input. EddyJ 14:59, 30 June 2013 (EDT)
That's correct, Darwin did not invent the idea. But before him it was a very abstact topic for debate among philosophers; almost everyone believed in Creation. It would almost certainly be correct to add "creationist" to the biography of any famous person who lived before 1859. MelH 18:18, 30 June 2013 (EDT)

Given the high number of evolutionist poseurs [38], calling some people an "evolutionist" today is problematic. On that note, I think I am going to take a break from talk pages for awhile. Defeating liberals at this talk page has become too easy. It is like shooting liberalism in a barrel. :) Conservative 19:20, 30 June 2013 (EDT)

A new notice[edit]

I have largely tackled time management issues related to various projects outside my wiki editing activities. I may look at talk pages and respond to them, but it will be infrequent due to the spurious nature of Darwinist/liberal complaints on talk pages and my current priorities. :)

In addition, I may look at talk pages due to reports of needed corrections on the main page or administrative matters that need to be attended to. Conservative 14:50, 30 June 2013 (EDT)


What in the world does "Best of the public upsets favorites at Wimbledon" - is that supposed to imply that anyone outside the big four has won a grand slam recently? If we're to assume the best of the public is anyone outside the big four, then the "Best of the public" hasn't won the Australian Open since 2005 (Marat Safin), the French Open since 2004 (Gastón Gaudio), Wimbledon since 2002 (Lleyton Hewitt), and the US Open since 2009 (del Porto) and before that Roddick in 03. Rankings exist purely on points scored the notion that the topped ranked players are overrated because of hype is absurdly false - see how Nadal defeated his countryman, and significantly less popular player, David Ferrer in this year's French Open, but actually fell to him in rankings because Ferrer picked up points whereas Nadal merely kept his. Clearly people on this website don't understand sports.--IDuan 13:53, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

I do understand sports, and the fact is that there has been a string of stunning upsets at Wimbledon this year. Your statistics are interesting but do not dispute what has been widely reported about the best of the public victories during the world's biggest tennis tournament right now.--Andy Schlafly 15:07, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
Andy there's simply no way you want to associate best of the public with men's tennis - it's something I follow closely. Upsets happen - I'm not denying there've been many upsets (although Nadal was clearly injured, which is the same thing that happened to him last year at Wimbledon when he lost in the second round, but oh well). But men's tennis is the one game that has been star-dominated. So if the best of the public are those low ranking players who occasionally upset a higher-seed, then the best of the public is clearly worthless. Because none of those players have been able to amount to anything past their one moment. That's what the tournament histories show; that the "experts" - or the top ranked players - destroy the best of the public on a consistent basis.--IDuan 16:30, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
But furthermore you saying that these low ranking players are best of the public is simply ridiculous - because every single player in the field is an expert. As I explained above - the ratings are simple. Low ranking players have less victories and don't go as far in tournaments. That's not a hypothesis - it's literally what their ranking means.--IDuan 16:32, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
When the Chicago Bulls - who are undoubtedly professionals and experts - beat the Heat Andy said that they were a team of "relatively obscure players", so my understanding is that Best of the Public is almost synonymous with underdog. WilcoxD 21:21, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
You and I, WilcoxD will be barracking for the underdog next week. AlanE 22:43, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

Completely unseeded players have won grand slam women's tennis titles (singles) roughly 10% of the time since 2007. In light of how many players are seeded, that casts doubt on the ability of experts to predict the winner.

And on the men's side, the winner is not from the top two seeds often enough, which likewise casts doubt on the expert opinions.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

The rankings are based on player performance, not expert opinion. In order to win a grand slam tournament you need to win seven games in a row against the world's most elite tennis players - I think it's amazing that the two top ranked players win as often as they do! WilcoxD 01:02, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Exactly. Andy when I said you didn't have the understanding of the sport to make this type of claim I was not kidding and I was not wrong. Your suggestion that rankings are based on opinion is totally factually wrong. Ranking are based on points achieved from success in tournaments - as I said many times above and as Wilcox reiterated.--IDuan 02:08, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Thought that this mitht be useful, and overview of the points system. Furthermore Mr. Schlafly, you have changed your argument from some of the players being the best of the public defeating the professionals (despite all tennisn players at the tournament already being professionals) to experts not being able to choose eho will win, which one is it?

A little sidenote, the second thing is what makes sport great, no? Jacob Anderson 02:26, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

I suppose it could be argued that Andy Murray is Best of the Public. A survivor of the Dunblane Massacre, from a working class background from a small Scottish Town in a country that has no recent history in producing top tennis players, and those who do make it to the professional ranks are generally from an upper-middle class background. He sat at number 4 in the world rankings for a considerable amount of time until finally winning a Grand Slam and Olympic Gold in 2012 and establishing himself as the world number 2. Success has not come as naturally or easily for him then Djokovic, Federer or Nadal. The guy has done well--Tomqua 14:00, 2 July 2013 (EDT)
Addition to the above: Murray is also a Christian. It is not something he talks about in public but it is rumoured that he has become more devout in the last couple of years which corresponds to his step up to being a genuine challenger rather than someone who was expected to reach the semi-finals but go no further. I do not think this is a coincidence --Tomqua 14:16, 2 July 2013 (EDT)
Except of course that his mother Judy is a former profesional tennis player herself, is a qualified tennis coach and used to be the coach of the Scottish team and is currently the captain of the UK Federations Cup team. Not exactly what I would call the best of the public, more like a highly trained mother who used her training to train her son to the high standards he has now reached. Nothing to do with his faith but to style him as BoP is somewhat stretching an already stretched point.Davidspencer 14:19, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Leadership for QE! in Australia[edit]

Conservative, if you contact me at my E-Mail address, which I will give to you should you wish, I'm sure I can lead the organisation in Australia. Jacob Anderson 02:49, 2 July 2013 (EDT)


I’ve seen the main page for weeks and finally I decided to talk about something what I’m thinking about. I cannot handle this any more. Edward Snowden is a traitor, he is always a liberal, his intention never is to against Obama, in fact he likes him, that is why he chose to leak these information after Obama being re-elected until he found out Obama is not able to protect him. Actually the whole snooping program is started by President Bush, so it’s not Obama’s program., although he may abused his power. So this won’t hurt him too much. For Snowden, in the time of the U.S.- China talk, when U.S. should warning the world’s greatest cyber-warfare power to stop to cyber- attacks America, he leaked the top secret of U.S.’s alleged cyber-intelligence collection programs against China .The result is not only we are not able to warning them, but China become the "victim” and even got more excuses to attack U.S. in the future. Also, as he is only a computer programmer, I suspect that he chose the perfect time to leak the information without the help of Chinese spy agency. The information he leaked about snooping on Europe will only tragically harm the relationship between U.S. and her allies and furthermore threaten America’s national security in the difficult time. I’m sure Snowden don’t care about it and Russians loves it. He illegally downloaded thousands of top secret intelligence and brought them to China and Russia. Take top national secretes to enemy nations has nothing to do with against a crazy government man, it’s a treason.. Also, all these countries who support Snowden are rogue nations who are hostile or hate U.S. The reason Russians offer asylums to Snowden is because they want to humiliate us and Snowden has "treasury" with him. The Protests supporting him also greatly involved with anti-Americanism. I hope you guys can consider to make some change. You guys can also consider to check this. 11:12, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Sorry, but you clearly don't understand how things work around here. See, Snowden did something that made Obama look bad. That makes snowden right, and a True Conservative Hero. As long as you are against Obama, you are correct. Its the schlafly way.--ErinT 08:02, 5 July 2013 (EDT)

Employer mandate[edit]

The main page item, "ObamaCare fails again: Obama delays implementation for many businesses." appears to take a position opposite to mainstream conservative thought. In general, conservatives emphasize the free market and personal responsibility. So, conservatives have argued that health care and health insurance should be in the private sector and should not be "socialized." The Affordable Care Act required all employers having 50 or more employees to offer a health insurance plan to all employees working 30 hours or more per week effective 2014. Conservatives feared that this may cause some large employers to cut employee hours back below 30 hours to avoid having to provide them health care benefits. In response to lobbying from conservatives, the Obama Administration has postponed this for one year. Most Conservatives view this as a step in the right direction. Liberals view this as a step in the wrong direction because it will leave a large number of employees without employer-provided health coverage, so they will have to shop in the health care exchanges (for government-subsidized insurance) for themselves. Perhaps the item can be reworded or dropped. Wschact 08:57, 3 July 2013 (EDT)

As much as I personally loath partisanship and equally disagree with the "party line" presented by both the Dems and Reps on this topic, Wschact is absolutely right on this. If it's going to be addressed on the main page, it should really be promoted as a conservative victory rather than an Obamacare fail. People always prefer positive stories to negative, might as well word the headline that way if you want to make the most out of its potential impact/influence. Fnarrow 13:17, 3 July 2013 (EDT)
I read in the Wall Street Journal that businesses didn't have enough time to get their act together for January 2014 in part due to the legal challenges that were only resolved about a year ago. GregG 14:38, 4 July 2013 (EDT)
Obama's actions, in delaying the mandate on businesses, speak louder than his words: ObamaCare is a failure.--Andy Schlafly 23:44, 4 July 2013 (EDT)
ObamaCare could become a Waterloo for Obama and Democrats before/during the 2016 election and as far as Obama's legacy. :) Conservative 03:38, 5 July 2013 (EDT)

At least Obama actually did something with his life, Andy. He came from nothing, and now he's the president of the United States. You came from a priveleged life and what do you do? Just doodle around on your dumb little internet site all day. Bit jealous? Obama will always be better than you. --ErinT 07:58, 5 July 2013 (EDT)

I appreciate that Andy is a paid advocate for certain groups on this issue. However, the fundamental question is whether conservative and business groups sought the delay or not. If conservatives asked for the the employer mandate to be postponed, then Conservapedia should not complain when their request was granted. Liberals generally respond that this action will place even more people (e.g., part time employees without employer-provided health care benefits) in the group that will receive government-subsidized health insurance during 2014. We must watch to see whether part time employees receive health care coverage in 2014. If they do despite the delay on the employer mandate, there is no basis for declaring "ObamaCare is a failure." If as many people go without health care after 2014 as did before the law was adopted, there there will be an objective basis for declaring it a failure. So it is too early to make this call. Thanks. Wschact 08:07, 5 July 2013 (EDT)


The current political division in Egypt, is it part of a master plan to weaken that arab world seen as a threat to Israel? A plan that could have started at Irak and would end at Iran, Lebanon and Gaza. --Joaquín Martínez 23:32, 4 July 2013 (EDT)

I don't think Obama Administration wanted the Muslim Brotherhood to be overthrown. Obama helped install it. This is a big setback for Obama and liberals.--Andy Schlafly 00:02, 5 July 2013 (EDT)
The regime was democratically elected, theocratic party or not. While Morsi was terrible, we really are placing bets early on that the military's "interim" government will be significantly better; I'd be careful advertising Egypt as the pride of conservatives too early.--IDuan 01:10, 5 July 2013 (EDT)
A civil war in Egypt as in Syria is a good way to weaken those countries. It would be the results of years of work of covered agents. --Joaquín Martínez 00:10, 6 July 2013 (EDT)

The unrest in Egypt is over bread and butter issues as can be seen HERE See also: Occam's razor.

Africa, which is embracing Christianity, is seeing significant economic growth. See: Africa second highest growing region after Asia and What's driving Africa's growth - 2010 McKinsey Report Another case of the Protestant work ethic and Christianity improving general conditions? :) Commodity sales only account for about a third of Africa's uptick in growth. [39]

The fervent Islamists in Egypt are claiming that Islam is not failing Egypt and it is the answer to its problems.[40] Conservative 02:42, 6 July 2013 (EDT)

Ben Bernanke's money printing is partly to blame for the high food prices in Egypt as can be seen HERE. Conservative 03:04, 6 July 2013 (EDT)

I'm sorry Conservative, I fail to see the link between Religion and the Economy. I have a fervent hate for theocracy myself (of any religion), and so think thatvit is wrong for a variety of reasons, but not necessarily the economy. You do also have the causes correct. I must say that as I am genuinely perplexed by the link and do not want to cause offence. Jacob Anderson 02:12, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

Conservapedia - 65th most popular conservative website[edit]

Encouraging, top 50 is a realistic possibility.--Tomqua 21:13, 6 July 2013 (EDT)

2 Suggest articles[edit]

Top conservative websites:

Top conservative blogs:

I thought I would post some additional data plus suggest a few articles be written. Conservative 21:23, 6 July 2013 (EDT)

Best of the Public[edit]

You know, Andy, you lost the debate above - everyone explained to you how rankings are based entirely on match fairings, not expert opinion, and how all of these players are professionals who dedicate their lives to tennis, so to suggest that somehow Conservapedia was proven right - when by the way you never actually made a prediction - is just stubborn. And as my statistics above showed - if you really want to make believe that low ranking players are "best of the public" - then the best of the public is clearly inferior to experts, as the men's side (and the women's side shows) - "experts" - or top 20 players - tend to win tournaments (or on the men's side almost always the big four).--IDuan 12:02, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

It's literally nonsense at this point. Do you really want to have the conversation that low ranking players are best of the public? Fine the favored Heat defeated the Spurs, experts defeated best of the public. The big four in tennis have won every single major except the 2009 US Open since 2006 - including today's Wimbledon. Experts dominating "Best of the public". The Chicago Blackhawks were the number one team in the Western Conference - won the Stanley Cup. To be fair, the "Best of the Public" (the bottom seven teams?) weren't allowed into the playoffs.--IDuan 12:12, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
Somewhat on a tangent - is Andy Murray now considered best of public, after defeating previous best of public Mr. Djokovic? brenden 05:40, 8 July 2013 (EDT)

No one in the top 4, or top 8, or top 12, won women's Wimbledon or even made it to the finals. And the surprise winner did not merely win, but she won without dropping a set the entire tourney!

In sports the best of the public is allowed to become an expert. Not true at universities, where (for example) Jesus would never be given tenure no matter how much he walked on water.--Andy Schlafly 18:57, 8 July 2013 (EDT)

It's a odd issue that you raise but, should Jesus be given tenure at a university? No doubt He is very great in so many ways but should he be given a position for which he doesn't qualify over a field of candidates who do? Is that fair? Would He also be refused a position as captain of an oil tanker? Or an airliner? No matter how much He walked on water or rose up to heaven? Would he be refused a position as a neurosurgeon? Probably. And, when you think about it, rightly so.
Also, I wonder, could He win Wimbledon? What would He look like in shorts? --HyramF 19:14, 8 July 2013 (EDT)
Andy, am I to understand that expert sportsmen must lose the title Best of the Public at some point? At which point is this? I suppose Tiger Woods and LeBron James must once have been best of the public too, as they surely wouldn't have been experts the first time the held a club or ball ... WilcoxD 19:41, 8 July 2013 (EDT)
Also, do the best of the public usually have 10 years experience in professional tournaments as well as clothing endorsements? WilcoxD 00:19, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

Obama Administration and the plane wreck on the San Francisco runway[edit]

The item at the top of the main page is misleading in that it implies that the Obama Administration plays a large role and has a responsibility to remove the plane and clean up the airport runway. This is like the prior Main Page comments about how the Obama Administration did not stop the BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico quickly. In fact, of the SFO runways: 1/19 Left & Right reopened on Saturday, July 6th; 28 Right reopened on Sunday, July 7th; and 28 Left will remain closed for the immediate future [41] The airport is not owned and operated by the Federal Government, but it cannot clear the crash scene until the NTSB investigators finish their work. The NTSB is an independent federal agency which is beyond the management control of President Obama; it is completely apolitical and should be. The article cited in the item states, "Even when the airplane is removed, however, the runway on which it was attempting to land—28 Left—will remain closed for a week or more, pending repairs to the rocky seawall on San Francisco Bay that was damaged in the Asiana flight’s low approach." Could we please take this item down and instead beef up the articles on SFO and the NTSB? Thanks, Wschact 16:37, 10 July 2013 (EDT)

Government runs airports, and does not run them well, as the San Fran incidence tragically illustrates. The FAA, which is controlled by Obama, can order a clearing of the debris off the runway in a timely manner.--Andy Schlafly 19:10, 10 July 2013 (EDT)
Statistically plane crashes have been less frequent in recent years - and this incident was actually surprising given the recent lack of crashes in the area. The notion that Obama himself - or the head of a bureaucracy - would or should say "get that plane cleaned up right this instant" is sort of absurd; and it's an idea that this site does not apply to other institutions, notably the Catholic Church.--IDuan 19:33, 10 July 2013 (EDT)
I have no idea what the Catholic Church has to do with this discussion, but I disagree that the FAA can override the NTSB. The NTSB is an independent agency, chartered by Congress. It's true the president appoints the members and selects the chairman, but the Senate must confirm them. Furthermore, the president cannot nominate more than three members from his party. The only way that Obama can get the wreck cleared before the NTSB says to is to order Chairman Hersman to do it and to remove her "for malfeasance" if she refuses. The FAA has no power whatsoever to get involved. MelH 20:03, 10 July 2013 (EDT)

I appreciate the response, but it does not address the fundamental problems with the item on the main page. The item implies that the airport is closed or that moving the wreck (which is off to the side of the runway) is the one thing needed to reopen the runway and that SFO would be better off in private control. But, the three other runways at SFO have reopened. The fourth runway is closed because it will take another week to repair the damage to the seawall. The SFO airport has been run by the City and County of San Francisco since 1927. Since 44% of its budget is debt service and the borrowing cost of municipal bonds is much lower than that of private financing, it would be difficult to argue for privatizing SFO. I don't mind valid criticism of the Obama Administration. However, I worry about CP's credibility when the top of the Main Page has an item that is so far off target. The problem here is Asiana Airlines, not the SFO Airport or the Obama Administration. Thanks, Wschact 10:26, 11 July 2013 (EDT)

The Obama Administration could have and should have removed the wreckage days ago. The inability of government to clean up in a timely manner highlights a big difference between public and private ownership.--Andy Schlafly 10:46, 11 July 2013 (EDT)
Good point. Obama should be impeached and mayne even arrested for not cleaning up that plane. Of course this is what he wants. Libs love plane crashes

Best of the public - in cricket too![edit]

I can't edit the right-hand column on the Main Page but maybe someone could add this great example of Best of the Public. Ashton Agar of Australia, aged 19 (great teenager!) in his first Test innings and only his eleventh first-class cricket match, made the highest ever score by a tail-end batsman against England's expert, over-rated bowling attack. Here's a link. (American friends: don't worry about the details: it all makes sense to the Brits over here!) StaceyT 13:08, 11 July 2013 (EDT) x

Ashton Agar is a prodigy, but I don't think he's best of the public. He's been playing his whole life and has plenty of experience in both first class and international cricket, in which he has shown promise and thus has been groomed to be in the Australian cricket team. Not really best of the public material, although it's nice to see Australia's latest national hero in the MPR headlines. It's all over the news here of course (woke up to it everywhere this morning), but I suppose it wouldn't be heard of in the USA. WilcoxD 19:53, 11 July 2013 (EDT)
Definitely not best of the public. A paid professional. No he is not one of the most well known, but he is not an average guy. I don't even know what BOTP means anymore. Jacob Anderson 09:07, 12 July 2013 (EDT)
I think the working definition for sport best of the public is any underdog that wins as long as they don't beat someone or a team that Andy likes. But when I think of it I think of a political concept that this site attempted to apply to tennis (by the same person who argued Lebron James was not the best basketball player on the court last season).--IDuan 11:56, 12 July 2013 (EDT)
What's further embarrassing is that anyone supporting this theory is a coward when it comes to the men's game. If you want to say that the best of the public always win in the women's draw; you have to say that experts have literally destroyed the best of the public in the men's draw. But instead we're going to pretend that the men's draw doesn't exist - or somehow draw a different political win from it even though it's the same sport. But yes the women's draw has been great tennis - the rankings haven't seemed to matter with the exception that the only occasionally consistent winner has been Serena Williams. I'd also point out that the champion this year didn't have to play anyone ranked in the top ten, which is probably a big reason she didn't lose a set. Just because a top player gets upset in one tournament doesn't mean that they aren't the top player; even Nadal was beat at the French Open once.--IDuan 12:02, 12 July 2013 (EDT)

Darwinism is being further discredited and grows weaker, while the Question Evolution! book gets stronger[edit]

I cite:

"The Christian apologists wrote: " daughter likes what she has read so far...". Furthermore, the Christian apologist agreed to serve as pre-editor before it goes to Creation Ministries for any further editing. We estimate that the 3rd draft copy is at least 25% better than the previous draft (probably between 25-50% improved). Unlike Darwinism which keeps getting further and further discredited with the passage of time and less influential, the Question Evolution! Campaign book for middle school students keeps getting better and better due to the additional feedback of young people and additional editing.

And there is no question that Darwinism gets further discredited with the passage given the discovery of nano-machines with many components in organisms, the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life, etc. Furthermore, given the explosive growth of global creationism and the sub-replacement level of births among many Darwinist populations, there is no question that Darwinism is shrinking in influence relative to biblical creation belief. See: Darwinism is getting weaker".

For further information please see: The daughter of a Christian apologist likes the 3rd draft copy of the Question Evolution! campaign book for middle school students. The book is being edited by the Christian apologists

Darwinists, I hope that clears things up! Conservative 13:54, 11 July 2013 (EDT)

Exciting times indeed. What kind of initial print run is Creation Ministries talking about? JZ 19:19, 11 July 2013 (EDT)
Will the QE book get an ISBN? Thanks, GregG 19:24, 11 July 2013 (EDT)
Will we ever see it? WilcoxD 19:41, 11 July 2013 (EDT)
All my books have ISBNs. Of course that's because my books, unlike Ken's fantasy project, actually exist. Why not try my new history of US snipers, available now as a paperback or for Kindle?

Snipers often strike fear in the opposition. Unfortunately for Darwinists/atheists, they have a reputation for agreeing to a debate and then backing out (DonExodus2, etc). Of course, after they back out of debates they agreed to (for example, with the creationist VivaYehshua), they lose all credibility and are most certainly not feared. Who would want to lower their standards and debate a coward? Who would want to take the time to promote a debate with an unreliable evolutionist like this and then have him not show up? Of course, there is only one remedy for an evolutionist who faces this situation. He must go through with the debate he agreed to with a biology student at a major university. Until he does this, he will never be taken seriously. He may fool himself into thinking he should be taken seriously, but he most certainly will not be.

Furthermore, what strategic advantage in there in debating an obscure evolutionist who has been exposed as as an unreliable coward? There is none - none whatsoever. There are so many more efficient ways to chisel away at the false religion of Darwinism.

Also, if I am not mistaken, you told me you were an agnostic. At TerryH's website you call yourself an atheist (see comment section HERE). If you told me that you are an agnostic (And I believe you did), did you tell me that you are an agnostic because you fear Shockofgod's question?  :) What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct? Unlike atheism, Christianity has a great abundance of evidence supporting its veracity.

Lastly, you are fooling yourself if you think you can continue to garner my attention. Why would I waste my time giving attention to someone who is a total waste of my time at this point. You know what you have to do at this point. Debate VivaYehshua like you agreed to. Conservative 13:02, 13 July 2013 (EDT)

Internet Darwinists constantly allege that creationists don't understand how science works. Yet, when I find a university biology student for them to debate mano y mano on the 15 questions for evolutionists, they suffer a case of lack of machismo! :) Why are internet Darwinists so afraid of VivaYehshua?  :) Conservative 10:38, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
That is probably because VivaYeshua has a policy of banning anyone who says that a certain "Conservative" sent them to debate Viva. (Hint - VivaYeshua doesn't even know you; why do you need your opponents to debate him??brenden 15:46, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
Brenden, are you willing to debate university biology student VivaYehshua on the 15 questions for evolutionists or are you all talk and no show? Because frankly, I don't buy your claim about VivaYehshua banning people for the reason you gave.
Second, I ask Fergus Mason to debate VivaYehshua because he agreed to debate VivaYehshua on the 15 questions for evolutionists and then he never showed up for the debate because he was too afraid to. Then Fergus lied and falsely claimed he did debate VivaYehshua and when I found out he lied to me from VivaYehshua, I laughed at his cowardice. Fergus Mason is frothing at the mouth because I am calling him out on his cowardice and his lies. Please see User:Karajou's talk page. I wouldn't even consider debating Fergus Mason until he shows some integrity and backbone and carries through with his debate with VivaYehshua that he promised to do. He would also have to apologize to VivaYehshua for failing to show up at his first debate. Conservative 18:45, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
Hold on, you "don't buy the claim"? That almost sounds like you haven't communicated with VivaYehshua or even verified whether he is willing to debate people! Perhaps if you do know him you could invite him to contribute to either your blog or this web site to clear this matter up. WilcoxD 23:18, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
Ok, I decided it wouldn't be much effort to find this out for myself so I visited the chat room. According to the moderators there at the time, VivaYehshua is not banned - in fact he's been there recently - however he has no interest in debating evolution with Conservapedians. I can't recall Fergus ever claiming to have debated VivaYehshua though, only that he was banned from the chat room before the debate took place. User:Conservative, perhaps you should verify some of these things for yourself. WilcoxD 23:44, 14 July 2013 (EDT)

Wilcox, I talked to the university biology student VivaYehshua recently. I also received an email from him today. He is still willing to debate Fergus Mason. He said that Mr. Mason agreed to debate him and then he never showed up for the debate. Fergus lied to me and said he did debate VivaYehshua which is not true. I believe that Fergus will never debate VivaYehshua because he is afraid to debate a creationist who is a university biology student. Fergus knows that VivaYehshua would win the debate hands down and the debate would prove to be a big embarrassment to him. Let Mr. Mason present to me a recorded debate with VivaYehshua on the 15 questions for evolutionists in order to show me that he keeps his commitments. Otherwise, I will continue to lack respect for him and continue to give him the cold shoulder.

Second, I never bought the story that VivaYeshua was banned by Shockofgod from the chat room as he has had good relations with Shockofgod and he doesn't cause trouble. Thank you for confirming this matter.

Lastly, VivaYehshua said that with sufficient notice, he is willing to take on debate challenges for oral debates on the 15 questions for evolutionists. I am very skeptical that he is not willing to debate people who may or may not edit at certain wikis. I believe this is untrue. But this is a moot issue as Conservapedia evolutionists are afraid to debate VivaYehshua. The only Conservapedian who almost debated VivaYehshua was JHunter. But JHunter admitted he got drunk and was banned from the chat room and was never able to enter the chat room again in order to make contact with VivaYehshua. I haven't seen JHunter in awhile so I never tried to mediate this situation. But obviously JHunter was at fault here. He was bounced out of the chat room for a just reason. Conservative 00:33, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

Federal judge temporarily blocks Wisconsin pro-life bill[edit]

For discussion or feature on MPR. GregG 19:10, 11 July 2013 (EDT)

Lots of errors[edit]

Is anyone else getting as many server errors as me while navigating the site today? I've noticed an increase lately, but just recently I seem to be getting the 500 page almost more often than not! WilcoxD 21:06, 11 July 2013 (EDT)

Big babies[edit]

I thought the identity of user:Conservative was common knowledge - why is this being made a big deal of? Am I missing something?

There is an evolutionists who is desperately trying to gain my attention. At that this point onward though, he will fail to do this. I have moved on.
He needn't worry about me focusing any more attention on him either. Why would I focus any attention on him at this point? He is merely an obscure evolutionist who backed out of his debate with VivaYehshua. See my post HERE for further information. Conservative 13:47, 13 July 2013 (EDT)

Please stop commenting on sports[edit]

Andy you know nothing about sports. It's painfully obvious. I could break down for you why Howard left the Lakers - but it'd be a waste of time because you wouldn't understand and you'd end up blaming Kobe Bryant for supporting Obama; I could also bring up that Howard is the first start the lakers have ever lost in the stars prime - la is a town stars have always been attracted to. It's nonsense for you to suggest otherwise but you just don't know better.--IDuan 16:22, 12 July 2013 (EDT)

every time we have talked about sports frankly I have embarrassed you. I know the statistics and the history better than you do. But I'm at an advantage - I play from a statistical perspective and you play from a "can this sports story be molded to fit my commentary on politics" one.--IDuan 16:24, 12 July 2013 (EDT)
Enough of just being competitors as far as sports commentators and spectators. Have you and Andy pick a sport and go head to head. I suggest a mano y mano basketball game. May the best man win! Conservative 10:32, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
Has Mr Schlafly given any indication that he'd be interested in such a challenge? Your suggestion seems a bit disrespectful if he hasn't. JZ 11:08, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
I'd be happy to play some one on one; I'm 6'1 i can play the 2 pretty well. We also live close enough to each other - Arlington, Virginia is across the Potomac from DC and Temple University's campus is across the river from Camden.--IDuan 12:18, 14 July 2013 (EDT)

Cons seems to have a penchant for trying to goad other people into having debates or competitions with each other, while running away from, or even vaping, challenges directed at himself. Looking back through my own contributions, I see that I twice challenged him to competitions; one in physical fitness here, and one on the "generalized linear model" here.

Why I challenged him on physical fitness is a mystery to me, because I am probably significantly older than he. I probably inferred some things about his personal lifestyle that suggested that he wasn't very fit. In any case, foolish as it was, the offer still stands. You know, the usual high-school tests--pushups, situps, squat jumps, climbing onto a model triceratops, those sorts of things. Of course, this would require that we be at the same location in front of some judges, so it isn't likely to happen.

The "generalized linear model" challenge still stands. He and I will each challenge the other by providing 5 or so data sets of 20 or so points. For each, we will give a list of 5 or so nonlinear trial functions, like "f(x)=A sin(Bx+C) + D log(E x)". The challenge is to find the function form, and the parameters (A,B,C,D,E) that gets the best least-squares fit. I notice that he responded to my challenge, in his usual unique and inimitable style, by decorating the page with pictures of cute bunny rabbits and chickens.

I look forward to the Schlafly/Duan basketball game, and the competitions (well, the second one) between me and Cons. But I wouldn't blame Andy in the least for not wanting a basketball competition with IDuan at the behest of a third party. SamHB 20:34, 14 July 2013 (EDT)

I am not impressed by your post. I challenged Penn Jillette to a debate, but he wimped out. It is not my fault that atheists are often wimpy. Penn Jillette has had 3 debate challenges from theists which he dodged and he has never challenged a Bible believer to a debate because he is a chicken.
Second, I challenge liberals to find a single factual error in the homosexuality, atheism and evolution articles.
Next, point out where the generalized linear model article is wrong on the talk page if you can. Next, I don't mind using my math and knowledge of statistics for practical purposes in my life. I see no reason to engage in your challenge though. It doesn't interest me.
Lastly, as far as my fitness level, I am scheduled to take part in a social function with a member of the opposite sex. One thing you can be certain of is that I won't be a public embarrassment to this person like Penn Jillette was in the show Dancing with the Stars where an overweight Jillette did a dance movement called a "walrus slide". See: Essay: Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Indian Christian lady dancers. Conservative 01:06, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

SamHB, by the way, are you an evolutionist? If so, are you willing to debate the university biology student VivaYeshua on the 15 questions for evolutionists in an oral debate which will be publicized? I can certainly understand if you lack confidence in evolution and wish to decline the debate offer. :) Conservative 01:28, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

Conservative, I request that you stop volunteering others for challenges and volunteer yourself. I challenge you to a debate on evolution. Yes or no answer. I wish not to be banned for this request, but to be listened to for it. I love this website, and I am a conservative. But I'm a conservative theistic "evolutionist" Catholic. I've tried to stay away from this subject but I can not. Jacob Anderson 10:34, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

Jacob, given the evolution article which shows what a farce evolutionism is, I believe this article applies to most Conservapedia "evolutionists". Namely, that they are merely poseurs and I don't see any strategic importance in debating obscure, evolutionist poseurs. I think other anti-Darwinism activities will pay higher dividends. It is nothing personal against you, but from a cost/benefit perspective, you are not offering me an attractive offer. Show me that you are sincere in your evolutionism and debate the university biology student VivaYehshua in a oral debate that will be recorded and will be distributed widely. VivaYehshua and I will ask others to help widely distribute the debate.

Another clear and undeniable sign that 2013 is the worst year in the history of atheism and Darwinism - And it was predicted in 2012![edit]

Another CLEAR and UNDENIABLE SIGN that 2013 is the worst year in the history of atheism and Darwinism - and it was predicted in 2012 by Bible believing young earth creationists! Conservative 17:26, 12 July 2013 (EDT)

Give it a rest, would you?
" 'There is no peace,' says the Lord, 'for the wicked.' " - Isaiah 48:22. When the religion of Darwinism is as prevalent as Baal worship, and out of schools, Christendom will stop opposing the foolishness of Darwinism. Conservative 21:59, 12 July 2013 (EDT)

I asked a straightforward legitimate question about this item and it was deleted. Has a liberal stepped in to stir things up? Rafael 08:09, 13 July 2013 (EDT)

Post it again. Conservative 12:42, 13 July 2013 (EDT)

I've posted it twice, it's been deleted twice. There's an editor here who is trying to pick a fight with me, I think he might be a troll, so let's leave it for now my friend. Rafael 18:04, 14 July 2013 (EDT)

'Extreme Stupidity'[edit]

'San Fransisco.'

'nuff said. MBell

"But will the Obama Administration disregard the Double Jeopardy Clause and try to prosecute him again?"[edit]

From our page on Double Jeopardy:

Beware, however, is that there are many surprising exceptions in American law that sometimes do apparently permit trying someone twice for the same offense. For example, a defendant can be acquitted in a state prosecution yet retried and convicted in a federal prosecution for the same conduct, and vice-versa. The reason for allowing this that federal and state government are different sovereigns. Another exception to the double jeopardy protection is that civil lawsuits can proceed despite a criminal acquittal.

GregG 12:12, 14 July 2013 (EDT)

That is correct it would not be double jeopardy; the headline is incorrect Constitutional Law.--IDuan 12:15, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
Iduan, GregG, I think y'all are a little off the mark on this one. Technically, the dual sovereigns doctrine could allow for a re-prosecution, but the dual sovereign doctrine is not the be-all, end-all of double jeopardy law. There is a considerable amount of case law, in addition to many federal statutes passed by Congress which limit the Executive's ability to prosecute, and even the Executive's own policy on the matter: the petite policy. Surely Mr. Schlafy intended this material be included in the discussion. As you can see, it's considerably more wordy than effective headlines--no doubt why it was not expressly mentioned. Thanks, WilliamWB 15:14, 14 July 2013 (EDT)

Cory Monteith[edit]

Just want to clarify that this was a good kid; you can talk about exposure and the values of people around him - but this kid suffered from substance abuse from a young age and made efforts to get clean; he voluntarily checked himself into rehab facilities multiple times. Sad loss.--IDuan 12:13, 14 July 2013 (EDT)

Sad loss indeed, probably caused by Hollywood values. So why don't liberals criticize Hollywood values, in order to prevent these tragedies? Instead, liberals push gun control.--Andy Schlafly 13:03, 14 July 2013 (EDT)

the Obama Administration may prosecute George Zimmerman again, in disregard of the Double Jeopardy Clause.[edit]

The article you cited doesn't say that. It says the NAACP has "called on" the Justice Department to do that. In a similar vein, I am calling on Angelina Jolie to join me for drinks in a hot tub tonight. But I don't think that may happen. EddyJ 14:44, 14 July 2013 (EDT)

If you're still not convinced that the Obama Administration will re-prosecute Zimmerman, then just wait a few more days and watch the news.--Andy Schlafly 14:47, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
I hate to say it but a federal prosecution against Zimmerman would not be in disregard to the Double Jeopardy Clause, since he was acquitted in a state court. The Dual Sovereignty Doctrine allows the federal government to prosecute him for the same offense. You as a lawyer ought to know that. - Markman 14:59, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
And being the disgrace the Federal Government is now, they will stack the deck with a judge and jurors who will find him guilty before the ink dries on the charge sheet. Karajou 15:12, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
Markman, you posted this response before I could successfully hit save page--please see my response above. Thanks, WilliamWB 15:14, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
The fallacious doctrine that Markman cites does exists, but is an anathema to the Double Jeopardy Clause. Most jurisdictions (other than the federal government) have expressly repudiated such an obvious disregard of the Constitution.
Your analysis of this issue above is interesting, William.--Andy Schlafly 15:19, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
@William - If you assume the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine (I'll call it DSD from now on) to be valid (I'll discuss its validity in my reply to Mr. Schlafly) than this should mean that the title of the news story as it appeared on the front page was inaccurate. A federal prosecution of Zimmerman might be in violation of federal law and/or DOJ guidelines, but not in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. In regards to the two SOCOTUS cases cited by your link, they do not establish when exactly is the DSD limited by the constitution, only that the government has a right to "confess error when the prosecution of a specific crime violated an internal policy."[42]
@Aschlafly - I am not a lawyer, but I do have to admit that the DSD is kind of hard to justify in face of the plain text of the constitution. "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" does not specify any exceptions. The reasoning Sandra Day O'Connor lays out in the link I provided doesn't seem to flow from the text of the constitution in any way. Can you provide sources for your claim that most jurisdictions have rejected the DSD? Did this rejection came before or after the relevant precedents in which the DSD was established?
EDIT: It seems like there might be a slight chance that the DSD will be overturned,[43][44] although I think it's more likely to be upheld. Either the motion will be denied cert, and if not the plaintiff will lose the case. I would expect the majority (in case SCOTUS will even hear the case) to include by the very least Ginsburg, Breyers, Sotomayor, Kagan, Scalia and Roberts (the last two are known for betraying originalism in favor of judicial restraint). If anyone will dissent it will most likely be Thomas, perhaps joined by Kennedy as well (say what you will about him he doesn't seem to be scared about upsetting precedents). I have no clue how would Alito vote. - Markman 16:38, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
It says near the bottom of the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine link you provided in your earlier reference above, "Numerous jurisdictions have enacted statutes which preempts the doctrine from applying, and bar prosecution of a defendant on a charge for which he has previously been acquitted or convicted under the laws of another jurisdiction."
The obvious meaning of the doctrine is when there are two non-overlapping sovereigns, such as different nations or different states. The dual sovereignty doctrine lacks a logical basis with respect to two governments that have the same constituency, such as the federal and state governments. Just because the Double Jeopardy Clause has not been respected in the past does not mean it should be ignored in the future too.--Andy Schlafly 19:12, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
I stand corrected, I hope the Supreme Court will give cert for the petitioners in Roach v. Missouri (see previous links I gave) and overturn DSD. - Markman 12:46, 16 July 2013 (EDT)

I disagree with the prediction that they'll be a federal murder trial anyway - we're jumping the gun here. There's no precedent for such a thing; nor have any of Obama's speeches suggested he's taking that route - in fact they've suggested the opposite. Conservapedia was not proven right and is so far wrong - now Andy, I know you said wait a few days and watch the tv - okay will do, but as of yet nothing has happened. That said, there probably will be a civil trial.--IDuan 01:58, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

Item for Main Page?[edit]

BHO seems to have put his foot in his mouth with an amateur mistake that is complicating military sexual assault trials. Is this an item for "In the News?"

Reporter beaten by mob in Zimmerman interview!![edit]

For the news -

The phrase "pro-abortion"[edit]

Regarding the use of the term "pro-abortion" in the news item "Many of the pro-abort demonstrators in Austin are hired to protest"; it seems disingenuous to use that phrase. As I understand it, the liberal viewpoint on abortion is one of allowing a woman to choose if she's in the position she must, thus, "pro-choice". I can't imagine many liberals being pro-abortion. AJohnson 10:25, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

Similarly, no one would call a conservative anti-abortion, as in cases such as rape and incest, as well as when the mother's life is in grave danger, most think that a termination of the pregnancy should be allowed. Don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes as well. Jacob Anderson 10:12, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

Aforementioned best of the public Australia beaten by English experts.[edit]

Brilliant game mind you. I guess we'll see at the end of the series. Jacob Anderson 10:16, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

Thanks for the reminder :P WilcoxD 20:30, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

Day one since Zimmerman trial update:[edit]

The federal government (Obama) has not charged Zimmerman with murder "in violation of the double jeopardy clause". We can do daily updates!--IDuan 00:05, 16 July 2013 (EDT)

Iduan, I fear you are being purposefully disingenuous. Someone who purports to know as much as you about the Double Jeopardy Clause would also surely know that the pre-trial investigation stage of the criminal prosecution of an individual can be quite long indeed. Measuring it in individual days seems silly on its face. Elsewhere you have suggested there "is no precedent" for this sort of thing, but let me respectfully suggest to you that if that were the case, then why has case law on the DSD (see our discussion above) been created. I hope that I am mistaken and that you are merely being flip. Thanks, WilliamWB 09:08, 16 July 2013 (EDT)
Schlafly, above: "If you're still not convinced that the Obama Administration will re-prosecute Zimmerman, then just wait a few more days and watch the news." This shouldn't take too long. EddyJ 09:28, 16 July 2013 (EDT)
Looks like there may be some good quotes to add to Conservapedia proven right once the Obama Administration files federal charges against Zimmerman.--Andy Schlafly 10:07, 16 July 2013 (EDT)

I'm going with Eddy here - we said it'd be a few more days till he was charged; also William the federal case has been open since March 2012 - I've been here years longer than you have and I've built up thousands of more edits, in addition to the blocking rights I have - feel free to check out my userpage before you call me disingenuous.--IDuan 10:37, 16 July 2013 (EDT)

Of course, you're right that you've made many more edits than I have, and that your account is considerably older (including nearly 3 years of breaks) but all the same, I do not care much to be threatened. That said, I read your "daily update" language as somewhat rude--I apologize for responding in kind. Returning to the discussion at hand, although the federal investigation was opened a year ago, under the aforementioned petite policy, the Federal government's investigation in these matters are tiered: First, a determination is made as to if federal or state interests will be better served, Second, assuming that charges will be filed, one jurisdiction will do so, Third, if the state files then the Federal Government suspends its investigation. Indeed, there would be little point for the Federal Government to continue to build its case (especially since under the Peitie policy they would be prohibited from beginning/continuing a grand jury investigation) because after Younger v. Harris the Supreme Court made clear that it would now allow the Judicial Power to interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings.
My theoretical view of these area's of the law is that they (Abstention/DSD/Double Jeopardy Clause/Petite Policy) demonstrate one of the important aims of Federalism which is restraint of the exercise of State Power against citizens. Thanks, WilliamWB 12:41, 16 July 2013 (EDT)
Out of curiosity Andy - would you be proven right if Zimmerman is charged with any offense, or just murder? Since you mentioned double jeopardy clause specifically I'm assuming no (although WaPo reports that the DOJ says a civil case is unlikely). Let's establish the reality before we make a mistake like last time - when I mentioned that the ranking system in tennis is impartial and not based on expert opinion, and then on the page you implied that I had said it'd be impossible for a low-seed to win a tournament. And then you ignored the men's tennis game. Just saying ;) --IDuan 10:39, 16 July 2013 (EDT)
The federal charges would be for federal crimes, but would be based on the same activity as the state case, and hence should be precluded by the Double Jeopardy Clause. If you don't think Zimmerman will be re-prosecuted by the Obama Administration, then why would you consider this case to be different from the re-prosecution of Stacey Koon for the Rodney King beating?--Andy Schlafly 14:59, 16 July 2013 (EDT)
Are you replying to William? If so here's what I got to say about this whole issue of DSD (Double Sovereignty Doctrine). After discussing the issue with Mr. Schlafly and reading more about the subject, I've came to the conclusion that DSD is a judicial invention which stands in stark contrast to the plain meaning of the Fifth Amendment. Said amendment does not list any exceptions to the Double Jeopardy Clause. Currently there's a case (Roach v. Missouri) waiting to be granted cert by the Supreme Court. The petitioners are arguing that the DSD is invalid, I hope the court will agree to hear them and overturn the DSD afterwards, although I'm somewhat pessimistic. - Markman 15:23, 16 July 2013 (EDT)
I feel like given the lack of incorporation of the Fifth Amendment until much later, the notion of dual sovereignty wouldn't have been accounted for; nonetheless the coin flip we're discussing here is whether charges should be brought - and everyone is calling heads or tails.--IDuan 21:25, 16 July 2013 (EDT)

Evolutionists: an additional thing happened on the Ides of July 2013[edit]

Evolutionists: An additional thing happened on Ides of July 2013. See the information below the Christian satellite television company map (map of Europe and Africa). Conservative 01:15, 16 July 2013 (EDT)

The blog says only that on 15 July 2013 something happened within Question Evolution! campaign, and then quotes Sun Tzu on secrecy. Uncertain of what actually happened.
Also, it appears the Swiss translator "doesn't work"... Important? GVolkov talktalktalk
Important? Yes, I would say so. There's so much demand in Europe for translators that to be out of work you have to be pretty spectacularly useless. Not that it matters, as this translator is every bit as imaginary as the Canadian authoress.
Christian creationist have momentum in France - an new evangelical church is being founded in France every 10 days due to immigration and the higher birth rates of religious conservatives. [45] Why isn't creationist literature being translated into French newsworthy?
Plus, the Muslim creationists in France are not warming up to Darwinism either. In 1968, the French population was 49.7 million people. Muslims in France were 610,000 or 1.23% of the population. In 2009, the French population was 67 million. Muslims in France were 8,000,000 or 11.94%.[46]
In addition, we have the possibility of Christian satellite broadcasting creationism in French in Africa.[47]
The future of Darwinism in France looks bleak.
I am hoping French evangelical Christianity is more prevalent in France than Islam in the future. Maybe the Muslims rioting in France will cause the French be less eager about Muslim immigration to France in the future. Evangelical Christian immigrants do not have reports of them rioting from what I understand. Conservative 16:40, 16 July 2013 (EDT)
You don't know much about the French, do you, Ken? All the evangelical christians are African immigrants. The French loathe them every bit as much as they loathe muslims. Your fantasies about a resurgence of creationism in Europe are utterly delusional. And by the way, you're a coward who's scared to debate me.

"I hope naive evolutionists don't think French atheists/evolutionist haters who engage in religious bigotry and racial bigotry against evangelical immigrants will prevail. Thanks to their hatred/indifference relating to motherhood and the resulting low fertility rates, there are going to be mighty few French atheists/evolutionists to stop the onward march of creationism in France. In April of 2010, Eric Kauffmann declared that "the rate of secularisation has flattened to zero in most of Protestant Europe and France."

Bible believing Christians prevailed once in Europe and we are rising again for a second triumph! Once again love will triumph over evil. See: The Triumph of the Gospel of Love

Au revoir, French evolutionary belief!"[48]

By the way, do you still break out in cold sweats at the thought of debating VivaYehshua? Also, have you read this THIS yet? You know what to do Mr. Mason if you want to be taken seriously by me. Right now, whenever I think of militant atheists/evolutionists, it is often accompanied with a chuckle. Conservative 22:16, 17 July 2013 (EDT)

Filibuster Fight[edit]

An interesting development here [49]. Sort of to be expected - but the notion that the Democrats would upend the entire parliamentary rulebook is a notably desperate move; as Mitch McConnell said I imagine they'll be happy when they eventually are the minority party again and the filibuster becomes their tool.--IDuan 21:54, 16 July 2013 (EDT)

Good suggestion. I posted a Washington Post story related to the issue.--Andy Schlafly 23:31, 16 July 2013 (EDT)
Sorry if my memory is wrong, but didn't Republicans threaten going nuclear on the filibuster back in 2005 or so, when Dems were filibustering Dubya's apointees?
Update: Yup. Would this previous inclination for the nuclear option by Republicans, now become against when in the minority, not make both conservatives and liberals have a double standard? I suggest removal of statement. GVolkov talktalktalk

Conservapedia is a lot easier to edit using the Chrome/Opera browsers right now[edit]

Conservapedia is a lot easier/faster to edit in the Chrome/Opera browsers right now.

You can download chrome here:

You can download Opera here:

I would suggest temporarily not using the Firefox now as it causes editing to be slower. Conservative 01:28, 20 July 2013 (EDT)

Reddit shoves atheism into the closet. 2013 is a BAD year for atheism - just like it was predicted![edit]

Reddit shoves its atheism sub-reddit in the closet where it belongs! Says it was not "up to snuff".[50]

Atheist Hemant Mehta says this will hamper internet atheism.

2013 is a BAD year for atheism - just like it was predicted! Conservative 17:57, 20 July 2013 (EDT)

English Experts win again[edit]

A thrashing this time. Jacob Anderson 19:24, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

I am not a good person[edit]

I am depressed. I took the test on the front page and realised that I have miserably failed. I am not a good person. The depressing point is that I don't think I can change - I will have to continue telling white lies, I covet...

I wonder how many of you have taken the test and passed.--Maria O'Connor 22:22, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

Setback for the homosexual agenda: "NBC likely to cover Russia's anti-gay laws during Winter Olympics."[edit]

How, exactly, does the head of NBC sports saying, and I quote from the article you linked, "Obviously, as a company, we are for equality and opportunity for all," Lazarus said. "We don't believe in the spirit of the law they have passed, and we are hopeful the Olympic spirit will win out," implying strongly that they will use the power of the media to draw attention to what they see as an unfair law, represent a "setback" for the "homosexual agenda"? EddyJ 11:34, 28 July 2013 (EDT)

It's a setback for the homosexual agenda because NBC will give worldwide publicity to Russia's strong stance against the agenda. Of course NBC itself spouts liberal claptrap, but it is the free publicity that will matter.--Andy Schlafly 13:15, 28 July 2013 (EDT)
Right, okay, I get it -- just like exposing lynching in the US South and the particularities of apartheid helped the cause of racists. That makes sense. Thanks. EddyJ 15:37, 28 July 2013 (EDT)
"If he would have championed gay rights today, he would have done it while he was here. There was ample opportunity for him to champion gay rights during his lifetime, and he did not do so." - Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr., on Martin Luther King Jr.'s lack of support for gay rights. Checkmate EdddyJ! Conservative 16:34, 28 July 2013 (EDT)
The homosexual agenda is nothing like the civil rights movement. One obvious difference is how the civil rights movement was pro-free speech, while the homosexual agenda is anti-free speech.--Andy Schlafly 18:27, 28 July 2013 (EDT)
Archbishop Desmond Tutu begs to differ. JZ 19:02, 28 July 2013 (EDT)

Re: "Let's starve a giraffe for science"[edit]

The blog gives decent succinct summaries of Lamarck's and Darwin's theories thanks to the referenced biology textbook. But the subsequent thought experiment (or is it a proposed real life experiment?) about the giraffe contains some very poor reasoning and conclusions, which is why this blog post should not be linked to from an educational encyclopedia.

In the proposed experiment, the only way the giraffe could possibly survive is if Lamarck's theory is true. The experiment does not test Darwin's theory in any way. This shows a woeful misunderstanding of Darwinism on the part of the blog's author. I'm not saying it's impossible to create an experiment to test natural selection (I believe a scientist named Lenski conducted a successful experiment with bacteria), but the experiment in this blog falls short in its scientific merits. --Randall7 23:52, 28 July 2013 (EDT)

And what is the misunderstanding on Darwin's part? What your own woeful misunderstanding is, Randall7, is before anything "kicks-in" regarding either Lamarck's or Darwin's theories that a lot of scientists blindly follow, that giraffe is going to be dead.
And unfortunately for lovers of those theories, this educational encyclopedia broadcasts just how false those theories are. Whether or not they like it is their problem, but instead of attacking the messenger, maybe they should just quit being close-minded. Karajou 00:44, 29 July 2013 (EDT)
Randall7, Charles Darwin as far as his macroevolutionary notions, had a scientific hypothesis and not a scientific theory. Late in Charles Darwin's life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design.[51] Evolution is actually a disproven hypothesis. See: Evolution There is so much evidence against evolution and such a lack of evidence for it that research now shows that evolutionists rely significantly on "gut feelings" to cling to their evolutionary "beliefs". [52] Individuals who believe in gravity don't have to rely on gut feelings to believe in gravity. They can rely on evidence/experimentation. And many "evolutionists" are merely poseurs.[53]
Also, in Lenski's experiment bacteria stayed bacteria. No new kind of animal was created and macroevolution did not happen.
Next, how confident are you in your evolutionary beliefs? Are you willing to debate VivaYehshua on the 15 questions for evolutionists in a recorded debate which will be distributed to thousands of people? Conservative 08:23, 29 July 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, Edward Blyth wrote about natural selection reducing variation within species. Darwin wrote about the origin of new species by natural selection. StaceyT 18:16, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

StaceyT, please look at sources used for footnote 26 in the evolution article. I would suggest reading THIS ARTICLE first. Upon further examination, I would have to look into this matter more fully before I would assign a probability of Darwin borrowing some of Blyth's ideas without giving him sufficient credit. I edited my comment above and removed the Blyth comment. Conservative 20:14, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Woah, everyone calm down. Why do you love changing the subject so much? All I was saying is that the experiment proposed in the blog post lacks rigor and neither proves nor disproves Darwin's hypothesis. (You're right, Conservative, hypothesis is a better word for what Darwin came up with.) How can I get in contact with VivaYeshua to have a discussion? I'm not sure if a debate is appropriate, since, according to the article, it's not clear that his beliefs are any different than mine. --Randall7 20:54, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Randall7, do you believe that macroevolution occurred? Second, go here: Shockofgod's chat room Conservative 22:21, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Evolutionists, busted! See: A Tall Tale of Evolution: The Neck of the Giraffe and God created giraffes. Of course, we all knew that giraffe necks coming about through macroevolution was a stretch! Conservative 00:46, 30 July 2013 (EDT)
See also How the giraffe got its long neck. HBranson 15:53, 30 July 2013 (EDT)

From the atheist/agnostic website "It’s true that the known fossil record has always lacked an extensive library of transitional giraffe fossils..." .[54] Checkmate evolutionists!  :) Also, " Lönnig concluded that 'the fossil evidence for the gradual evolution of the long-necked giraffe is -- as expected -- completely lacking.'"[55] Giraffe game over! Do not pass go. Do not collect $200! Conservative 21:42, 30 July 2013 (EDT)

Coup de grâce for the truly stubborn evolutionist who is reluctant to admit defeat:
"If the giraffe’s neck elongated over long periods of time, then we should see evidence of this in the fossil record, with numerous transitional forms progressively getting longer. However, that is not what the fossil evidence shows. There are short-necked fossil quadrupeds, including some, like the living okapi, which have features in common with giraffes. However, when we see fossils of Giraffa, there are no short, intermediate and long-necked forms, let alone showing a progression. In other words, the fossil record reveals that giraffes have always possessed long necks...
The gerenuk (or giraffe gazelle) is a long-necked antelope that exclusively browses in trees. It may well be an expression of the neck length variation possible within an original ‘gazelle’ or similar kind. But it does not have the long legs or other specialized structures of a giraffe; these were simply not part of the genetic repertoire of its kind. It stands on its hind legs to reach arboreal vegetation. A giraffe is much more than just a ‘long-necked antelope’...
In addition, there are well-preserved giraffe footprints next to the fully human footprints in Laetoli, Tanzania dated at around 3.5 million years old on the evolutionary time scale. The shape and depth of these footprints strongly suggest that these ancient giraffes were virtually identical in height, weight and stride length to those living today." [56]
The giraffe creation vs. evolution battle. Another triumphant victory for biblical creationists! Conservative 22:10, 30 July 2013 (EDT)
Dear All, Let us not have a fight over this. Any evolutionist in here, can you please explain in lay person terms how giraffe's neck got elongated according to your evolutionary theory? Let us understand why you believe in that theory. --Maria O'Connor 09:16, 31 July 2013 (EDT)
Interestingly google search brings up some transitional fossils - notably Bohlinia--Maria O'Connor 12:32, 31 July 2013 (EDT)
And they want to get the average reader to believe what they want you to believe. The bohlinia reference reveals a legbone proudly displayed on its page in Wikipedia, and lot's of artists "impressions" in Google, which are either long or short-necked, depending on the artist's imagination. Just where are the neck bones, or must we rely on an artist's or scientist's imagination? A further check of prehistoric giraffes reveals either these animals look like okapis - short-necked - or just stubs with little to no information at all. But in one, the author or contributor places his own "drawing" of an animal known as khersonotherium, which is nothing more than a child's drawing with a long neck added[57]. The individual who drew it is from Ukraine; he is very familiar with this museum [58]; he visited it and saw the actual remains of the animal there[59]. Where's the long neck in this image? Proportionately, it's no different than the neck of any modern day antelope. Did this individual distort the information deliberately in the Wikipedia article by way of adding a couple of feet to the animal's neck? Are we supposed to ignore the skeleton itself and focus instead on that silly drawing because some clown thinks that's the way it should be? Remember, we had a scientific moron in history once when he took a single pig's tooth and made a man from it, and it seems that scientists and artists are doing the same thing today with just about anything else.
Like it or not, the giraffe blog exposed two weaknesses regarding those that believe in evolution. First is the fact that they will take the word of a scientist as gospel, with no simple fact-checking on their claims; they believe what they want to believe. Second, they will go out of their way to defend those beliefs, using everything from trying to get us to believe by way of "just look at the pictures and assume it happened" excuse to all-out hatred against the messenger. Whatever proof is revealed that alters their beliefs is subject to the trash can; it does not exist in their minds. And they have the gall to call us close-minded?
This website has taken a stance that evolution is false, and that God created the world in six days several thousand years ago. Try to get over it. Karajou 14:05, 31 July 2013 (EDT)

Maria, if you want to resource showing you the evidence for biblical creation and against evolution, I would recommend this resource: Creation answers. I hope this proves helpful to you. Conservative 18:44, 31 July 2013 (EDT)

Dear Conservative, I don't need any proof for creation. I was asking for proof for evolution of giraffe. When I asked for arguments in favour of evolution of giraffe, no evolutionist is giving any proof. --Maria O'Connor 18:56, 1 August 2013 (EDT)
Maria, I understand. The burden of proof is always on the claimant. And speculation and tall tales is not evidence. Conservative 23:57, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

Trojan Elephant[edit]

The main page item reads, "Have Republican Party leaders become a "Trojan elephant" in the fortress of conservatism?" and connects to an article that was reprinted from a Tea Party source claiming that unnamed party leaders prevented a full ideological debate during the 2008 and 2012 Presidential campaigns. I don't believe that this criticism is credible or worth Main Page coverage. The fact is that modern politics involves polls, focus groups, and a lot of campaign professionals. The goal is to win by attracting a sufficient number of votes from various segments of the voters. If the campaigns dropped certain arguments or targetted certain demographic groups, it was a data-driven decision. The article, and many Main Page entries, seem to be written from the prospective that everyone either agrees with me or the will change their minds and agree with me once they are enlightened by my argument. That is unrealistic. Although there are tensions between "Republican Party leaders" and "Tea Party leaders" the article and its Main Page summary item do not do the topic justice. I suggest that we remove the item and put our energies into expanding the CP substantive articles on the 2012 and 2008 elections as well as other relevant CP articles. Is there an objective basis for setting up an "us vs. them" battle between the Republican Party and the "fortress of conservatism"? Does CP really view conservatism as being so embattled that it must fall back to an isolated "fortress" instead of living in the general American society? The whole metaphor does not fit. Thanks, Wschact 11:36, 31 July 2013 (EDT)

There is a difference between someone who is a statesman and leader and someone who is merely a politician. Leaders disseminate messages, raise funds, etc. And they can certainly be thought leaders.
Second, the last U.S. President who could be called a conservative was Calvin Coolidge who had seven years of prosperity, peace, and balanced budgets.[60] But even Coolidge put in the Supreme Court a judge who supported FDRs New Deal (he didn't serve long as a judge though due to an early death) so you probably have to go back further to find a true conservative. :) George Washington perhaps. :) "The Constitution is the guide, which I never will abandon.” - George Washington
The US economy will probably experience a downturn within a year or two based on the length of post WWII bull markets. Barack Hussein Obama will become a Jimmy Carter 2.0 then. His approval rating is already around 46%. And more scandals can arise which combined with a sour economy will take the wind out of liberalism. The pendulum will swing back - especially if America chooses to go down a profligate spending and overregulation slow growth path like Greece and many Eurozone countries which are now eating the bitter harvest of their liberal ideas. Conservative 23:34, 31 July 2013 (EDT)
Respectfully, I do not view Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, Strom Thurmon, et al as being a Trojan elephant invading a "fortress of conservatism." Individuals in American society think for themselves, and conservatives can differ on the various public policy issues that arise. Both the Republican Party and American conservatives are fully integrated into the fabric of American society, so the "Trojan elephant" - "fortress of conservatism" metaphor rings false and should be removed from the Main Page. Wschact 08:40, 1 August 2013 (EDT)
Reagan definitely pushed some conservative policies (Reagan got me interested in looking into political conservatism more). At the same time, how many of Ron Reagan's budgets were balanced? Did Reagan have a mixed record in terms of social conservatism and appointing Supreme Court Justices? (I realize that Reagan had to get them through the Senate process). Goldwater was more a libertarian and not a conservative (Goldwater was not a social conservative).
Regardless, the bond market and foreign competition is going to force American politics to become more efficient and fiscally conservative. Government deficit spending at the national, state and city level is proving to be unsustainable in the Western World (Eurocrisis, Detroit, etc). Conservative 11:44, 1 August 2013 (EDT)
The above does not respond to my concern. The "Trojan elephant" / "fortress of conservatisim" formulation rings false. Do you believe that conservatives are isolated in a fortress outside of society as a whole that can be penetrated by Republican leaders only if they cloak themself in an elephant pretext? The phrasing implies that Republican leaders are with the majority of society and conservatives are isolated and surrounded. I am sure that you are not saying that the forces inside the Trojan elephant will prevail just like the army inside the Trojan horse won over Troy. Thanks, Wschact 01:33, 4 August 2013 (EDT)

Trimming of MPL[edit]

Thank you for removing some of the accumulated cruft on the left side of the main page. I must say, though, that I am disappointed that the Bible verses that used to grace MPL are now gone. Could you please restore them (and update them as well)? Thanks, GregG 13:06, 3 August 2013 (EDT)