Talk:Main Page/Archive index/130

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Error About The Black Hole Headline

Did you even read the article? The headline on the page says that Hawking "admits" blackholes do not exist. This is proven not to be accurate in the first line: Stephen Hawking now says light and information may be able to escape from black holes, doing an about-face on the objects that helped cement his reputation as the world’s preeminent scientist, New Scientist reports. He's never says anything that they don't exist, just says that he believes he made a mistake about the properties of a black hole. This is obscenely ridiculous. Whoever is putting those headlines up needs to be a better job at reading the articles first. --DavidS 22:16, 27 January 2014 (EST)

I think the article is just evidence of more Liberal bias, simply contradicting what ASchlafly says at any opportunity. Furthermore, has any prominent physicist ever refuted, denied, or even commented on what Andy has proven? No, therefore his infallibility has been demonstrated by even the most 'experienced', 'educated', and 'qualified' scientists out there. --ConservaCelt
@ConservaCelt: "Contradicting" is more than just saying something that happens to be at odds with what someone else said; it implies an intentional disagreement with that person. I doubt that the cited article intended to contradict CP's stance on black holes or relativity.
But there are plenty of other people that quite directly ridicule CP's stance on relativity. The Counterexamples to Relativity page has nearly two million page views, and is frequently cited, not by scientists, but on the web at large: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Yes, Andy knows all about this. The reason no prominent physicist ever "refuted, denied, or even commented on what Andy has proven" is that it is beneath their notice. SamHB 00:54, 31 January 2014 (EST)
Merriam-Webster's definition of a "black hole" is: "a celestial object that has a gravitational field so strong that light cannot escape it and that is believed to be created especially in the collapse of a very massive star."[1]
But now Stephen Hawking is backpedaling and saying that light/information may be able to escape these holes. And if light can escape them then they are not black holes at all! The are grey holes at best! Hawking's dark religion of atheism no doubt caused him to pessimistically think that grey holes were black holes. :) See: Atheism and depression
Of course, CP always new that the atheist Steven Hawking was a screw up. Hawking is the same guy who said the universe just poofed itself into existence from nothing. That is why the Shockofgod atticle is larger than the Stephen Hawking article!

Let's be clear: Hawking was never the world's preeminent scientist. He was never even a close second! He was an "overrated scientist" puffed up by liberal tomfoolery! :) Conservative 11:27, 28 January 2014 (EST)
Right... are people not allowed to make mistakes? Do we consider Isaac Newton a terrible scientist because his theory on physics was disproved? JedM 14:57, 28 January 2014 (EST)
Many physicists, far more knowledgeable than anyone here, would dispute the claim that "Hawking was never the world's preeminent scientist". SamHB 00:54, 31 January 2014 (EST)
Considering Mr. Schlafly is not considered to be of any significance to the scientific community (save perhaps to Creationists) nor is he a scientist (but feel free to rebut that if there are some credentials I'm not aware of) they have no reason to comment on Mr. Schlafly's musings on science. :That's not the same as infallibility, that's just them having better things to do with their time or them being unaware of Mr. Schlafy's statements.
And once again, Atheism is not a religion. Nor is Theism in itself.

But until you get a statement saying that they don't exist (and not merely he realizes he may have been in error about the properties) it's irresponsible to put words in his mouth he did not utter. DavidS 16:31, 28 January 2014 (EST)

DavidS, I don't consider evolutionism to be science, but with being said, Eugenie Scott did have a min-debate with Andy on the radio. My guess is that the evolutionary propagandists were feeling the heat related to CP evolution and atheism related articles and felt compelled to have the mini debate.However, the physics community has shown less interest in CP than the evolutionary pseudoscience community. So I would agree with you on that point.

Second, atheism is a religion.

Lastly, right now, I am in the midst of further understanding a few complex systems. I will leave the tasks of disputing with Andy about his ideas concerning relativity to his brother Roger Schlafly who is more knowledgeable than me about Einstein's work. I don't have the time or inclination to tackle the relativity issue given my current priorities. And personally, I always found chemistry and biology more interesting to me than physics. My scientist friend says Andy is wrong about this issue and I think my friend is right. And cakes and atomic bombs can release a tremendous amount of energy. :) Conservative 18:25, 28 January 2014 (EST)

Seriously? Manning

Mr. "Peyton Manning only plays well in the regular season" Schlafly was "proven right"? Oh okay. By the way Tom Brady has 3 Super Bowl Rings, Manning has 1 is going for two, and Tim Tebow reports for ESPN. And before you say Manning only won because he was playing Brady - Manning had a great offensive game (400 yards passing?) and the other teams? They're not in the playoffs.)--IDuan 13:27, 21 January 2014 (EST)

This site lacks any insight as to sports - the ones that it trumpets on the proven right page are straw man arguments (some guy said that only top seeds will ever win Grand Slams! ... who was that again?) or nonsense (professional athletes who don't win often and therefore aren't ranked high in a ranking system based directly and exclusively on tournament results ... are best of public). There isn't logic (Tom Brady of 3 Super Bowl Championships and Peyton Manning of 1 (2?) and multiple MVPs are the most overrated players ...) or consistency (Kevin Durant scored more than Lebron James at the Olympics therefore he is the next Michael Jordan ... even though Michael Jordan was outscored by Charles Barkley on the Dream Team and no one said Barkley was a better player). It's laughable. Meanwhile, while accusing the liberal media of hating on players who are more publicly Christian (in the NFL - the sport of prayer circles before games) - the players you trumpet FOR their public Christianity seem to fail - or at least not stack up to the players you decide to hate. Tim Tebow is on ESPN; RG3 had a terrible sophomore year; Kevin Durant still hasn't won a championship (although he seriously might this year - he is doing very well this year, recently scored 54 points - a career high); Djokovich was just ousted from the Australian Open. Who is the best Quarterback on Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars? Matt Hasselbeck??--IDuan 13:37, 21 January 2014 (EST)
The AFC Championship was obviously a win-win for Andy in one regard. No matter what the outcome of the game was, Andy would be able to proclaim "Conservapedia Proven Right" with the losing QB obviously being overrated, conveniently ignoring that the other "Overrated Sports Star" won the game and reached the Super Bowl. By ignoring the fact that one of these "Overrated Sports Stars" by definition HAD to lose the game, he also gets to ignore that Manning put up a statistical game for the ages, not to mention gloss over that Brady had one of his finest seasons to date, carrying an injury-riddled team all the way to the AFC Championship. If Manning doesn't put up arguably the greatest season ever by a QB (despite being an "Overrated Sports Star"), Brady is almost inarguably this season's MVP.---Eg
Two other angles from Sunday's games that mysteriously (and by "mysteriously", I mean "not surprising at all") do not get any mention at all here on Conservapedia: 1) "Best of the Public" Colin Kaepernick throws the game-ending INT in the end zone, and 2) both teams in the AFC Championship Game somehow managed to reach it despite releasing or trading Tim Tebow in the last few years. So strange.---Eg

Furthermore - the Patriots were expected to lose that game - the Broncos had a better record (so it was a home game - fun fact - in the playoffs whenever Brady and Manning have faced each other - the home team has won), and the Patriots win earlier in the year seemed relatively fluke (the normally reliable Wes Welker muffed a punt return which allowed the Patriots to score and win at the end of the game). Manning has great WRs this year - 3 amazing ones; Brady has 0. Two of his tight ends - his usual targets - at the start of the year are gone now (Aaron Hernandez, Gronkowski). But the Patriots still made it to the AFC Championship game - so his squad was still better than the other squads.--IDuan 13:41, 21 January 2014 (EST)

Anyone who watches the NFL knows Aaron Rodgers is the best in the league without any serious dispute, and he's even a devout Christian; he just chooses not to shove it in peoples' faces every time a microphone is in front of him. If I remember right he's said that he talks about football around football games, and religion if asked about it somewhere else in a non-football context. I'm also somewhat surprised that Troy Polamalu isn't up there, given what a star he is and how devoted he is to his Eastern Orthodox Christian beliefs. JackSpang 13:45, 21 January 2014 (EST)
Grandma had a stronger throwing arm than Tom Brady. Look, I know the guy lacks the faith of Rodgers and Brees and many others, and the liberal media overhype Brady for that reason, but at least the media should champion someone who can throw the ball downfield.--Andy Schlafly 14:31, 21 January 2014 (EST)
Or maybe it has to do with the fact that Brady has won more Super Bowls (3) than Rodgers and Brees (both outstanding Hall of Fame-level QBs in their own right) have appeared in COMBINED. But, whatever...this comment is more than enough proof that Andy just likes to troll his own website.---Eg

Andy your Grandma also threw it more accurately than Tim Tebow - which is why Brady is in the league (and was the leader of a team that made it to the final four of the NFL playoffs) and Tebow is not.--IDuan 10:25, 22 January 2014 (EST)

  • If she was in the Superbowl, the other team would be bradying right about now. PeterKa 11:16, 22 January 2014 (EST)

I know it's all in fun, but bringing in family members makes me uncomfortable. Roll up your sleeve and may the best man win, but some respect for the relatives please. Rafael 16:43, 22 January 2014 (EST)

Kevin Durant

Andy I know how much you love Kevin Durant - remember gay marriage is legal in Oklahoma! - here's an article on how he's just tearing it up this year - he's the hottest player in the league right now, and I would say front-runner to win MVP. ESPN--IDuan 10:25, 22 January 2014 (EST)


It's funny that you would post that stat line from Durant (which was actually no where near as good as his other stat lines this month) and say the liberal media is ignoring him .... days after I posted an article from the LIBERAL MEDIA praising him and saying he's probably the frontrunner for this season's MVP. Andy you're being a coward when it comes to basketball - when I destroyed you in the whole "he scored more points in the Olympics" thing by mentioning Barkley outscored Jordan - you ran away ... and now you only come back to post headlines and avoid the subject.--IDuan 01:29, 26 January 2014 (EST)

Susanne Atanus

Does anybody actually believe her? That was a nasty and untrue thing to say. Any child born with autism or an elderly person who suffers with dementia are hardly to blame. I don't believe God would act that way and her comments do no good at all for the pro life cause.--JerryCa 03:07, 26 January 2014 (EST)

The article was from Huffington Post, a left-leaning website that delights in pointing out the follies of Republicans and conservatives. Usually it is along the lines of "See what a stupid thing this or that Republican said." It appears that she, a candidate for the Republican nomination for Congress from Illinois, actually did say that, in an interview. It appears that Jack Dorgan, the Republican Chairman for Illinois, asked her to drop out of the race because of those comments.
If I recall correctly, similar statements, along the lines of some tragedy, usually weather-related, being God's retribution for some social ill, have been made in the past by "televangelists" such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. The difference is that they weren't running for public office.
I don't know why this incident would be featured on the front page of a Conservative web site. SamHB 00:28, 28 January 2014 (EST)
Jesus did not blame misfortune in this life on sin. See Matthew 5:45, Luke 13:2-3, and Matthew 13:24-30. PeterKa 03:59, 28 January 2014 (EST)

"theory [of general relativity] is false at high energies."

The main page item that cites an article "demonstrating that the theory is false at high energies" is very misleading and should be rephrased. This article does not appear in a peer-reviewed journal. Instead, it is a posting to Cornell University's archiv website. The article makes the usual important distinction between Einstein's theory of special relativity and the theory of general relativity. The data does not test the theory of special relativity, which is generally accepted in the scientific community. Instead, the article addresses just the theory of general relativity, which the scientific community has long recognized as problematic. The article notes that the theory of general relativity holds at lower energy levels. However, at the very high energy levels created for the first time in the most powerful new synchrotrons, this researcher's data is trending in the direction opposite to the prediction of Einstein's theory of general relativity. Under the scientific method, the article should be peer-reviewed and the experiment duplicated at other locations. If this finding holds up, the theory of general relativity should be modified to account for the additional data.

As currently worded, the main page item could be easily misread as saying the article is confirming CP's attack on Einstein's theory of special relativity. So, let's reword the item. Many thanks. Wschact 08:27, 26 January 2014 (EST)

Wschact, you wrote: "Under the scientific method, the article should be peer-reviewed and the experiment duplicated at other locations." Scientists can use the scientific method without engaging in a peer-review process. In fact, there are scientists with revolutionary discoveries whose work was criticized and not accepted by their scientist peers. See also: One should never confuse scientage or scientody for scientistry Conservative 14:03, 26 January 2014 (EST)

Yes, scientists can do science without having their work peer-reviewed. It's just much much harder to have your ideas taken seriously until they are published in a real peer-reviewed journal. In this case, the paper was simply submitted to an archive service. It's particularly telling that the abstract simply says that "I conclude that general relativity, which describes gravity at low energies precisely, break down at high energies." Rather than, "My experiments show that general relativity ...." Anyone can "conclude" anything they want. Did he actually do experiments? In collaboration with some research project? If so, and if he isn't exaggerating, we should hear more about this in the near future. SamHB 00:28, 28 January 2014 (EST)

Science is being taken less and less seriously due to its quality going down. There has been a flood of low quality (incompetent) research and a ten-fold increase in scientific fraud in recent years. Liberal academics are increasingly turning out students without skills and more and more worthless/junk science. Sooner or later the tap of tax funding to academia is going to further decrease due to lower returns on investment. Conservative 13:48, 28 January 2014 (EST)
You sound as though you are disappointed with science in general, perhaps even unaware of the many many ways it has made our lives better. I won't bore everyone by going into detail on this. Yes, there is some low-quality research; always has been; always will be. Even a tenfold increase in paper retraction isn't very significant in the overall scheme of things, and it may well be the result of more careful scrutiny by the community at large. And I don't believe that our schools are turning out people who are, on the whole, less skillful or knowledgeable. SamHB 00:54, 31 January 2014 (EST)

Best of the public victory!!!

A member outside the "Big Four" has won a Grand Slam for the first time since 2009 - beating Djokovich and a (injured, but playing) Rafael Nadal on the way!--IDuan 11:02, 26 January 2014 (EST)

The Daily Beast article

There was a section about a "Daily Beast" article here, but it seems to have disappeared. I have restored it, as best I can, on my talk page. SamHB 00:28, 28 January 2014 (EST)

Paul Broun/Wendy Davis

It's interesting that we criticize Wendy Davis for being twice divorced, but not Paul Broun (candidate for Conservapedia's CONSERVATIVE OF THE YEAR!) for being on his fourth wife (granted, his most recent marriage has lasted twenty three years now, but what are we saying about people who divorce?)--IDuan 11:05, 29 January 2014 (EST)

Henry VIII was conservative of the year once upon a time...

Question evolution! campaign

I believe similar promises were made about 2013, 2012, 2011, etc. I would give odds of 25 to 1 against anything happening this year--JerryCa 15:25, 29 January 2014 (EST)

JerryCa, the ardent evolutionist Adolf Hitler, who promoted the errant notion of a German master race, bet against there being a Normandy invasion. We know how that turned out, don't we? :) Second, have you taken the new online quiz about the 15 questions for evolutionists located here: ? If so, how many were you able to get right? Conservative 18:42, 29 January 2014 (EST)
I am not an evolutionist and you are changing the subject, similar promises were made about 2013, 2012, 2011 etc and never came to fruit. My odds stand, in fact I lengthen them to 50 -1. Which makes you one of three thing. Incompetent, overly optimistic or a liar. Time to show your "machismo" now and stand behind the bully and block me--JerryCa 18:56, 29 January 2014 (EST)
JerryCa, what happened in the last few minutes that caused you to double your odds? Conservative 19:01, 29 January 2014 (EST)
Your record of not producing the goods. 100 - 1--JerryCa 19:13, 29 January 2014 (EST)
@Conservative: I don't think bringing up Hitler and the Normandy invasion is the right comparison. A better one, and I think what JerryCa was getting at, would be the well-worn saying "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." That's probably why he gives you such long odds. SamHB 00:54, 31 January 2014 (EST)

SOTU ratings - how long before "Obama who?"

According to the article - some "President Clinton"'s final address was seen by 31.5 million viewers - fewer than the 33.3 million viewers who watched Obama's address last night. I know I - for one - have no earthly idea who they could possibly be referring to when they say "President Clinton"? Andy - could you help me out? President Clinton who???--IDuan 22:23, 29 January 2014 (EST)

Why didn't we run anything on one of the three (four?) republican responses? Cathy McMorris Rodgers (official GOP), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Spanish version, but also officially sanctioned), Rand Paul and Mike Lee (official Tea Party response) all gave addresses. Was there nothing noteworthy to report there? The mainstream media has generally decided the four responses are a show of disunity - could we perhaps have spun that to show that the GOP welcomes multiple ideas and isn't just a party with one platform - in a positive way? Or perhaps that the party is full of rising stars - like Rand Paul - who can give these addresses and get a large audience even if they aren't officially sanctioned.--IDuan 15:07, 30 January 2014 (EST)

Hillary Clinton's attempt to become president has kept Bill in the news, but most Americans under 30 years old probably don't know who Bill Clinton even is.--Andy Schlafly 23:20, 31 January 2014 (EST)

Oh wow that sounds like a really cool fact - you got a source for that? Most Americans under 30 don't know who the second most recent president is?--IDuan 00:54, 1 February 2014 (EST)


Most everyone - liberals and conservatives - dislikes Bieber for a variety of reasons. For one - the generic pop music he puts out that gets excessive radio play. For two - his general attitude - it's quite smug for a teenybopper. But he's gotten a lot of flack recently for his insane driving practices - this DUI - which by the way was for a 19 year old drinking, smoking marijuana and taking prescription pills - isn't the first time that his unsafe practices has been reported. A dumb line by TV Guide (what a great source!) doesn't change that. This notion that non-pro-life celebrities who have this downfall don't get flack is stupid. Lindsay Lohan, Amanda Bynes, Justin Bieber are all in the same vein; they also all have different views on abortion. Explain why the media treats them the same, if they're singling out Bieber for his pro-life views.--IDuan 10:18, 30 January 2014 (EST)

And why is Conservapedia stepping up on the issue, let alone to appear to defend Bieber? Its celebrity hogwash of the first order, it's not news compared to the real issues out there and I pray neither of my kids turn out like him. Rafael 11:25, 30 January 2014 (EST)
A more effective headline would have perhaps been lamenting that a news source would cite pro-life (even in cases of rape) views as being cause for insanity - but not every story is indicative of a broader theme. His abortion views are not why people are talking about him - they were only mentioned because this rag decided to do a "timeline" - other news sources have done timelines too without mentioning the comments. So there isn't a larger pattern. You lose credibility when you point to this isolated incident and then say it's the liberal media bullying the pro-lifer. What you should have done is point to the one incident and talk about how in and of itself it was outrageous. By trying to make it into something larger - something that it's not - you end up sounding like you're defending Bieber.--IDuan 14:59, 30 January 2014 (EST)
  • This is just an absent-minded Twitter post. We should wait until he finances Operation Rescue before we show this much leg. PeterKa 23:40, 30 January 2014 (EST)

I don't follow popular ("Hollywood values") entertainment news very much; just enough to know that he is now in the ranks of people like Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, Lindsay Lohan, and whoever it was that got arrested for shoplifting. I believe that the entertainment press has treated them all about the way they should be treated, without regard for whether they are pro-life. To be clear, what Justin Bieber is being criticized for is various instances of assault, assault and battery, DUI, speeding, and possession/use of illegal drugs. That's serious stuff. One would have no trouble finding pro-life people who don't do those things. SamHB 00:54, 31 January 2014 (EST)


It looks like the Washington political class has finally had enough of the American people. We don't know how to vote correctly, so they're going to replace us all with Mexicans.[2][3] If this passes, all of America could become a one-party state that doesn’t work. California here we come! Without IRS harassment and campaign contribution kickbacks, Obama might have lost the 2012 election. We can't have any more close calls like that! The immigrants we really need are better politicians, like Sarkozy from France or the Liberal Party from Australia. PeterKa 00:54, 1 February 2014 (EST)

  • Update: It looks like the House Republicans have already abandoned this terrible idea.[4] What were they thinking, anyway? PeterKa 22:45, 1 February 2014 (EST)


Once again - blowing things out of proportion - just like the Bieber incident. So one reporter - not the entire "lame stream media" - one reporter - had this conversation with Durant:

"You're smiling now, but there's been a pronounced edge to the way you've played this weekend - what's been triggering that edge?"
"It could be my last game any time I step on the court so I got to give it my all."
"What goes into a streak to get you at the level you've been at the last 12 games - what goes into that Kevin?"
"Thank God - that's all I can say. Jesus Christ"
(laughs) "Okay - you have nothing to do with it?"
"Nah nothing - it's all Him."
"Thank you - Mike"

For one - the laugh is hardly indicative of mocking - watching the video I think the reporter expected a response about how he's upped his focus, his hours on the practice court - but instead he said God, which makes his streak sound like chance. If there's nothing he's changed between before - when he was playing extremely well but not at this level - and now - when he's playing at a MVP-like level - besides "God" - what does that mean? God didn't love him as much before? It's kind of a silly response. The reporter's laugh is hardly mocking religion - it's clearly surprise.

But once again your headline fails on multiple levels. Because even if you didn't misread the reporter - and that is contestable - you posted that this response was somehow the entire lame stream media - and you proved this by linking to a Time article. Time is a member of the "lame stream media". So based on your hyperbole - you could have just as easily written a headline "Lamestream media teams up on ESPN reporter for laughing at God". Because one reporter for Time wrote a story about how she was getting criticized on Twitter.--IDuan 01:31, 1 February 2014 (EST)

Interesting article for mPR

The media has looked to Christie - a moderate Republican - as this saving grace of the Republican party - thus his fall from grace (and the accusations are getting worse and worse) has been seen as a major hit to Republicans. But this article suggests that the party wasn't trending towards him anyway - that this shift to moderation wasn't in the cards. Tea Party groups raised more money than establishment fundraisers like Crossroads.--IDuan 13:16, 1 February 2014 (EST)

Funny Tebow ad

USA Today --IDuan 14:06, 1 February 2014 (EST)

== "Darwin Day" resolution in the House ==/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hres467ih/pdf/BILLS-113hres467ih.pdf, perhaps someone from CP might like to comment on this on mainpage? I don't know whether it will pass or not, but its failure or success could be a barometer for the success of creationism or evolutionism in 2014--DTSavage 14:45, 1 February 2014 (EST)

A Darwin Day bill isn't going to save atheism/agnosticism/Darwinism from the inevitable wave of 21st century desecularization that is coming upon the West. By the way, did you hear about the "Sweating Finnish atheists who stand in a long line of supernaturally terrified humans"?[5] :) Conservative 20:13, 1 February 2014 (EST)

Super Bowl v Church

Dearest Andy, let me count the ways you don't know what you're talking about.

  1. Two years ago the Super Bowl set a TV record for viewership - 111.3 million people watched. So if your trend is merely that 3 million people less watched last year - that's not a ratings slide. That's one year being less than the previous year. Silly goose! Plus - if you look at your graph - it's actually been an upward trend since Super Bowl 39 - and the last four Super Bowl have been the most watched ever! Nielson ratings have been steady since forever - which isn't really surprising. But even that has been on an upward trend since Super Bowl 35!
  2. More people have always attended church than watched the Super Bowl - ALWAYS. To present it as something new this year is deceit! 111.3 million is the RECORD - whereas according to Gallup - 118 million people report attending church the previous weekend. So this year is no different than any other. Also it's worth noting that church doesn't compete with the Super Bowl. Most church services are over by mid afternoon at the latest. The Super Bowl is early evening.
  3. Regardless of your nonexistent trend - the Super Bowl is the most watched television event of the year. The media is reporting on it because of the huge interest - compare that to the 30-40 million people who watch the State of the Union (good or bad years). When you think about it - it doesn't actually make sense for NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, CNN to report on it -because they don't get money from people watching the Super Bowl on Fox. The reason they report on it is because demand from viewership/readership - because, again, it's the most watched television event of the year.

If you're interested, I tutor!--IDuan 13:03, 2 February 2014 (EST)

Point 1 - attendance and viewership for the NFL/Super Bowl have recently been declining, despite increasing hype. Your statistic does not suggest otherwise.
Point 2 - the fact that church attendance today is more than Super Bowl viewership is a fact that should be reported, yet the lamestream media conceal it.
Point 3 - the media try to benefit from their own hype, by selling newspapers and articles about the Super Bowl. Its status as the most-watched television show is as silly as saying something is the most-read comic book.--Andy Schlafly 17:22, 2 February 2014 (EST)

Iduan, you wrote: "the Super Bowl is the most watched television event of the year." Untrue. The World Cup has more television viewers each year presently. Looks like "the teacher" needs tutoring! By the way, more people probably go to church around the world each Sunday than watch the World Cup. :)Conservative 18:48, 2 February 2014 (EST)

you're right! Only the most watched event in the United States. Andy why would church going be reported? More people go to church than band concerts - do we need to bring that up every time a statistic is mentioned? No one cares about those kinds of comparisons except you. And the statistics show that viewership is not declining - your linked page shows that--IDuan 19:57, 2 February 2014 (EST)
I would have thought the context -- United States TV viewing, since the Super bowl is a U.S. event and (American) football is not watched elsewhere -- would have been clear. I won't comment on off-topic ad-hominem attacks.
The relationship between Church attendance and Super Bowl viewership is really not well established. I don't think there's any reason why the popular news media should compare the two, any more than that they should compare the frequency with which people wash their hair with the frequency with which they eat pizza. You may think there should be a connection between Church and the Super Bowl, but hardly anyone agrees. If you want people to be more aware of that issue, you have a lot of work to do.
Like it or not, there is a lot of interest in the questions regarding the popularity of TV shows. The reason probably relates to the huge amount of advertising revenue involved. Comics can begin to touch that.
But mostly, I just wanted to post something during the Super Bowl, which I never watch. SamHB 20:01, 2 February 2014 (EST)
Darn it, IDuan! In addition to giving me an edit conflict, you almost made me look at your report below. Will not look, will not look.  :-) SamHB 20:01, 2 February 2014 (EST)
hahha sorry Sam! Always good to hear from you - no more reports from me though I promise--IDuan 20:36, 2 February 2014 (EST)
The ratings are in, and this year's Super Bowl, despite being a dud, is the highest-rated television program in United States history.---Eg
SHUT UP EG IT'S A RATINGS SLIDE, OKAY?! :P Great find!--IDuan 10:29, 4 February 2014 (EST)
More over-hype by the media, failing to admit how many switched channels or turned the TV set off. The reality is that millions turned off the Super Bowl, perhaps in record numbers, far more than the number of people who leave church early.--Andy Schlafly 11:26, 4 February 2014 (EST)

Super Bowl

Peyton manning isn't doing to well in the big game! Down 22-0 with two interceptions. Lots of game to play but it looks like defense might triumph over offense again.--IDuan 19:54, 2 February 2014 (EST)

Media Again

Most experts picked the Seahawks to win silly! You should read about sports and then you can more competently comment on them. They were even the Vegas favorites!--IDuan 22:37, 2 February 2014 (EST)

Interesting article on abortion and its decline

New York Times--IDuan 22:40, 2 February 2014 (EST)

Tim Tebow?

Timmy! Why in the world would he play for the Broncos again? Because Peyton Manning only made them the second best team? Whereas Tebow last did this? Silly again. I'll answer your question for you. In all likelihood, no, Tebow will never play for the Broncos - or any team (certainly in a starting capacity) again. He doesn't have the mechanics - it's not that teams aren't giving him a chance - they're signing him and then cutting him. And there's a great photo on the New York Times of a bunch of Seattle players in a prayer circle - so something tells me it's not because the nFL hates Christians. They just hate bad players.--IDuan 09:49, 3 February 2014 (EST)

But really, can you even imagine a Christian being the quarterback for the Denver Broncos? The media would rip him apart. It just goes to show you; if you say something like "I committed my life to Christ, and that faith has been most important to me ever since", no media outlet will treat you as anything other than a second-rate quarterback. EricAlstrom 10:16, 3 February 2014 (EST)

It's pretty easy to imagine a Christian quarterback of the Denver Broncos-his name is Peyton Manning.

Peyton Manning is not an outspokenly pro-life, pro-Bible Christian. A press conference for Peyton Manning is nothing like a press conference for Tim Tebow.--Andy Schlafly 11:15, 3 February 2014 (EST)
In that Manning usually uses football press conferences to talk about football, but Tebow talks about religion. Relatedly, Peyton Manning still has a football job, and Timmy works for ESPN. When asked, Manning is conservative Christian. That he doesn't bring that up every time he's asked about football is a relief to me. Andy I think your issue is that for all the bias you accuse others of - like "Tim Tebow isn't starting because he's a loud Christian!" - it's only you who wants football to be about things other than football. In your world how much you made a show of your love for Jesus would translate into touchdown passes - and maybe you think you're living in that world, but no one else is.--IDuan 11:23, 3 February 2014 (EST)
Iduan, you wrote: "Timmy! Why in the world would he play for the Broncos again?". Because he is an evangelical Christian with the Protestant work ethic who is continuing to train very hard to improve his throwing game.[6] Secondly, we know God has worked miracles for Tebow in the past! CNN News: "Tebow is a winner. He may allow his team to fall behind, but in the end he leads the Broncos to victory, often in a fashion that can only be termed miraculous."[7] Conservative 18:49, 3 February 2014 (EST)

Conservative I hate to do this in public - but brother as someone who follows sports I'm going to explain two things to you. (1) If you're looking for sports analysis - a religious scholar is not the most reliable source ... (2) If it's 2014 and you're citing a religious scholar's article on sports analysis from 2011 ... you've already lost. Furthermore Tebow might be on a team again - but I doubt it will be the Broncos - and if you'd like I'd be happy to explain the football reasons why.--IDuan 20:32, 3 February 2014 (EST)

Iduan, you wrote: "as someone who follows sports". I see the problem now. You need to get involved in competitive endeavors more and not be a spectator so much. Then you might better understand the importance of winning and stop being a Peyton apologist. Peyton clearly choked. Once Tim Tebow improves his mechanics via his Protestant work ethic, I guarantee that he will not choke during important games. Tebow, via his God given boldness, clearly does well under pressure and his miraculous wins testify to this fact. Conservative 00:04, 4 February 2014 (EST)
Cons, that's quite enough of the personal attacks and insults. A few weeks ago (archived since then) I challenged you to a debate/competition in mathematics, specifically the Generalized linear model here, and (twice) here. Your response was to decorate the challenge with a picture of a chicken. Or was it a bunny rabbit? Whatever. I also challenged you to a competition in physical fitness and "svelteness" here and here. You similarly ducked out of that one. What say you? SamHB 00:32, 4 February 2014 (EST)
in 2014, a member of the User: Conservative account will be dancing with a member of the opposite sex and unlike Penn Jillette, he/she most certainly will not be doing a "walrus slide"! See: Essay: Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Indian Christian lady dancers And of course, one of the members of the dance duo will be a creationist with lovely, long, flowing hair!
SamHB, I take no issue with the legitimacy of math/statistics, so I have no desire to debate the legitimacy of them. I find your "debate challenge" silly.
Second, the person(s) involved in the User: Conservative account love(s) fitness/health. Unlike the overweight atheist Penn Jillette, who did a very convincing "walrus slide" on national television and was called "heavy footed" by a judge of the dance competition, a member of the User: Conservative account is working out an hour today before eating a healthy lunch. See: Essay: Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Indian Christian lady dancers.
Third, in 2014, a member of the User: Conservative account will be dancing with a member of the opposite sex and unlike Penn Jillette, he/she most certainly will not be doing a "walrus slide"! And of course, one of the members of the dance duo will be a creationist with lovely, long, flowing hair! Conservative 07:25, 4 February 2014 (EST)
I did not know you had lovely, long, flowing hair Conservative:) --JerryCa 08:24, 4 February 2014 (EST)
The creationist member of the dance duo with long, lovely, flowing hair is virtuous and demure. And she is endowed with grace, beauty, and charm. The epitome of Christian, creationist womanhood! I will let readers decide for themselves if the editor and/or any editors of the User: Conservative account is/are demure. :) Conservative 09:00, 4 February 2014 (EST)

Conservative - am I denying Peyton choked? You seem to ignore what I say so you can say what you want. I said below that Peyton got demolished in the Super Bowl. Is it easier for you to ignore that? Sorry, but that's not reality :) Again - you used a religious scholar's link from 2011 to prove your point. This argument is over. You only lost more credibility - IN A CONVERSATION ABOUT SPORTS - when you said I was wrong because "I followed sports". Sorry!--IDuan 10:19, 4 February 2014 (EST)

Hold up ... sorry I just read the rest of this conversation. How in the world is it notable that "In 2014 - a member of the User:Conservative account will have a date"? I would hope you would not go an entire year without a date or significant other (and even then - you could go on dates with them!).--IDuan 10:21, 4 February 2014 (EST)

Iduan, although I largely want to resign from this conversation, you are relying on the genetic fallacy to ignore miraculous victories under Tebow's leadership. Relatedly, the greatest NFL comeback victory by a quarterback was done under Frank Reich - an evangelical Christian. The fact remains, if you want miraculous football victories, you put outspoken Bible believing evangelical Christians on the field! "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." - Jesus.

Have you read the article Obese atheists and marriageability. It declares: "According to the abstract for a paper presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the American Sociological Association: 'Obese individuals have fewer dating opportunities, marry later and marry less desirable partners.'[8]. Given that atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women, obesity reduces one's marriageability, atheists are a minority in the population and that people tend to marry people with similar values or who resemble their parents or themselves as noted above; this would suggest that obese male atheists may find it more difficult to find prospective female partners for marriage. And of course, militant atheism might make matters even more difficult." For details, see: Atheism and obesity and Obese atheists and marriageability.

So what I would like to know is: Does a certain person named Trent, a leader at an atheist wiki which takes exception to Conservapedia, have a virtuous and demure wife, fiancee, or girlfriend? And if so, is she endowed with grace, beauty, charm and long, luxurious hair?  :) If I were a betting man, I would give a resounding no to this question! Unlike the Christian Zig Ziglar, who set a goal to lose weight and did, I doubt very much that Trent has a thin frame right now and that he has a virtuous and demure significant other who is endowed with grace, beauty, charm and long, luxurious hair standing by one of his svelt sides! If memory serves, and I think it does, Trent mocked the goal setting achiever Zig Ziglar. By the way, the trim Zig Ziglar was not only was married to a slim and joyful wife before he passed away, God also blessed him with a loyal family dog who helped protect her! Conservative 15:43, 4 February 2014 (EST)

I seem to have struck a nerve. Someone at an atheist wiki wrote a long, vitriolic screed which among other things declared: "Make no mistake: he hates you if you don't agree with him." If only atheists were mind readers, then some rather obsessive atheists at an atheist wiki, could make their many bold declarations about the User: Conservative editor(s) with confidence.
If God chooses to bless an editor using the User: Conservative account with a sweet and lovely dance partner in 2014, why is this so upsetting to a certain editor of an atheist wiki? Is she/he projecting his/her hatred onto a member of the User: Conservative account? Given his/her vitriolic screed, this certainly appears to be the case! It's nice to know, however, that he/she "might" push me away from an oncoming traffic, if the need arises though. Does this sound like the writing of someone who does not wish me ill as she/he claims? Me thinks the gentleman (most atheists are men and many militant atheists are socially challenged) protests too much and rather inartfully!!! A final message to the gentlemen at an atheist wiki: By the way, I don't hate ladies! I think it is now time that you simmered down! Conservative 17:04, 4 February 2014 (EST)
To a "Mr. Shaked" at a certain atheist wiki: A member of the User: Conservative account has posted on several websites in the last several months without being barred from those websites. Just because you haven't detected such activity, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I think it is about time for you to acquire some humility concerning your vast array of atheist powers that don't seem to be working! Conservative 17:43, 4 February 2014 (EST)

A few last points:

1. I will admit to continuing this "shout out" to the obsessive members of an atheist wiki longer than I expect to and promised to. My apologies. I should have ignored SamHB and these atheist wiki critics today.

2. It seems like my admonition to "simmer down" was heeded (along with Ace's admonition to do the same) and the stereotypical militant atheist sour grapes and bile/venom is erupting at a far lower level now at the atheist wiki.

3. I am happy to hear that "Mr. Shaked" has a more modest estimation of his "atheist powers".

And I can assure him that I treat people as individuals. It is certainly not my fault that atheists use the same tired and ineffective ways to challenge Christians and often act in such stereotypical and socially challenged ways. In short, there is a reason why atheists have a such a bad reputation and why there is an atheist stereotype in the world. See: Views on atheists and Atheism and uncharitableness and Atheism and morality, Atheism and rape and Atheism and mass murder, etc. etc. etc. In short, it is no accident that many atheists have chosen to avoid using the word atheist and prefer to use the word "humanist".

Even atheists have declared that atheists have earned their bad reputation:

"Readers familiar with Reddit’s atheism community, r/atheism, may not be surprised to learn that I think it exemplifies many negative aspects of modern atheism — hatred, prejudice, and belief by cultural conformation rather than rational inquiry."[9] - Vlad Chituc at

"These days, barely a week passes without the emergence of yet more evidence that atheists are the most irritating people on Earth."[10] - the atheist Brendan O'Neill, The Telegraph, How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet, August 14th, 2013 Conservative 23:04, 4 February 2014 (EST)

Second place

Since when is having the second best team in the country being super overrated? Also again Vegas odds favored Seattle. Furthered you weren't confident enough to predict when the broncos would lose - which is why you were silent before the patriots game and silent before the Super Bowl.--IDuan 14:26, 3 February 2014 (EST)

Iduan, who was the second person to climb Mr. Everest? Who won second place at the Kentucky Derby last year? Few people remember those who come in second. The spotlight and the glory goes to the winners! The Denver Broncos lost the Super Bowl and Tim Tebow was a winner and had the best Super Bowl ad. And nothing you say can change that.
Sherpa Tenzing Norgay. Virtually any British person over the age of 30 could tell you that. After all it was a British subject who was the first to summit and he and Sherpa Tenzing hurried to do so in order that he news could be heard in London in time for the coronation of Elizabeth the Second. Davidspencer 15:24, 3 February 2014 (EST)
"Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win." - Apostle Paul.
"Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all of the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing." - Vince Lombardi
"If winning isn't everything, why do they keep score?" - Vince Lombardi
One thing for certain, in the Book of Revelation God comes in first place and the devil and all those who follow him come in second place and are cast into hell for all eternity! God never loses and never comes in second place! And those who follow Him, He inspires to have winning attitudes and to strive for what is best and not merely what is good or better. Conservative 14:53, 3 February 2014 (EST)

Oh please Conservative - did you just compare the Super Bowl to having the best ad? Tebow was a loser because he isn't on an NFL team - which he still says is his dream. I think everyone would rather play in a Super Bowl than have (debatably ... very debatably) a decent ad. But alas - you didn't address anything. My point is a player is not overrated because he gets to the championship game and loses; further, it is incorrect to say the lame stream media predicted a Manning win - vegas odds and most media projections (for example most ESPN writers) predicted a Seahawks win. You two are just making up stories. It's childs play to prove you wrong. Here is a link of ESPN predictions. 25 picked Seattle - 23 picked Denver. So where is this huge lame stream media bias where they all picked Peyton Manning? Verily it doesn't exist. It's becoming tedious being right so often. You guys can't even defend your original posts you just go on tangents. So let's recap: This year Peyton Manning won his fifth MVP, collected a ton of records, made probably his best case for the GOAT debate, but then got demolished in the Super Bowl ... and Timmy got some money from T-Mobile to act in an ad.--IDuan 20:15, 3 February 2014 (EST)

Iduan, you wrote: "This year Peyton Manning won his fifth MVP". Winning a MVP Award doesn't make you a Super Bowl champion! Next, you will be reminding me that Barack Hussein Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize. I think you are conflating awards with grand achievements - like winning the Super Bowl. :) Conservative 21:01, 3 February 2014 (EST)
So this is about Super Bowls? Okay. Manning has 1. Tebow hasn't even showed up in the big game - and since his talent isn't enough to get him on a roster right now - he probably never will. But I also mentioned Manning got "demolished in the Super Bowl" - my words. Don't pretend I didn't bring that up :) --IDuan 21:09, 3 February 2014 (EST)

Iduan, I really don't have any problem with Manning. And maybe he did not choke during this last Super Bowl. Maybe he had less time to throw the ball than usual due to a very strong defense. I really don't know. Mainly, I am a fan of Tebow's guts/determination/faith and I was having some fun pulling your chain.

Second, Tebow may have improved his throwing mechanics enough to be a good NFL quarterback as far as his passing game. Again, I don't know. Presently, Tebow is a great team motivator and if memory serves, he is a great quarterback scrambler. Right now, I am more interested in actively getting involved in various matters rather than being merely a spectator/commentator, so I have nothing further to say. Conservative 06:30, 4 February 2014 (EST)

Understood :) I think it's fair to say Peyton choked - regardless of how good the other team is - if you're in the Super Bowl and you get blown out - it's choking. Seattle did a great job of rushing Manning - and being physical with the Wide Receivers - two things that led to both interceptions (the first one Thomas ran off route and Manning threw it to where Thomas was supposed to have been; the second one Manning was hit as he threw). He also completed very few downfield passes (2/10 I think - and one of those passes was immediately fumbled by a WR). I'm just pointing out how silly it is for one user (Andy) to have a crush on Tim Tebow and call him a great athlete, but then rail against a player whose accomplishments and talent certainly surpass Tebow's. Perhaps Tebow will grow into a passer and get a backup role or take Wildcat snaps.--IDuan 10:27, 4 February 2014 (EST)
Although I largely want to resign from this conversation, see my comments above related to Tim Tebow/Frank Reich (in the Tim Tebow section above). The Apostle Paul wrote: "...God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty". Conservative 14:31, 4 February 2014 (EST)