Changes

#Conservapedia observed the likelihood that [[Jesus]] wrote the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] -- ''see'' [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]

#Conservapedia observed the likelihood that [[Jesus]] wrote the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] -- ''see'' [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]

#Conservapedia observed that "[[Son of Man]]" is a [[liberal]] mistranslation to downplay the divinity of [[Jesus]], and that a stronger, more precise translation would be "The Son as Man" or "The Son, a Man."

#Conservapedia observed that "[[Son of Man]]" is a [[liberal]] mistranslation to downplay the divinity of [[Jesus]], and that a stronger, more precise translation would be "The Son as Man" or "The Son, a Man."

#Conservapedia observed that [[pi]] contains [[pi]] and every other number, despite [[liberal denial]] of the breadth and power of [[infinity]].

<!--#Conservapedia observed that [[pi]] contains [[pi]] and every other number, despite [[liberal denial]] of the breadth and power of [[infinity]].-->

#Conservapedia has long observed the implausibility of, and inconsistency in, [[Barack Obama]]'s claims to have converted to Christianity.  On September 7, 2008, Obama referred to his "Muslim faith" in a nationally televised interview.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zQK_EhDhZQ][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I]

#Conservapedia has long observed the implausibility of, and inconsistency in, [[Barack Obama]]'s claims to have converted to Christianity.  On September 7, 2008, Obama referred to his "Muslim faith" in a nationally televised interview.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zQK_EhDhZQ][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I]

#Conservapedia developed and sent a [[Letter to PNAS]] that identified five (5) specific flaws to a paper it published by [[Richard Lenski]] and others.  The Lenski paper had been in [[peer review]] for no more than a mere 14 days prior to its publication by PNAS.  More than a month after the flaws was publicly posted on Conservapedia, there was still no adequate explanation of the flaws, or corrections made.  The [[Letter to PNAS]] was officially accepted by PNAS's electronic submission system in a form substantially similar to its presentation here.

#Conservapedia developed and sent a [[Letter to PNAS]] that identified five (5) specific flaws to a paper it published by [[Richard Lenski]] and others.  The Lenski paper had been in [[peer review]] for no more than a mere 14 days prior to its publication by PNAS.  More than a month after the flaws was publicly posted on Conservapedia, there was still no adequate explanation of the flaws, or corrections made.  The [[Letter to PNAS]] was officially accepted by PNAS's electronic submission system in a form substantially similar to its presentation here.