| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | This is a growing list of '''Conservapedia insights''', which includes items recognized or emphasized here well before recognition by an official agency, by [[liberals]], or by the general public: | | This is a growing list of '''Conservapedia insights''', which includes items recognized or emphasized here well before recognition by an official agency, by [[liberals]], or by the general public: |
| | | | |
| − | #There have been 90 (and growing) controversial predictions by Conservapedia which have proven to be true. | + | #Conservapedia was the first to boldly declare that [[pi]] contains [[pi]], despite [[liberal denial]] of the breadth and power of [[infinity]]. |
| | + | #There have been 91 (and growing) controversial predictions by Conservapedia which have proven to be true. ''See [[Conservapedia proven right]]''. |
| | #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 was the first to observe that the number of new conservative terms [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|doubles by century]]. This ensures that the future is always increasingly [[conservative]], despite [[liberal bias]]. ''See also'' [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia Law]], which states that the number of conservative insights increases over time at a geometric rate. | | #Conservapedia was the first to observe that the number of new conservative terms [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|doubles by century]]. This ensures that the future is always increasingly [[conservative]], despite [[liberal bias]]. ''See also'' [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia Law]], which states that the number of conservative insights increases over time at a geometric rate. |
| − | <!--#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. |