Difference between revisions of "Talk:Conservapedia proven right"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Another case of selective reading....: Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right?)
(Another case of selective reading....)
Line 132: Line 132:
:::Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing.  Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right?  As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing.  Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right?  As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
::::To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] are two seperate issues. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Revision as of 13:31, 22 April 2012

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--Andy Schlafly 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)

It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. Conservative 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
I will combine them. Conservative

Neutrinos and the speed of light

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable [1]. Shall I remove this claim?

The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--Andy Schlafly 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST)
Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can always re-insert it.--JeremyK 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Cristie and Palin

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is Palin still listed as one and Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago?

The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--Andy Schlafly 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Newt Gingrich

  • Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
  • Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney

So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --Sid 3050 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)

I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --Sid 3050 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

Britain, atheism and the World Cup

  • Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
  • Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
  • Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"

Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:

  • Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
  • The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
  • This site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
    • Spain: 15 - 24%
    • Netherlands: 39 - 44%
    • Germany: 41 - 49%
    • Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
    • USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%

What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --Sid 3050 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Obviously nobody said atheism was the only factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.
Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--Andy Schlafly 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
England's past World Cup ratings:
  • 1950: 8th
  • 1954: 6th
  • 1958: 11th
  • 1962: 8th
  • 1966: 1st
  • 1970: 8th
  • 1974: not qualified
  • 1978: not qualified
  • 1982: 6th
  • 1986: 8th
  • 1990: 4th
  • 1994: not qualified
  • 1998: 9th
  • 2002: 6th
  • 2006: 7th
  • 2010: 13th
Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the trend there isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --Sid 3050 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)


I'm surprised that this is still doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at this discussion and also at this one. --Sid 3050 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Jon Stewart Curse

Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does very well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --Sid 3050 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

What is the point of this article ?

It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that "As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil." - James 4:16 --PhilipN 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. - Matthew 5:15. Your move!--CPalmer 11:45, 29 February 2012 (EST)
Admittedly, the title is a bit on the nose. I'm inclined to change it to "Conservapedia prescience" or "Presience of conservative insight." Or simply "Conservative Insight." DouglasA 12:38, 29 February 2012 (EST)
(edit conflict) Well put, CPalmer. And if "accountability" had been a term known to the King James Version translators, then it would be in the English translations of the Bible too. It's very important to circle back and check what was right and what was wrong.--Andy Schlafly 12:40, 29 February 2012 (EST)
Douglas, I'm open-minded about this, but don't think the alternative titles would be an improvement.--Andy Schlafly 12:41, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Gay penguin

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. Gregkochuconn 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)

I think the idea of a homosexual animal is wrongheaded and that the homosexual animal notion is a myth. Conservative 20:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)


  1. http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp

For the record, my 12 major predictions

See: Essay: For the record, User: Conservative's 12 major predictions

Conservative 20:10, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Stalking Horse

Don't we need some evidence of intent before deciding that Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney? Was Nader a stalking horse for Bush in 2000? He certainly did more to hurt Gore than Santorum did to hurt Gingrich --JustinD 20:57, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

I have an open mind about whether Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney. But what other plausible explanation is there for the abrupt pull-out by Santorum at this time, stranding so many conservatives who had rallied behind him?--Andy Schlafly 21:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
Winning less than half as many delegates as Romney. A sick kid at home. Nothing near the financial resources that Romney has. Poll leads in his home state that weren't incredibly solid. DVMRoberts 22:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
Just speculating, but I'd say the potential loss in Pennsylvania had to play a big part in his timing. It's been clear for a while now that he didn't really have much of a chance of turning things around this time out, but the longer he could stay competitive, the more influence he'd have going forward. A loss in his home state would have cost him a lot of credibility he's gained these last few months. It's also not implausible that Romney made some pseudo-promises behind the scenes that now allow him to cancel what was going to be a huge ad buy in Pennsylvania. At any rate, if you/we/Conservapedia still have an open mind about Santorum's status as a stalking horse, is it really an appropriate time to count this as an example of Conservapedia proven right?JustinD 00:40, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
Yeah, it seems silly to proclaim Conservapedia proven right about something that isn't even clear is true yet. And if Conservapedia did indeed think Santorum was just a stalking horse for Romney, why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months? Why was this prediction from two years ago not brought up weeks ago? --BradleyS 01:56, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
Although this will unfortunately make me sound like a jerk, this really isn't the place for those questions. Can we focus on trying to improve this particular article? I do appreciate the pro not-yet-a-stalking-horse sentiment though. --JustinD 02:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
I think those questions are relevant. Conservapedia is claiming have been proven right about X when it doesn't appear to have actually believed in X and X hasn't been shown to be true. That's about as far away as 'proven right' as you can be. Hence an improvement of this article would be to remove the entry. --BradleyS 12:01, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
You're right. Sorry about that and carry on. I guess I was more tired than I thought last night. --JustinD 12:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
It was asked "why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months?" - Answer: because, obviously, voters perceived "Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney." The strength of the votes for that conservative alternative was significant.
What Santorum's own intentions have been are, of course, another matter. The sbrupt timing of his pull-out seemed to have been coordinated with the Romney campaign, or at least to help him. Gingrich didn't pull out.--Andy Schlafly 15:32, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
Exactly. I completely agree. This strongly hints that Santorum might not be as conservative as Romney really is (perhaps the plan was something like this; Romney would appeal to moderates while Santorum distracted the easily amused Liberals as Romney gained support. Now with his "shield" down Liberals have spent all their ammo on Santorum so Romney can advance as the real, true Conservative? When you think about it it's brilliant; the Republicans appear to compromise with the more simpleminded voters when in reality the Conservative train steams ahead with more power than ever! Insel 00:01, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

Another case of selective reading....

That's bordering the ridiculous: Aschlafly, have you read your source beyond the headline? Surely you want to differ between man-made quakes and natural ones! And a quote from the article: "America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents major energy companies involved in natural gas fracking, said it was difficult to conclude anything based on an unpublished abstract. " So perhaps you want to wait for the scientific article until you declare triumph - or will this be another article you quote, but don't read? AugustO 14:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

You seem to be focusing on the hearsay in the article, which of course would be inadmissible in court for its lack of reliability. The article is cite here for its admissible factual content, which is that large earthquakes are increasing.
Please see hearsay society for an enlightening discussion of the key distinction.--Andy Schlafly 14:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
I think AugustO's point is that although Conservapedia is technically correct in saying the number of earthquakes is increasing, there is a very real possibility that the increase is due to recent human activity. If this is the case, the increase in earthquakes is not a logical counterexample to an old Earth. Even though the increase in earthquakes has not been conclusively linked to fracking, ignoring this possibility and claiming the counterexample to be definitively true is an example of deliberate ignorance or closed-mindedness. --AaronT 15:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right? As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--Andy Schlafly 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in Counterexamples to an Old Earth are two seperate issues. --AaronT 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT)