User:GregG/RSS 1

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 06:49:39 GMT (edit by HHB)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

E.L.A.:

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:49, 25 March 2012
Line 434:		Line 434:
	::::Of course I've heard it, but how is that relevant? The front page of your encyclopedia is full of stupid pictures and links to a couple of blogs. That has nothing to do with restaurants.--HolterSchmitz 19:35, 23 March 2012 (EDT)		::::Of course I've heard it, but how is that relevant? The front page of your encyclopedia is full of stupid pictures and links to a couple of blogs. That has nothing to do with restaurants.--HolterSchmitz 19:35, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::::I no longer encourage my children to browse Conservapedia specifically because of the ridiculous nonsense "Conservative" splatters all over the place - they know to just look stuff up now. He's also the reason men from one of my study groups find Conservapedia hard to take seriously. Nate 18:12, 24 March 2012 (EDT)		:::::I no longer encourage my children to browse Conservapedia specifically because of the ridiculous nonsense "Conservative" splatters all over the place - they know to just look stuff up now. He's also the reason men from one of my study groups find Conservapedia hard to take seriously. Nate 18:12, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+
		+	===Where is the well beaten path?===
		+	If we accept " Build a truthful website, and the world will beat a path to your door" axiomatically, what conclusions are we to draw from the fairly low number of editors for such an old and well publicized wiki? Where is the broad hard-beaten road? --HHB 02:49, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	== Main Page Left ==		== Main Page Left ==

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 06:38:05 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Created page with "This version is accepted by the software, <a href="/E%3Dmc2" title="E=mc2">E=mc2</a> should be moved here (via redirect)."

New page

This version is accepted by the software, E=mc2 should be moved here (via redirect).

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 06:36:52 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc2</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:36, 25 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	It has been proposed that this page, User:GregG/RSS 1, be titled, "[[{{{1}}}]]".
	E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap.		E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap.

	Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics are impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.		Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics are impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.
		+

	For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value.		For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value.
		+	== Experimental Proof ==
		+	The first experimental proof for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockroft and Ernest Walton, who gained the Nobel Price in physics in 1951.
		+

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 06:31:32 GMT (edit by IanR)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Trayvon Martin:

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:31, 25 March 2012
Line 398:		Line 398:
	:::I don't see how you can call it an "incident between two people". The third party was the state of Florida, which has refused to prosecute the alleged murderer. Your response surprises me because my clear impression is that CP is firmly in favour of law-and-order and firmly against racism. Surely this is a case you must feel strongly about? PenelopeP 18:04, 23 March 2012 (EDT)		:::I don't see how you can call it an "incident between two people". The third party was the state of Florida, which has refused to prosecute the alleged murderer. Your response surprises me because my clear impression is that CP is firmly in favour of law-and-order and firmly against racism. Surely this is a case you must feel strongly about? PenelopeP 18:04, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
	::::It's not that they refused to prosecute, it's that they have to prosecute carefully because of the awkward way that the law is written. Had they slapped cuffs on him at the scene of the crime then he would be out within hours and free forever due to double jeopardy protections. They are investigating carefully, and if they have a case they will prosecute him. --HHB 02:29, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::::It's not that they refused to prosecute, it's that they have to prosecute carefully because of the awkward way that the law is written. Had they slapped cuffs on him at the scene of the crime then he would be out within hours and free forever due to double jeopardy protections. They are investigating carefully, and if they have a case they will prosecute him. --HHB 02:29, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	:::::I guess Conservapedia doesn't want to take a stance on gun rights. Interesting. IanR 02:31, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	==E.L.A.==		==E.L.A.==

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 06:30:00 GMT (edit by HHB)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Trayvon Martin:

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:30, 25 March 2012
Line 397:		Line 397:
	::The liberal media hope to convert this isolated incident between two people into a big story about racism in America, a nation of more than 300 million people. But that approach of the lamestream media gets old after a while.--Andy Schlafly 15:56, 23 March 2012 (EDT)		::The liberal media hope to convert this isolated incident between two people into a big story about racism in America, a nation of more than 300 million people. But that approach of the lamestream media gets old after a while.--Andy Schlafly 15:56, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::I don't see how you can call it an "incident between two people". The third party was the state of Florida, which has refused to prosecute the alleged murderer. Your response surprises me because my clear impression is that CP is firmly in favour of law-and-order and firmly against racism. Surely this is a case you must feel strongly about? PenelopeP 18:04, 23 March 2012 (EDT)		:::I don't see how you can call it an "incident between two people". The third party was the state of Florida, which has refused to prosecute the alleged murderer. Your response surprises me because my clear impression is that CP is firmly in favour of law-and-order and firmly against racism. Surely this is a case you must feel strongly about? PenelopeP 18:04, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	::::It's not that they refused to prosecute, it's that they have to prosecute carefully because of the awkward way that the law is written. Had they slapped cuffs on him at the scene of the crime then he would be out within hours and free forever due to double jeopardy protections. They are investigating carefully, and if they have a case they will prosecute him. --HHB 02:29, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	==E.L.A.==		==E.L.A.==

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 06:22:04 GMT (edit by IanR)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc2</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:22, 25 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 3:		Line 3:

	:It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--Andy Schlafly 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--Andy Schlafly 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	::Doesn't it relate energy to mass? The speed of light is just a constant here. IanR 02:22, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 05:18:41 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc2</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:18, 25 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==		==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==
	Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --AndreaM 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --AndreaM 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+	:It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--Andy Schlafly 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 05:15:05 GMT (edit by AndreaM)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Entropy</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

distinction between definitions

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:15, 25 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	Entropy is a measure of disorder or information content in a system, first postulated by Lazare Carnot in 1803.	+	Entropy in the field of information theory is a measure of disorder or information content in a system. Entropy in the field of thermodynamics is energy not available for work in a thermodynamic process, first postulated by Lazare Carnot in 1803.

	The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy will never decrease over time within a closed system, defining a closed system as one in which neither matter nor energy may enter or leave.		The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy will never decrease over time within a closed system, defining a closed system as one in which neither matter nor energy may enter or leave.

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 05:06:45 GMT (edit by AndreaM)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc2</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Created page with "==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation== Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof othe..."

New page

==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==
Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --AndreaM 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 04:33:39 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc2</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

For more than a century, the claim that E=mc2 has never yielded anything of value.

New page

E=mc2 is a meaningless statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap.

Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics are impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.

For more than a century, the claim that E=mc2 has never yielded anything of value.

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 04:02:21 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:Biddinger</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

blocked [[<a href="/index.php?title=User:Biddinger&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new mw-userlink" title="User:Biddinger (page does not exist)">Biddinger</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:Biddinger&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:Biddinger (page does not exist)">Talk</a> | <a href="/Special:Contributions/Biddinger" title="Special:Contributions/Biddinger">contribs</a>)]] with an expiry time of 2 years (account creation disabled)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 03:58:56 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:HelNolte142</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

blocked [[<a href="/index.php?title=User:HelNolte142&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new mw-userlink" title="User:HelNolte142 (page does not exist)">HelNolte142</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:HelNolte142&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:HelNolte142 (page does not exist)">Talk</a> | <a href="/Special:Contributions/HelNolte142" title="Special:Contributions/HelNolte142">contribs</a>)]] with an expiry time of 1 year (autoblock disabled) user name policy

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 03:54:01 GMT (edit by BernadetteDarnell)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:BernadetteDarnell</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

New user account

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 03:53:04 GMT (edit by OzzieCon)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:OzzieCon</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

New user account

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 03:42:55 GMT (edit by GwidonSaldana)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:GwidonSaldana</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

New user account

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 03:24:02 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Conservapedia Sports?:

← Older revision

Revision as of 03:24, 25 March 2012

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 03:10:57 GMT (edit by Salai)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:Salai</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

New user account

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:43:01 GMT (edit by Gregkochuconn)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Teenage homosexuality</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

← Older revision

Revision as of 02:43, 25 March 2012

(One intermediate revision not shown)

Line 1:

Human Immunodeficiency Virus attacking T4 lymphocytes

-

Teenage homosexuality is an important issue given that how a person develops and behaves early in life can have profound effects in later life. For example, it is important the teenagers are ~~knowledge~~ about the causes of homosexuality. Also, given the existence of ex-homosexuals, if a teen has already engaged in homosexuality or is a homosexual, there is certainly hope concerning overcoming homosexuality since the best evidence indicates that engaging in homosexuality is ultimately a matter of choice and so is leaving the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, teenagers and parents should be aware of the negative health effects of homosexual activity. For example, in 2006, the noted pediatric journal Journal of Adolescent Health published a position paper entitled HIV infection and AIDS in adolescents: An update of the position of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. <ref name="adhealth">Position Paper: HIV infection and AIDS in adolescents: An update of the position of the Society for Adolescent MedicineJournal of Adolescent Health 38 (2006) 88–91</ref> The paper stated : "Among adolescents and young adults with HIV or AIDS, most infections are acquired by having sex with HIV-infected men."(see: Homosexuality and AIDS).<ref name="adhealth" /> In September of 2010, Reuters reported: "Nearly one in five gay and bisexual men in 21 major U.S. cities are infected with HIV, and nearly half of them do not know it".<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/23/us-aids-usa-idUSTRE68M3H220100923</ref> In addition, the Journal of Adolescent Health declared:

+

Teenage homosexuality is an important issue given that how a person develops and behaves early in life can have profound effects in later life. For example, it is important the teenagers are knowledgeable about the causes of homosexuality. Also, given the existence of ex-homosexuals, if a teen has already engaged in homosexuality or is a homosexual, there is certainly hope concerning overcoming homosexuality since the best evidence indicates that engaging in homosexuality is ultimately a matter of choice and so is leaving the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, teenagers and parents should be aware of the negative health effects of homosexual activity. For example, in 2006, the noted pediatric journal Journal of Adolescent Health published a position paper entitled HIV infection and AIDS in adolescents: An update of the position of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. <ref name="adhealth">Position Paper: HIV infection and AIDS in adolescents: An update of the position of the Society for Adolescent MedicineJournal of Adolescent Health 38 (2006) 88–91</ref> The paper stated : "Among adolescents and young adults with HIV or AIDS, most infections are acquired by having sex with HIV-infected men."(see: Homosexuality and AIDS).<ref name="adhealth" /> In September of 2010, Reuters reported: "Nearly one in five gay and bisexual men in 21 major U.S. cities are infected with HIV, and nearly half of them do not know it".<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/23/us-aids-usa-idUSTRE68M3H220100923</ref> In addition, the Journal of Adolescent Health declared:

“

Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks.

”

“

Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks.

”

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:36:07 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Bastardjou: Poem No. 2</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

deleted "[[<a href="/index.php?title=Bastardjou:_Poem_No._2&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Bastardjou: Poem No. 2 (page does not exist)">Bastardjou: Poem No. 2</a>]]"

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:35:55 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User talk:Aschlafly</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Reverted edits by <a href="/Special:Contributions/Nugler" title="Special:Contributions/Nugler">Nugler</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:Nugler&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:Nugler (page does not exist)">talk</a>) to last revision by <a href="/User:Aschlafly" title="User:Aschlafly">Aschlafly</a>

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:35, 25 March 2012
Line 138:		Line 138:

	I cant delete them, so I thought you should know.JonM 21:26, 23 March 2012 (EDT)		I cant delete them, so I thought you should know.JonM 21:26, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
-
-	~~== what do you think of this poem for Bastardjou??? ==~~
-
-
-	~~He’ll sit on chairs and break them all.~~
-	~~He’ll cave in great big floors.~~
-	~~He’ll break down lots of walls my friends;~~
-	~~He won’t fit through the doors.~~
-
-	~~Some will laugh, but Brian doesn’t care;~~
-	~~He doesn’t give a damn.~~
-	~~While they’re telling stupid jokes~~
-	~~He’ll be eating ham.~~
-
-	~~Skinny people laugh at him~~
-	~~They think it’s really funny~~
-	~~That all he does is eat all day~~
-	~~And has a big fat tummy.~~
-
-	~~They say that Brian should exercise,~~
-	~~That Brian should jog and run.~~
-	~~They think because they’re thin and lean~~
-	~~That they’re the handsome ones.~~
-
-	~~They say that if Brian exercises~~
-	~~That he’ll lose lots of weight,~~
-	~~And that will make it easier~~
-	~~To find a sexy mate.~~

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:35:54 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User talk:Karajou</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Reverted edits by <a href="/Special:Contributions/Nugler" title="Special:Contributions/Nugler">Nugler</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:Nugler&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:Nugler (page does not exist)">talk</a>) to last revision by <a href="/User:Conservative" title="User:Conservative">Conservative</a>

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:35, 25 March 2012
Line 129:		Line 129:

	Have you seen this yet? :) Conservative 15:25, 24 March 2012 (EDT)		Have you seen this yet? :) Conservative 15:25, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
-
-	~~== Poem No. 2 ==~~
-
-
-	~~He’ll sit on chairs and break them all.~~
-
-	~~He’ll cave in great big floors.~~
-
-	~~He’ll break down lots of walls my friends;~~
-
-	~~He won’t fit through the doors.~~
-
-
-
-	~~Some will laugh, but Brian doesn’t care;~~
-
-	~~He doesn’t give a damn.~~
-
-	~~While they’re telling stupid jokes~~
-
-	~~He’ll be eating ham.~~
-
-
-
-	~~Skinny people laugh at him~~
-
-	~~They think it’s really funny~~
-
-	~~That all he does is eat all day~~
-
-	~~And has a big fat tummy.~~
-
-
-
-	~~They say that Brian should exercise,~~
-
-	~~That Brian should jog and run.~~
-
-	~~They think because they’re thin and lean~~
-
-	~~That they’re the handsome ones.~~
-
-
-
-	~~They say that if Brian exercises~~
-
-	~~That he’ll lose lots of weight,~~
-
-	~~And that will make it easier~~
-
-	~~To find a sexy mate.~~

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:35:51 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User talk:Jpatt</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Reverted edits by <a href="/Special:Contributions/Nugler" title="Special:Contributions/Nugler">Nugler</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:Nugler&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:Nugler (page does not exist)">talk</a>) to last revision by <a href="/User:Aschlafly" title="User:Aschlafly">Aschlafly</a>

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:35, 25 March 2012
Line 109:		Line 109:

	::::::White men may have purchased slaves but it was black men that sold them. It is liberal to belittle the Founders. With God in their hearts [1] the Founders set in motion the most powerful nation on the planet. Liberty, honor, and human rights central. They risked everything and got it right. --Jpatt 16:31, 9 March 2012 (EST)		::::::White men may have purchased slaves but it was black men that sold them. It is liberal to belittle the Founders. With God in their hearts [2] the Founders set in motion the most powerful nation on the planet. Liberty, honor, and human rights central. They risked everything and got it right. --Jpatt 16:31, 9 March 2012 (EST)
-
-	~~== what do you think of this poem for Bastardjou??? ==~~
-
-
-	~~He’ll sit on chairs and break them all.~~
-	~~He’ll cave in great big floors.~~
-	~~He’ll break down lots of walls my friends;~~
-	~~He won’t fit through the doors.~~
-
-	~~Some will laugh, but Brian doesn’t care;~~
-	~~He doesn’t give a damn.~~
-	~~While they’re telling stupid jokes~~
-	~~He’ll be eating ham.~~
-
-	~~Skinny people laugh at him~~
-	~~They think it’s really funny~~
-	~~That all he does is eat all day~~
-	~~And has a big fat tummy.~~
-
-	~~They say that Brian should exercise,~~
-	~~That Brian should jog and run.~~
-	~~They think because they’re thin and lean~~
-	~~That they’re the handsome ones.~~
-
-	~~They say that if Brian exercises~~
-	~~That he’ll lose lots of weight,~~
-	~~And that will make it easier~~
-	~~To find a sexy mate.~~

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:35:41 GMT (edit by Jpatt)

Deletion of spam edit, removed

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:34:50 GMT (edit by Nugler)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User talk:Jpatt</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

what do you think of this poem for Bastardjou???: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:34, 25 March 2012
Line 109:		Line 109:

	::::::White men may have purchased slaves but it was black men that sold them. It is liberal to belittle the Founders. With God in their hearts [3] the Founders set in motion the most powerful nation on the planet. Liberty, honor, and human rights central. They risked everything and got it right. --Jpatt 16:31, 9 March 2012 (EST)		::::::White men may have purchased slaves but it was black men that sold them. It is liberal to belittle the Founders. With God in their hearts [4] the Founders set in motion the most powerful nation on the planet. Liberty, honor, and human rights central. They risked everything and got it right. --Jpatt 16:31, 9 March 2012 (EST)
		+
		+	== what do you think of this poem for Bastardjou??? ==
		+
		+
		+	He’ll sit on chairs and break them all.
		+	He’ll cave in great big floors.
		+	He’ll break down lots of walls my friends;
		+	He won’t fit through the doors.
		+
		+	Some will laugh, but Brian doesn’t care;
		+	He doesn’t give a damn.
		+	While they’re telling stupid jokes
		+	He’ll be eating ham.
		+
		+	Skinny people laugh at him
		+	They think it’s really funny
		+	That all he does is eat all day
		+	And has a big fat tummy.
		+
		+	They say that Brian should exercise,
		+	That Brian should jog and run.
		+	They think because they’re thin and lean
		+	That they’re the handsome ones.
		+
		+	They say that if Brian exercises
		+	That he’ll lose lots of weight,
		+	And that will make it easier
		+	To find a sexy mate.

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:34:34 GMT (edit by Jpatt)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Media Matters for America</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:34, 25 March 2012
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Some claim Media Matters was instrumental in lobbying for the firing of Don Imus,<ref>How Hillary's Hit Man Got Imus, Cliff Kincaid, April 17, 2007.</ref> whom they considered a moderate for endorsing John Kerry for president in 2004.<ref>Video: Tammy Bruce exposes far-left outlets’ hit list on everyone to their right, FOX News, April 17, 2007.</ref> Imus was targeted by the liberal left for criticizing Senator Charles Schumer and most notably, the constant rebuke of former First Lady and at the time Senator Hillary Clinton.		Some claim Media Matters was instrumental in lobbying for the firing of Don Imus,<ref>How Hillary's Hit Man Got Imus, Cliff Kincaid, April 17, 2007.</ref> whom they considered a moderate for endorsing John Kerry for president in 2004.<ref>Video: Tammy Bruce exposes far-left outlets’ hit list on everyone to their right, FOX News, April 17, 2007.</ref> Imus was targeted by the liberal left for criticizing Senator Charles Schumer and most notably, the constant rebuke of former First Lady and at the time Senator Hillary Clinton.

-	Fox News host Bill O'Reilly took aim at Media ~~Mattersin~~ March 2012 for their attack on Rush Limbaugh, calling their work "very fascist". <ref>O’Reilly: Media Matters anti-Limbaugh campaign ‘very fascist’, March 23, 2012</ref>	+	Fox News host Bill O'Reilly took aim at Media Matters in March 2012 for their attack on Rush Limbaugh, calling their work "very fascist". <ref>O’Reilly: Media Matters anti-Limbaugh campaign ‘very fascist’, March 23, 2012</ref>

	==Founding==		==Founding==

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:34:10 GMT (edit by Nugler)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User talk:Karajou</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Poem No. 2: lol

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:34, 25 March 2012
Line 134:		Line 134:

	He’ll sit on chairs and break them all.		He’ll sit on chairs and break them all.
		+
	He’ll cave in great big floors.		He’ll cave in great big floors.
		+
	He’ll break down lots of walls my friends;		He’ll break down lots of walls my friends;
		+
	He won’t fit through the doors.		He won’t fit through the doors.
		+
		+

	Some will laugh, but Brian doesn’t care;		Some will laugh, but Brian doesn’t care;
		+
	He doesn’t give a damn.		He doesn’t give a damn.
		+
	While they’re telling stupid jokes		While they’re telling stupid jokes
		+
	He’ll be eating ham.		He’ll be eating ham.
		+
		+

	Skinny people laugh at him		Skinny people laugh at him
		+
	They think it’s really funny		They think it’s really funny
		+
	That all he does is eat all day		That all he does is eat all day
		+
	And has a big fat tummy.		And has a big fat tummy.
		+
		+

	They say that Brian should exercise,		They say that Brian should exercise,
		+
	That Brian should jog and run.		That Brian should jog and run.
		+
	They think because they’re thin and lean		They think because they’re thin and lean
		+
	That they’re the handsome ones.		That they’re the handsome ones.
		+
		+

	They say that if Brian exercises		They say that if Brian exercises
		+
	That he’ll lose lots of weight,		That he’ll lose lots of weight,
		+
	And that will make it easier		And that will make it easier
		+
	To find a sexy mate.		To find a sexy mate.

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:34:01 GMT (edit by Jpatt)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Media Matters for America</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

fascist

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:34, 25 March 2012
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Some claim Media Matters was instrumental in lobbying for the firing of Don Imus,<ref>How Hillary's Hit Man Got Imus, Cliff Kincaid, April 17, 2007.</ref> whom they considered a moderate for endorsing John Kerry for president in 2004.<ref>Video: Tammy Bruce exposes far-left outlets’ hit list on everyone to their right, FOX News, April 17, 2007.</ref> Imus was targeted by the liberal left for criticizing Senator Charles Schumer and most notably, the constant rebuke of former First Lady and at the time Senator Hillary Clinton.		Some claim Media Matters was instrumental in lobbying for the firing of Don Imus,<ref>How Hillary's Hit Man Got Imus, Cliff Kincaid, April 17, 2007.</ref> whom they considered a moderate for endorsing John Kerry for president in 2004.<ref>Video: Tammy Bruce exposes far-left outlets’ hit list on everyone to their right, FOX News, April 17, 2007.</ref> Imus was targeted by the liberal left for criticizing Senator Charles Schumer and most notably, the constant rebuke of former First Lady and at the time Senator Hillary Clinton.
		+
		+	Fox News host Bill O'Reilly took aim at Media Mattersin March 2012 for their attack on Rush Limbaugh, calling their work "very fascist". <ref>O’Reilly: Media Matters anti-Limbaugh campaign ‘very fascist’, March 23, 2012</ref>

	==Founding==		==Founding==

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:33:32 GMT (edit by Nugler)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User talk:Karajou</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Poem No. 2: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:33, 25 March 2012
Line 129:		Line 129:

	Have you seen this yet? :) Conservative 15:25, 24 March 2012 (EDT)		Have you seen this yet? :) Conservative 15:25, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Poem No. 2 ==
		+
		+
		+	He’ll sit on chairs and break them all.
		+	He’ll cave in great big floors.
		+	He’ll break down lots of walls my friends;
		+	He won’t fit through the doors.
		+
		+	Some will laugh, but Brian doesn’t care;
		+	He doesn’t give a damn.
		+	While they’re telling stupid jokes
		+	He’ll be eating ham.
		+
		+	Skinny people laugh at him
		+	They think it’s really funny
		+	That all he does is eat all day
		+	And has a big fat tummy.
		+
		+	They say that Brian should exercise,
		+	That Brian should jog and run.
		+	They think because they’re thin and lean
		+	That they’re the handsome ones.
		+
		+	They say that if Brian exercises
		+	That he’ll lose lots of weight,
		+	And that will make it easier
		+	To find a sexy mate.

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:33:18 GMT (edit by Nugler)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User talk:Aschlafly</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

what do you think of this poem for Bastardjou???: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:33, 25 March 2012
Line 138:		Line 138:

	I cant delete them, so I thought you should know.JonM 21:26, 23 March 2012 (EDT)		I cant delete them, so I thought you should know.JonM 21:26, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+	== what do you think of this poem for Bastardjou??? ==
		+
		+
		+	He’ll sit on chairs and break them all.
		+	He’ll cave in great big floors.
		+	He’ll break down lots of walls my friends;
		+	He won’t fit through the doors.
		+
		+	Some will laugh, but Brian doesn’t care;
		+	He doesn’t give a damn.
		+	While they’re telling stupid jokes
		+	He’ll be eating ham.
		+
		+	Skinny people laugh at him
		+	They think it’s really funny
		+	That all he does is eat all day
		+	And has a big fat tummy.
		+
		+	They say that Brian should exercise,
		+	That Brian should jog and run.
		+	They think because they’re thin and lean
		+	That they’re the handsome ones.
		+
		+	They say that if Brian exercises
		+	That he’ll lose lots of weight,
		+	And that will make it easier
		+	To find a sexy mate.

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:31:51 GMT (edit by Nugler)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:Nugler</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

New user account

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:31:50 GMT (edit by TerezaCrabtree)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:TerezaCrabtree</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

New user account

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:29:48 GMT (edit by Gregkochuconn)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Conway's game of life</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:29, 25 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Conway's Game of Life doesn't prove complex evolution, like that of the origin of species, simply because it's not programmed to. It's not supposed to prove evolution--it's just supposed to be an interesting "game". JLefkowitz 19:11, 20 March 2012 (EDT)		Conway's Game of Life doesn't prove complex evolution, like that of the origin of species, simply because it's not programmed to. It's not supposed to prove evolution--it's just supposed to be an interesting "game". JLefkowitz 19:11, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	: Conway thought it did. While your conclusion may be accurate, your logic is wrong. It's not "supposed" to be just an interesting game. Gregkochuconn 22:29, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:26:24 GMT (edit by Gregkochuconn)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Gary E. Johnson</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:26, 25 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Has John son left the GOP? Not pursuing the GOP presidential nomination does not necessarily mean he left the party. Even Barack Hussein has received the official endorsement of the CPUSA (as FDR did) without leaving the Democratic Party, so there is no prohibition against a candidate being active with multiple parties. Rob Smith 16:54, 22 March 2012 (EDT) Rob Smith 16:54, 22 March 2012 (EDT)		Has John son left the GOP? Not pursuing the GOP presidential nomination does not necessarily mean he left the party. Even Barack Hussein has received the official endorsement of the CPUSA (as FDR did) without leaving the Democratic Party, so there is no prohibition against a candidate being active with multiple parties. Rob Smith 16:54, 22 March 2012 (EDT) Rob Smith 16:54, 22 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	: Yes, he has. See [5]. Also, I believe Libertarian Party bylaws would prohibit Johnson from seeking the presidential nomination if he was not a party member. However, he could (I think) be a dues-paying party member and still a registered Republican. However, that article indicates he is not. Additionally, Gary Johnson says in the article that he is a "Libertarian in belief and ... governed as a Libertarian in everything but name". Sure sounds like he's left the party. Gregkochuconn 22:26, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:19:15 GMT (edit by Engels)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:19, 25 March 2012
Line 476:		Line 476:

	::: Conservative's work has important and positive goals; may be it is not perfect... but who could replace him? Who could give so much of his time to this project? May be a polite understanding among us could help; anyone interested in the prosperity of this site? --Joaquín Martínez 20:13, 24 March 2012 (EDT)		::: Conservative's work has important and positive goals; may be it is not perfect... but who could replace him? Who could give so much of his time to this project? May be a polite understanding among us could help; anyone interested in the prosperity of this site? --Joaquín Martínez 20:13, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+
		+	== Conservapedia Sports? ==
		+	Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:14:34 GMT (edit by Jpatt)

Spam edit, removed

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:12:44 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Rain:

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, 25 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 507:		Line 507:

	It is totally hilarious that the atheists' parade was rained out, serves them right. I would just like to ask whether we can actually be sure that this was God's doing. Andy Schlafly said here: "I don't think anyone claims that God is responsible for everything that happens in the world." Can we know for sure that God caused this rain fall, but not, say, last year's tsunami? --FrederickT3 15:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		It is totally hilarious that the atheists' parade was rained out, serves them right. I would just like to ask whether we can actually be sure that this was God's doing. Andy Schlafly said here: "I don't think anyone claims that God is responsible for everything that happens in the world." Can we know for sure that God caused this rain fall, but not, say, last year's tsunami? --FrederickT3 15:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	::What did Jesus say about rain? Didn't He say God causes it to rain on the just and the unjust? Conservative 15:12, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:10:50 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

A description for the curious non-physicists: another nice one

← Older revision

Revision as of 19:10, 25 March 2012

(2 intermediate revisions not shown)

Line 5:

For more than a century, the claim that E=mc2 has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc2." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref>

-

Ten top physicists were asked to ~~explain what~~ E=mc2 ~~means~~, and here are some of their answers:<ref>https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>

+

==A description for the curious non-physicists==

-

+

Ten top physicists were asked to describe Einstein's equation E=mc2 to curious non-physicists, and here are some very short excerpts of their answers:<ref>https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>

“

”

“

”

{{</ins>

-

“	It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.	”
—Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University</ins>

-

Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University~~</ref>~~}}

+

-

+

-

“

Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks.

”

+

==Experimental verification==

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:02:48 GMT (edit by FrederickT3)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Rain: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:02, 25 March 2012
Line 503:		Line 503:
	Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless		Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless
	::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)		::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Rain ==
		+
		+	It is totally hilarious that the atheists' parade was rained out, serves them right. I would just like to ask whether we can actually be sure that this was God's doing. Andy Schlafly said here: "I don't think anyone claims that God is responsible for everything that happens in the world." Can we know for sure that God caused this rain fall, but not, say, last year's tsunami? --FrederickT3 15:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:56:32 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

← Older revision

Revision as of 18:56, 25 March 2012

(One intermediate revision not shown)

Line 1:

-

E=mc2 is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap.

Line 5:

Line 4:

For more than a century, the claim that E=mc2 has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc2." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref>

+

Ten top physicists were asked to explain what E=mc2 means, and here are some of their answers:<ref>https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>

+

“

Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks.

”

+

“

Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks.

”

==Experimental verification==

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:55:37 GMT (edit by RolandPlankton)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Lets see a Scientific Theory of Creation or Intelligent Design.: relevant court case

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, 25 March 2012
Line 459:		Line 459:
	: ID is a scientific theory, and scientific versions of creation have been around for decades. You have been taken in by anti-creationist and anti-ID rhetoric that claims that there is no such thing. But I'm glad you agree with the principle. Philip J. Rayment 22:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)		: ID is a scientific theory, and scientific versions of creation have been around for decades. You have been taken in by anti-creationist and anti-ID rhetoric that claims that there is no such thing. But I'm glad you agree with the principle. Philip J. Rayment 22:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
	::No, it's not. You see, to be scientific, there need to be experiments. What experiments have been performed to prove that God designed living things? As far as I know (and I may be wrong, so please correct me), creationists looked at the world, assumed God did it, and called it a day. That's not science. That's superstition. SEdwin 22:29, 20 June 2011 (EDT)		::No, it's not. You see, to be scientific, there need to be experiments. What experiments have been performed to prove that God designed living things? As far as I know (and I may be wrong, so please correct me), creationists looked at the world, assumed God did it, and called it a day. That's not science. That's superstition. SEdwin 22:29, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+	:In a 2005 court case, Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688), the judge ruled (on page 64 in his 139-page Findings of Fact) that: "After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.". Hence I understand that the current legal position in the United States is that ID is not science. RolandPlankton 14:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	== Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It... ==		== Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It... ==

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:54:09 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

E.L.A.:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:54, 25 March 2012
Line 439:		Line 439:
	::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.		:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.
-	::My church doesn't have a problem with STDs, divorce and teenage pregnancy and my ~~svelt~~ pastor does a wonderful job in help making this so! :) Conservative 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)	+	::My church doesn't have a problem with STDs, divorce and teenage pregnancy and my svelte pastor does a wonderful job in help making this so! :) Conservative 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	===Where is the well beaten path?===		===Where is the well beaten path?===

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:48:31 GMT (edit by JudyJ)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

An Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium: Neutrinos too

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:48, 25 March 2012
Line 74:		Line 74:

	The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.		The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
		+
		+	==A Second Example -- Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==
		+	Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. Recently there has been quite a controversy over whether neutrinos were observed traveling at a speed faster than light. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel at the speed of light. This very issue came up on the Talk:Main_Page#Neutrinos. The speeds under discussion were calculated by the use of E=mc^2.
		+
		+	The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10<sup>-36</sup>kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc^2. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10<sup>-8</sup>Joules. Using the classical formula E=(1/2)mv^2, we get v=110x10<sup>12</sup>meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light.
		+
		+	Arguing over whether the neutrinos in the CERN / Gran Sasso experiment were traveling at exactly the speed of light, slightly greater, or slightly less, only makes sense in the context of special relativity and E=mc^2.

	== References ==		== References ==

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:45:47 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Irrelevant claims:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:45, 25 March 2012
Line 37:		Line 37:
	:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. AugustO 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. AugustO 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--DavidEdwards 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--DavidEdwards 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? AugustO 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:44:07 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Main Page Left:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, 25 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 439:		Line 439:
	::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.		:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.
-	::My church doesn't have a problem with STDs, divorce and teenage pregnancy and my svelt pastor does a wonderful job in help making this so! :)	+	::My church doesn't have a problem with STDs, divorce and teenage pregnancy and my svelt pastor does a wonderful job in help making this so! :) Conservative 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	===Where is the well beaten path?===		===Where is the well beaten path?===
Line 498:		Line 498:
	:Conservative is right, You have not responded at all. Please back up your claims before making such accusations. Also, we are a meritocracy, and Conservative's edit far outstrip your own.		:Conservative is right, You have not responded at all. Please back up your claims before making such accusations. Also, we are a meritocracy, and Conservative's edit far outstrip your own.
	:::RobS, do you imagine writing high traffic articles? Why don't you launch your own wiki if you are so unhappy? Show the world how it's done since you are often telling people how it should be done. Conservative 13:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::RobS, do you imagine writing high traffic articles? Why don't you launch your own wiki if you are so unhappy? Show the world how it's done since you are often telling people how it should be done. Conservative 13:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
-	And a message to certain gentlemen: Last time I checked, your website still was not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article (Even your fellow liberals don't respect you). :) 13:49, 25 March 2012 (EDT)	+	And a message to certain gentlemen: Last time I checked, your website still was not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article (Even your fellow liberals don't respect you). :) [[User:Conservative\|Conservative]] 14:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	== Conservapedia Sports? ==		== Conservapedia Sports? ==
	Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless		Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless
	::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)		::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:41:38 GMT (edit by DavidEdwards)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Irrelevant claims: anti-religious pseudoscience

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:41, 25 March 2012
Line 36:		Line 36:
	::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--DavidEdwards 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--DavidEdwards 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. AugustO 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. AugustO 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--DavidEdwards 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:40:48 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

E.L.A.:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:40, 25 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 439:		Line 439:
	::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.		:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.
		+	::My church doesn't have a problem with STDs, divorce and teenage pregnancy and my svelt pastor does a wonderful job in help making this so! :)

	===Where is the well beaten path?===		===Where is the well beaten path?===

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:37:39 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

... in the <a href="/Republican" class="mw-redirect" title="Republican">Republican</a> primary for the <a href="/Presidential_Election_2012" title="Presidential Election 2012">Presidential Election 2012</a>

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:37, 25 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!-- <div style="background-color: #f5faff; border: 1px solid #cedff2; padding: 20px; "><div style="margin: 0 auto; width: 400px; background-color: #cedff2; border: 1px solid #a3b0bf; padding: 5px;"> </div><center>		<!-- <div style="background-color: #f5faff; border: 1px solid #cedff2; padding: 20px; "><div style="margin: 0 auto; width: 400px; background-color: #cedff2; border: 1px solid #a3b0bf; padding: 5px;"> </div><center>
	*America has much for which to be thankful. ... Let us recommit ourselves to that devotion to God and family* <small>--Ronald Reagan, 1981</small></center></div> -->**		America has much for which to be thankful. ... Let us recommit ourselves to that devotion to God and family <small>--Ronald Reagan, 1981</small></center></div> -->
-	<center>Conservative Rick Santorum won Louisiana, his 11th state, "tying a record .... Not since Ronald Reagan in 1976 has a conservative candidate won as many states as" as Santorum has. [6]</center>	+	<center>Conservative Rick Santorum won [[Louisiana]] in the Republican primary for the [[Presidential Election 2012]], his 11th state, "tying a record .... Not since Ronald Reagan in 1976 has a conservative candidate won as many states as" as Santorum has. [7]</center>

	<!-- Beginning of about Conservapedia (left side) section -->		<!-- Beginning of about Conservapedia (left side) section -->

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:35:49 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

E.L.A.:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 25 March 2012
Line 437:		Line 437:
	:::Nate, you are just upset that I have I provided material which shows evolution to be wrongheaded and atheistic. Plus, I mocked evolutionary belief as well. You certainly cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists so your complaints are inconsequential. Conservative 09:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::Nate, you are just upset that I have I provided material which shows evolution to be wrongheaded and atheistic. Plus, I mocked evolutionary belief as well. You certainly cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists so your complaints are inconsequential. Conservative 09:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	::::"Conservative", you're acting like a clown and doing a huge disservice to this website and the work of others like me who struggle to minister to and find fellowship with all men as our daily work. If you think I care about what you think you've shown you're still not paying attention after more than a year of insulting and continuing this embarrassing misbehavior. I am prepared to ignore most of your carping about "evolutionary belief" because I am confident in my Church's teaching. It is hard to ignore that you would rant at me as if I am an atheist for disagreeing with your beloved Creationist Ministries and as if you know the first thing about me about my relationship with the Lord. You are incapable of seeing how ridiculous and insulting this is. I'll tell you something "Conservative". I study with other Opus Dei supernumeraries in Illinois and Indiana (all are welcome to join us) who all strive to know and emulate Christ in every moment, from prayer and study, our family time, coming and going to work, practicing our trades, service, teaching our children, and our ministry and fellowship. Other men have different relationships with God. Your laughably ineffective and silly rants discredit our hard fought evangelism, this website and Mr. Schlafly's family's long history of work. I grew up in the 70's learning from his mother's books at home and Church. At first I laughed at the things you posted because I thought they were a joke. Now I know they are not and pray for you to find health and solace. Few others will give you that charity. Most will come here to see that the public face you put on this website is a joke and they will laugh at Conservapedia where they should be at peace in fellowship and learning. I was drawn to this site because I am so thankful for Mrs. Schlafly's work in raising our attention about the murder of children and saw Mr. Schlafly's continuing the legacy. I wouldn't have given this site that credit if I'd come at any point after about 2 years ago when I started looking at it because of you. Please take care of yourself and try to be mindful of your error as we all should be. Reasoned debate and discussion is Christ's way. Your pridefulness is shameful. Nate 14:08, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::::"Conservative", you're acting like a clown and doing a huge disservice to this website and the work of others like me who struggle to minister to and find fellowship with all men as our daily work. If you think I care about what you think you've shown you're still not paying attention after more than a year of insulting and continuing this embarrassing misbehavior. I am prepared to ignore most of your carping about "evolutionary belief" because I am confident in my Church's teaching. It is hard to ignore that you would rant at me as if I am an atheist for disagreeing with your beloved Creationist Ministries and as if you know the first thing about me about my relationship with the Lord. You are incapable of seeing how ridiculous and insulting this is. I'll tell you something "Conservative". I study with other Opus Dei supernumeraries in Illinois and Indiana (all are welcome to join us) who all strive to know and emulate Christ in every moment, from prayer and study, our family time, coming and going to work, practicing our trades, service, teaching our children, and our ministry and fellowship. Other men have different relationships with God. Your laughably ineffective and silly rants discredit our hard fought evangelism, this website and Mr. Schlafly's family's long history of work. I grew up in the 70's learning from his mother's books at home and Church. At first I laughed at the things you posted because I thought they were a joke. Now I know they are not and pray for you to find health and solace. Few others will give you that charity. Most will come here to see that the public face you put on this website is a joke and they will laugh at Conservapedia where they should be at peace in fellowship and learning. I was drawn to this site because I am so thankful for Mrs. Schlafly's work in raising our attention about the murder of children and saw Mr. Schlafly's continuing the legacy. I wouldn't have given this site that credit if I'd come at any point after about 2 years ago when I started looking at it because of you. Please take care of yourself and try to be mindful of your error as we all should be. Reasoned debate and discussion is Christ's way. Your pridefulness is shameful. Nate 14:08, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
-	::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)	+	::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.		:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:35:20 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Irrelevant claims:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 25 March 2012
Line 35:		Line 35:
	:::::AugustO 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::::AugustO 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--DavidEdwards 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--DavidEdwards 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. AugustO 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:34:22 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Template:Mainpageright</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

<a href="/Conservative" title="Conservative">Conservative</a> <a href="/Michele_Bachmann" title="Michele Bachmann">Michele Bachmann</a> defends <a href="/Newt_Gingrich" title="Newt Gingrich">Newt Gingrich</a>'s criticism of <a href="/Barack_Obama" class="mw-redirect" title="Barack Obama">Barack Obama</a> for making race the issue in the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Bachmann agreed with Gingrich that ...

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:34, 25 March 2012
Line 3:		Line 3:
	<!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" -->		<!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" -->
	<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== -->		<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== -->
		+	Conservative Michele Bachmann defends Newt Gingrich's criticism of Barack Obama for making race the issue in the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Bachmann agreed with Gingrich that "race shouldn’t matter, all human life is valuable." [8]
		+	----
	A new witness says that George Zimmerman was justified in what he did. Trayvon Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and was raining blows on his head when Zimmerman finally drew and fired. And the Mainstream Media were still pursuing the murder narrative, even after this story was available! [9]		A new witness says that George Zimmerman was justified in what he did. Trayvon Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and was raining blows on his head when Zimmerman finally drew and fired. And the Mainstream Media were still pursuing the murder narrative, even after this story was available! [10]
	----		----

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:31:12 GMT (edit by NKeaton)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

E.L.A.:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:31, 25 March 2012
Line 438:		Line 438:
	::::"Conservative", you're acting like a clown and doing a huge disservice to this website and the work of others like me who struggle to minister to and find fellowship with all men as our daily work. If you think I care about what you think you've shown you're still not paying attention after more than a year of insulting and continuing this embarrassing misbehavior. I am prepared to ignore most of your carping about "evolutionary belief" because I am confident in my Church's teaching. It is hard to ignore that you would rant at me as if I am an atheist for disagreeing with your beloved Creationist Ministries and as if you know the first thing about me about my relationship with the Lord. You are incapable of seeing how ridiculous and insulting this is. I'll tell you something "Conservative". I study with other Opus Dei supernumeraries in Illinois and Indiana (all are welcome to join us) who all strive to know and emulate Christ in every moment, from prayer and study, our family time, coming and going to work, practicing our trades, service, teaching our children, and our ministry and fellowship. Other men have different relationships with God. Your laughably ineffective and silly rants discredit our hard fought evangelism, this website and Mr. Schlafly's family's long history of work. I grew up in the 70's learning from his mother's books at home and Church. At first I laughed at the things you posted because I thought they were a joke. Now I know they are not and pray for you to find health and solace. Few others will give you that charity. Most will come here to see that the public face you put on this website is a joke and they will laugh at Conservapedia where they should be at peace in fellowship and learning. I was drawn to this site because I am so thankful for Mrs. Schlafly's work in raising our attention about the murder of children and saw Mr. Schlafly's continuing the legacy. I wouldn't have given this site that credit if I'd come at any point after about 2 years ago when I started looking at it because of you. Please take care of yourself and try to be mindful of your error as we all should be. Reasoned debate and discussion is Christ's way. Your pridefulness is shameful. Nate 14:08, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::::"Conservative", you're acting like a clown and doing a huge disservice to this website and the work of others like me who struggle to minister to and find fellowship with all men as our daily work. If you think I care about what you think you've shown you're still not paying attention after more than a year of insulting and continuing this embarrassing misbehavior. I am prepared to ignore most of your carping about "evolutionary belief" because I am confident in my Church's teaching. It is hard to ignore that you would rant at me as if I am an atheist for disagreeing with your beloved Creationist Ministries and as if you know the first thing about me about my relationship with the Lord. You are incapable of seeing how ridiculous and insulting this is. I'll tell you something "Conservative". I study with other Opus Dei supernumeraries in Illinois and Indiana (all are welcome to join us) who all strive to know and emulate Christ in every moment, from prayer and study, our family time, coming and going to work, practicing our trades, service, teaching our children, and our ministry and fellowship. Other men have different relationships with God. Your laughably ineffective and silly rants discredit our hard fought evangelism, this website and Mr. Schlafly's family's long history of work. I grew up in the 70's learning from his mother's books at home and Church. At first I laughed at the things you posted because I thought they were a joke. Now I know they are not and pray for you to find health and solace. Few others will give you that charity. Most will come here to see that the public face you put on this website is a joke and they will laugh at Conservapedia where they should be at peace in fellowship and learning. I was drawn to this site because I am so thankful for Mrs. Schlafly's work in raising our attention about the murder of children and saw Mr. Schlafly's continuing the legacy. I wouldn't have given this site that credit if I'd come at any point after about 2 years ago when I started looking at it because of you. Please take care of yourself and try to be mindful of your error as we all should be. Reasoned debate and discussion is Christ's way. Your pridefulness is shameful. Nate 14:08, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.

	===Where is the well beaten path?===		===Where is the well beaten path?===

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:26:01 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

E.L.A.:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:26, 25 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 437:		Line 437:
	:::Nate, you are just upset that I have I provided material which shows evolution to be wrongheaded and atheistic. Plus, I mocked evolutionary belief as well. You certainly cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists so your complaints are inconsequential. Conservative 09:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::Nate, you are just upset that I have I provided material which shows evolution to be wrongheaded and atheistic. Plus, I mocked evolutionary belief as well. You certainly cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists so your complaints are inconsequential. Conservative 09:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	::::"Conservative", you're acting like a clown and doing a huge disservice to this website and the work of others like me who struggle to minister to and find fellowship with all men as our daily work. If you think I care about what you think you've shown you're still not paying attention after more than a year of insulting and continuing this embarrassing misbehavior. I am prepared to ignore most of your carping about "evolutionary belief" because I am confident in my Church's teaching. It is hard to ignore that you would rant at me as if I am an atheist for disagreeing with your beloved Creationist Ministries and as if you know the first thing about me about my relationship with the Lord. You are incapable of seeing how ridiculous and insulting this is. I'll tell you something "Conservative". I study with other Opus Dei supernumeraries in Illinois and Indiana (all are welcome to join us) who all strive to know and emulate Christ in every moment, from prayer and study, our family time, coming and going to work, practicing our trades, service, teaching our children, and our ministry and fellowship. Other men have different relationships with God. Your laughably ineffective and silly rants discredit our hard fought evangelism, this website and Mr. Schlafly's family's long history of work. I grew up in the 70's learning from his mother's books at home and Church. At first I laughed at the things you posted because I thought they were a joke. Now I know they are not and pray for you to find health and solace. Few others will give you that charity. Most will come here to see that the public face you put on this website is a joke and they will laugh at Conservapedia where they should be at peace in fellowship and learning. I was drawn to this site because I am so thankful for Mrs. Schlafly's work in raising our attention about the murder of children and saw Mr. Schlafly's continuing the legacy. I wouldn't have given this site that credit if I'd come at any point after about 2 years ago when I started looking at it because of you. Please take care of yourself and try to be mindful of your error as we all should be. Reasoned debate and discussion is Christ's way. Your pridefulness is shameful. Nate 14:08, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::::"Conservative", you're acting like a clown and doing a huge disservice to this website and the work of others like me who struggle to minister to and find fellowship with all men as our daily work. If you think I care about what you think you've shown you're still not paying attention after more than a year of insulting and continuing this embarrassing misbehavior. I am prepared to ignore most of your carping about "evolutionary belief" because I am confident in my Church's teaching. It is hard to ignore that you would rant at me as if I am an atheist for disagreeing with your beloved Creationist Ministries and as if you know the first thing about me about my relationship with the Lord. You are incapable of seeing how ridiculous and insulting this is. I'll tell you something "Conservative". I study with other Opus Dei supernumeraries in Illinois and Indiana (all are welcome to join us) who all strive to know and emulate Christ in every moment, from prayer and study, our family time, coming and going to work, practicing our trades, service, teaching our children, and our ministry and fellowship. Other men have different relationships with God. Your laughably ineffective and silly rants discredit our hard fought evangelism, this website and Mr. Schlafly's family's long history of work. I grew up in the 70's learning from his mother's books at home and Church. At first I laughed at the things you posted because I thought they were a joke. Now I know they are not and pray for you to find health and solace. Few others will give you that charity. Most will come here to see that the public face you put on this website is a joke and they will laugh at Conservapedia where they should be at peace in fellowship and learning. I was drawn to this site because I am so thankful for Mrs. Schlafly's work in raising our attention about the murder of children and saw Mr. Schlafly's continuing the legacy. I wouldn't have given this site that credit if I'd come at any point after about 2 years ago when I started looking at it because of you. Please take care of yourself and try to be mindful of your error as we all should be. Reasoned debate and discussion is Christ's way. Your pridefulness is shameful. Nate 14:08, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	===Where is the well beaten path?===		===Where is the well beaten path?===

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:15:08 GMT (edit by FrederickT3)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Experimental verification: Typography

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:15, 25 March 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:
	They bombarded Lithium atoms with protons having a kinetic energy less than 1 MeV. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[α-particle]]s, for which the kinetic energy was measured as 17.3 MeV		They bombarded Lithium atoms with protons having a kinetic energy less than 1 MeV. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[α-particle]]s, for which the kinetic energy was measured as 17.3 MeV

-	:::::<math>{}~~_3Li~~^7\, +\, {}~~_1H~~^1\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}~~_2He~~^4</math>	+	:::::<math>{}_3\mathrm{Li}^7\, +\, {}_1\mathrm{H}^1\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2\mathrm{He}^4</math>

	The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 amus, the mass on the right hand side only 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century, Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:		The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 amus, the mass on the right hand side only 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century, Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:

-	::::<math>0.~~00186amu~~ \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}kg\cdot(3\cdot10^8\frac{m}{s})^2</math>	+	::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math>
-	::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} kg\frac{m^2}{s^2}</math>	+	::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math>
-	::::<math>\approx \,17.3 MeV</math>	+	::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math>

	Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:		Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:12:20 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

An Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium: fmt

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:12, 25 March 2012
Line 25:		Line 25:
	==An Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==		==An Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

-	For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc^2. (The equation applies to all interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc^2 applies only to nuclear interactions.)	+	For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to all interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.)

	Without special relativity, and this equation, it is impossible to explain the observed mass changes. Here is the most famous example of the mass change.		Without special relativity, and this equation, it is impossible to explain the observed mass changes. Here is the most famous example of the mass change.

-	Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman, and analyzed by Lise Meitner, in 1938.	+	Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.

-	The decay path of Uranium that figured in the Hahn-Strassmann experiment may have been this:	+	The decay path of [[Uranium]] that figured in the Hahn-Strassmann experiment may have been this:

-	:<sup>235</sup>U ~~-->~~ <sup>140</sup>Xe + <sup>91</sup>Sr + 4n	+	:<sup>235</sup>U → <sup>140</sup>Xe + <sup>91</sup>Sr + 4n

-	(The Xenon decayed within about a minute to <sup>140</sup>Ba. There are a large number of fission paths and fission products, but they were searching for the chemical signature of Barium.)	+	(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to <sup>140</sup>Ba. There are a large number of fission paths and fission products, but they were searching for the chemical signature of [[Barium]].)

	The masses of the particles are:		The masses of the particles are:
Line 71:		Line 71:
	\|}		\|}

-	The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc^2 equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)	+	The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc² equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)

-	The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc^2 equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.	+	The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

	== References ==		== References ==

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:08:54 GMT (edit by NKeaton)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

E.L.A.:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:08, 25 March 2012
Line 436:		Line 436:
	:::::I no longer encourage my children to browse Conservapedia specifically because of the ridiculous nonsense "Conservative" splatters all over the place - they know to just look stuff up now. He's also the reason men from one of my study groups find Conservapedia hard to take seriously. Nate 18:12, 24 March 2012 (EDT)		:::::I no longer encourage my children to browse Conservapedia specifically because of the ridiculous nonsense "Conservative" splatters all over the place - they know to just look stuff up now. He's also the reason men from one of my study groups find Conservapedia hard to take seriously. Nate 18:12, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::Nate, you are just upset that I have I provided material which shows evolution to be wrongheaded and atheistic. Plus, I mocked evolutionary belief as well. You certainly cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists so your complaints are inconsequential. Conservative 09:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::Nate, you are just upset that I have I provided material which shows evolution to be wrongheaded and atheistic. Plus, I mocked evolutionary belief as well. You certainly cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists so your complaints are inconsequential. Conservative 09:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	::::"Conservative", you're acting like a clown and doing a huge disservice to this website and the work of others like me who struggle to minister to and find fellowship with all men as our daily work. If you think I care about what you think you've shown you're still not paying attention after more than a year of insulting and continuing this embarrassing misbehavior. I am prepared to ignore most of your carping about "evolutionary belief" because I am confident in my Church's teaching. It is hard to ignore that you would rant at me as if I am an atheist for disagreeing with your beloved Creationist Ministries and as if you know the first thing about me about my relationship with the Lord. You are incapable of seeing how ridiculous and insulting this is. I'll tell you something "Conservative". I study with other Opus Dei supernumeraries in Illinois and Indiana (all are welcome to join us) who all strive to know and emulate Christ in every moment, from prayer and study, our family time, coming and going to work, practicing our trades, service, teaching our children, and our ministry and fellowship. Other men have different relationships with God. Your laughably ineffective and silly rants discredit our hard fought evangelism, this website and Mr. Schlafly's family's long history of work. I grew up in the 70's learning from his mother's books at home and Church. At first I laughed at the things you posted because I thought they were a joke. Now I know they are not and pray for you to find health and solace. Few others will give you that charity. Most will come here to see that the public face you put on this website is a joke and they will laugh at Conservapedia where they should be at peace in fellowship and learning. I was drawn to this site because I am so thankful for Mrs. Schlafly's work in raising our attention about the murder of children and saw Mr. Schlafly's continuing the legacy. I wouldn't have given this site that credit if I'd come at any point after about 2 years ago when I started looking at it because of you. Please take care of yourself and try to be mindful of your error as we all should be. Reasoned debate and discussion is Christ's way. Your pridefulness is shameful. Nate 14:08, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	===Where is the well beaten path?===		===Where is the well beaten path?===

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:07:27 GMT (edit by DavidEdwards)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Irrelevant claims:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:07, 25 March 2012
Line 34:		Line 34:
	:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.		:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
	:::::AugustO 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::::AugustO 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--DavidEdwards 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:02:38 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Irrelevant claims:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:02, 25 March 2012
Line 31:		Line 31:
	:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. AugustO 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. AugustO 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--DavidEdwards 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--DavidEdwards 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	:::::*Because they are bolstered by experiments...
		+	:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
		+	:::::AugustO 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:58:46 GMT (edit by DavidEdwards)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Irrelevant claims:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:58, 25 March 2012
Line 30:		Line 30:
	::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--DavidEdwards 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--DavidEdwards 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. AugustO 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. AugustO 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--DavidEdwards 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:58:45 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:58, 25 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+
	E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap.		E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap.

Line 5:		Line 6:
	For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref>		For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref>

-	==Experimental ~~Verification~~ ==	+	==Experimental verification==
-	~~It is claimed that there was~~ experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockroft and Ernest Walton. This confirmation was a byproduct of "their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"<ref>Nobel Prize Organization</ref> for which they were honored with the Nobel Prize in physics in 1951:	+	The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockroft and Ernest Walton. This confirmation was a byproduct of "their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"<ref>Nobel Prize Organization</ref> for which they were honored with the Nobel Prize in physics in 1951:

	They bombarded Lithium atoms with protons having a kinetic energy less than 1 MeV. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[α-particle]]s, for which the kinetic energy was measured as 17.3 MeV		They bombarded Lithium atoms with protons having a kinetic energy less than 1 MeV. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[α-particle]]s, for which the kinetic energy was measured as 17.3 MeV

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:55:20 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Mass–energy equivalence</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Redirected page to <a href="/E%3Dmc%C2%B2" title="E=mc²">E=mc²</a>

New page

#REDIRECT E=mc²

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:53:15 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

note at the beginning no longer needed

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:53, 25 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~It has been proposed that this page, User:GregG/RSS 1, be titled, "E=mc²".~~
	E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap.		E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap.

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:52:31 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc2</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

moved [[<a href="/index.php?title=Talk:E%3Dmc2&redirect=no" class="mw-redirect" title="Talk:E=mc2">Talk:E=mc2</a>]] to [[<a href="/Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2" title="Talk:E=mc²">Talk:E=mc²</a>]] move as suggested

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:52:31 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc2</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

moved [[<a href="/index.php?title=E%3Dmc2&redirect=no" class="mw-redirect" title="E=mc2">E=mc2</a>]] to [[<a href="/E%3Dmc%C2%B2" title="E=mc²">E=mc²</a>]] move as suggested

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:52:30 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

deleted "[[<a href="/E%3Dmc%C2%B2" title="E=mc²">E=mc²</a>]]" Deleted to make way for move

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:50:21 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Main Page Left:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:50, 25 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 493:		Line 493:
	:::MNCalder, you claimed I set up a blog on blogspot, but I noticed a conspicuous absence of evidence for this claim. Evidently, you are not a skeptic nor are you trying to convince skeptics of your claim. :) Conservative 10:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::MNCalder, you claimed I set up a blog on blogspot, but I noticed a conspicuous absence of evidence for this claim. Evidently, you are not a skeptic nor are you trying to convince skeptics of your claim. :) Conservative 10:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	:Conservative is right, You have not responded at all. Please back up your claims before making such accusations. Also, we are a meritocracy, and Conservative's edit far outstrip your own.		:Conservative is right, You have not responded at all. Please back up your claims before making such accusations. Also, we are a meritocracy, and Conservative's edit far outstrip your own.
-	:::RobS, do you imagine writing high traffic articles? Why don't you launch your own wiki if you are so unhappy? Show the world how it's done since you are often ~~going on~~ how it should be done. Conservative 13:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT)	+	:::RobS, do you imagine writing high traffic articles? Why don't you launch your own wiki if you are so unhappy? Show the world how it's done since you are often telling people how it should be done. Conservative 13:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	And a message to certain gentlemen: Last time I checked, your website still was not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article (Even your fellow liberals don't respect you). :) 13:49, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	== Conservapedia Sports? ==		== Conservapedia Sports? ==
	Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless		Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless
	::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)		::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:47:58 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc2</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Irrelevant claims:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:47, 25 March 2012
Line 29:		Line 29:
	:AugustO 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:AugustO 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--DavidEdwards 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--DavidEdwards 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. AugustO 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:45:59 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Main Page Left:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:45, 25 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 493:		Line 493:
	:::MNCalder, you claimed I set up a blog on blogspot, but I noticed a conspicuous absence of evidence for this claim. Evidently, you are not a skeptic nor are you trying to convince skeptics of your claim. :) Conservative 10:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::MNCalder, you claimed I set up a blog on blogspot, but I noticed a conspicuous absence of evidence for this claim. Evidently, you are not a skeptic nor are you trying to convince skeptics of your claim. :) Conservative 10:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	:Conservative is right, You have not responded at all. Please back up your claims before making such accusations. Also, we are a meritocracy, and Conservative's edit far outstrip your own.		:Conservative is right, You have not responded at all. Please back up your claims before making such accusations. Also, we are a meritocracy, and Conservative's edit far outstrip your own.
		+	:::RobS, do you imagine writing high traffic articles? Why don't you launch your own wiki if you are so unhappy? Show the world how it's done since you are often going on how it should be done. Conservative 13:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	== Conservapedia Sports? ==		== Conservapedia Sports? ==
	Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless		Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless
	::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)		::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:19 GMT (edit by DavidEdwards)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc2</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Irrelevant claims:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:40, 25 March 2012
Line 28:		Line 28:
	:you can find people claiming anything Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal claim.		:you can find people claiming anything Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal claim.
	:AugustO 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:AugustO 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--DavidEdwards 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:03:57 GMT (edit by DorMouse)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Main Page Left:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:03, 25 March 2012
Line 470:		Line 470:
	:::::What I was just about to say. Also his obsessions with Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, obesity and machismo.--HolterSchmitz 19:59, 23 March 2012 (EDT)		:::::What I was just about to say. Also his obsessions with Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, obesity and machismo.--HolterSchmitz 19:59, 23 March 2012 (EDT)
	I see some gentlemen still have not figured out why I wrote the homosexuality article. Will I/we take the reason to my/our grave? :) C.S. Lewis said the liberals who engage in criticism of written works in terms of how and why they are written are wrong in 100% of the cases based on his own experience. [11]		I see some gentlemen still have not figured out why I wrote the homosexuality article. Will I/we take the reason to my/our grave? :) C.S. Lewis said the liberals who engage in criticism of written works in terms of how and why they are written are wrong in 100% of the cases based on his own experience. [12]
-		+	Invisible Red telephone! Operation Flying Fortress is gathering steam, and soon Conservapedia's articles will be ranking high on a certain search engine starting with the letter "G", to the chargrin of Athiest Militant Evolutioninsts! :):):) So, gentlemen at another site, what are your responses? :):):) Global Atheism is Shrinking, much to the chargrin of Richard Dawkins, and friends!":):):)
	Lastly, as far as some of the articles I wrote, I just saw a need in the marketplace for more comprehensive works. At the time I wrote the atheism article I didn't realize the extent that atheism was a shrinking worldview in terms of its adherents that is expected to further shrink at an accelerated rate (see: Decline of atheism). Why the pixels of the atheism article will barely be dry before atheist population is a shriveled up and emaciated population. And at that time, the atheism article will be of much interest to the general public as an article on Baal worship is today. :) Conservative 20:54, 23 March 2012 (EDT)		Lastly, as far as some of the articles I wrote, I just saw a need in the marketplace for more comprehensive works. At the time I wrote the atheism article I didn't realize the extent that atheism was a shrinking worldview in terms of its adherents that is expected to further shrink at an accelerated rate (see: Decline of atheism). Why the pixels of the atheism article will barely be dry before atheist population is a shriveled up and emaciated population. And at that time, the atheism article will be of much interest to the general public as an article on Baal worship is today. :) Conservative 20:54, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

Line 492:		Line 492:
	:Do you imagine anyone actually reads your posts? Rob Smith 12:36, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:Do you imagine anyone actually reads your posts? Rob Smith 12:36, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::MNCalder, you claimed I set up a blog on blogspot, but I noticed a conspicuous absence of evidence for this claim. Evidently, you are not a skeptic nor are you trying to convince skeptics of your claim. :) Conservative 10:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::MNCalder, you claimed I set up a blog on blogspot, but I noticed a conspicuous absence of evidence for this claim. Evidently, you are not a skeptic nor are you trying to convince skeptics of your claim. :) Conservative 10:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	:Conservative is right, You have not responded at all. Please back up your claims before making such accusations. Also, we are a meritocracy, and Conservative's edit far outstrip your own.

	== Conservapedia Sports? ==		== Conservapedia Sports? ==
	Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless		Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless
	::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)		::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:03:08 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc2</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Irrelevant claims:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:03, 25 March 2012
Line 26:		Line 26:
	==Irrelevant claims==		==Irrelevant claims==
	Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --DavidEdwards 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --DavidEdwards 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	:you can find people claiming anything Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal claim.
		+	:AugustO 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:59:23 GMT (edit by DavidEdwards)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc2</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:59, 25 March 2012
Line 23:		Line 23:
	Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV!		Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV!
	AugustO 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		AugustO 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+	==Irrelevant claims==
		+	Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --DavidEdwards 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:55:03 GMT (edit by Karajou)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User talk:LeviS</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

deleted "[[<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:LeviS&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:LeviS (page does not exist)">User talk:LeviS</a>]]" User blocked indefinitely: content was: "Explain who Almondluver is, please. <a href="/User:Karajou" title="User:Karajou">Karajou</a> 12:49, 25 March 2012 (EDT)" (and the only contributor was "<a href="/Special:Contributions/Karajou" title="Special:Contributions/Karajou">Karajou</a>")

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:52:30 GMT (edit by WesleyS)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc2</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Undo revision 970341 by <a href="/Special:Contributions/LeviS" title="Special:Contributions/LeviS">LeviS</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:LeviS&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:LeviS (page does not exist)">talk</a>)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:52, 25 March 2012
Line 77:		Line 77:
	== References ==		== References ==
	<references />		<references />
		+

		+

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:52:29 GMT (edit by Karajou)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>User:LeviS</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

blocked [[<a href="/index.php?title=User:LeviS&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new mw-userlink" title="User:LeviS (page does not exist)">LeviS</a> (<a href="/index.php?title=User_talk:LeviS&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="User talk:LeviS (page does not exist)">Talk</a> | <a href="/Special:Contributions/LeviS" title="Special:Contributions/LeviS">contribs</a>)]] with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) vandal account

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:14:24 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Rain:

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:14, 25 March 2012
(2 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 507:		Line 507:

	It is totally hilarious that the atheists' parade was rained out, serves them right. I would just like to ask whether we can actually be sure that this was God's doing. Andy Schlafly said here: "I don't think anyone claims that God is responsible for everything that happens in the world." Can we know for sure that God caused this rain fall, but not, say, last year's tsunami? --FrederickT3 15:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		It is totally hilarious that the atheists' parade was rained out, serves them right. I would just like to ask whether we can actually be sure that this was God's doing. Andy Schlafly said here: "I don't think anyone claims that God is responsible for everything that happens in the world." Can we know for sure that God caused this rain fall, but not, say, last year's tsunami? --FrederickT3 15:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	::What did Jesus say about rain? Didn't He say God causes it to rain on the just and the unjust? Does the book of Job give any clues about weather and weather catastrophes? Conservative 15:12, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:10:50 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

A description for the curious non-physicists: another nice one

← Older revision

Revision as of 19:10, 25 March 2012

(2 intermediate revisions not shown)

Line 5:

For more than a century, the claim that E=mc2 has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc2." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref>

-

Ten top physicists were asked to ~~explain what~~ E=mc2 ~~means~~, and here are some of their answers:<ref>https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>

+

==A description for the curious non-physicists==

-

+

Ten top physicists were asked to describe Einstein's equation E=mc2 to curious non-physicists, and here are some very short excerpts of their answers:<ref>https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>

“

”

“

”

{{</ins>

-

“	It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.	”
—Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University</ins>

-

Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University~~</ref>~~}}

+

-

+

-

“

Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks.

”

+

==Experimental verification==

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:02:48 GMT (edit by FrederickT3)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Rain: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:02, 25 March 2012
Line 503:		Line 503:
	Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless		Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless
	::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)		::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Rain ==
		+
		+	It is totally hilarious that the atheists' parade was rained out, serves them right. I would just like to ask whether we can actually be sure that this was God's doing. Andy Schlafly said here: "I don't think anyone claims that God is responsible for everything that happens in the world." Can we know for sure that God caused this rain fall, but not, say, last year's tsunami? --FrederickT3 15:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:56:32 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

← Older revision

Revision as of 18:56, 25 March 2012

(One intermediate revision not shown)

Line 1:

-

E=mc2 is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap.

Line 5:

Line 4:

For more than a century, the claim that E=mc2 has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc2." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref>

+

Ten top physicists were asked to explain what E=mc2 means, and here are some of their answers:<ref>https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>

+

“

Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks.

”

+

“

Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks.

”

==Experimental verification==

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:55:37 GMT (edit by RolandPlankton)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Lets see a Scientific Theory of Creation or Intelligent Design.: relevant court case

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, 25 March 2012
Line 459:		Line 459:
	: ID is a scientific theory, and scientific versions of creation have been around for decades. You have been taken in by anti-creationist and anti-ID rhetoric that claims that there is no such thing. But I'm glad you agree with the principle. Philip J. Rayment 22:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)		: ID is a scientific theory, and scientific versions of creation have been around for decades. You have been taken in by anti-creationist and anti-ID rhetoric that claims that there is no such thing. But I'm glad you agree with the principle. Philip J. Rayment 22:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
	::No, it's not. You see, to be scientific, there need to be experiments. What experiments have been performed to prove that God designed living things? As far as I know (and I may be wrong, so please correct me), creationists looked at the world, assumed God did it, and called it a day. That's not science. That's superstition. SEdwin 22:29, 20 June 2011 (EDT)		::No, it's not. You see, to be scientific, there need to be experiments. What experiments have been performed to prove that God designed living things? As far as I know (and I may be wrong, so please correct me), creationists looked at the world, assumed God did it, and called it a day. That's not science. That's superstition. SEdwin 22:29, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+	:In a 2005 court case, Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688), the judge ruled (on page 64 in his 139-page Findings of Fact) that: "After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.". Hence I understand that the current legal position in the United States is that ID is not science. RolandPlankton 14:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	== Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It... ==		== Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It... ==

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:54:09 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

E.L.A.:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:54, 25 March 2012
Line 439:		Line 439:
	::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.		:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.
-	::My church doesn't have a problem with STDs, divorce and teenage pregnancy and my ~~svelt~~ pastor does a wonderful job in help making this so! :) Conservative 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)	+	::My church doesn't have a problem with STDs, divorce and teenage pregnancy and my svelte pastor does a wonderful job in help making this so! :) Conservative 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	===Where is the well beaten path?===		===Where is the well beaten path?===

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:48:31 GMT (edit by JudyJ)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

An Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium: Neutrinos too

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:48, 25 March 2012
Line 74:		Line 74:

	The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.		The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
		+
		+	==A Second Example -- Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==
		+	Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. Recently there has been quite a controversy over whether neutrinos were observed traveling at a speed faster than light. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel at the speed of light. This very issue came up on the Talk:Main_Page#Neutrinos. The speeds under discussion were calculated by the use of E=mc^2.
		+
		+	The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10<sup>-36</sup>kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc^2. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10<sup>-8</sup>Joules. Using the classical formula E=(1/2)mv^2, we get v=110x10<sup>12</sup>meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light.
		+
		+	Arguing over whether the neutrinos in the CERN / Gran Sasso experiment were traveling at exactly the speed of light, slightly greater, or slightly less, only makes sense in the context of special relativity and E=mc^2.

	== References ==		== References ==

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:45:47 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Irrelevant claims:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:45, 25 March 2012
Line 37:		Line 37:
	:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. AugustO 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. AugustO 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--DavidEdwards 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--DavidEdwards 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? AugustO 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:44:07 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Main Page Left:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, 25 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 439:		Line 439:
	::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.		:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.
-	::My church doesn't have a problem with STDs, divorce and teenage pregnancy and my svelt pastor does a wonderful job in help making this so! :)	+	::My church doesn't have a problem with STDs, divorce and teenage pregnancy and my svelt pastor does a wonderful job in help making this so! :) Conservative 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	===Where is the well beaten path?===		===Where is the well beaten path?===
Line 498:		Line 498:
	:Conservative is right, You have not responded at all. Please back up your claims before making such accusations. Also, we are a meritocracy, and Conservative's edit far outstrip your own.		:Conservative is right, You have not responded at all. Please back up your claims before making such accusations. Also, we are a meritocracy, and Conservative's edit far outstrip your own.
	:::RobS, do you imagine writing high traffic articles? Why don't you launch your own wiki if you are so unhappy? Show the world how it's done since you are often telling people how it should be done. Conservative 13:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::RobS, do you imagine writing high traffic articles? Why don't you launch your own wiki if you are so unhappy? Show the world how it's done since you are often telling people how it should be done. Conservative 13:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
-	And a message to certain gentlemen: Last time I checked, your website still was not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article (Even your fellow liberals don't respect you). :) 13:49, 25 March 2012 (EDT)	+	And a message to certain gentlemen: Last time I checked, your website still was not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article (Even your fellow liberals don't respect you). :) [[User:Conservative\|Conservative]] 14:44, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	== Conservapedia Sports? ==		== Conservapedia Sports? ==
	Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless		Hello, upon scrolling through the main page today I was struck by a great thought. Although the coverage of Tim Tebow etc. is of great merit, I think there should be a greater focus on sport overall, as a nice sidebar to all the torment and strife highlighted on the main page. Would it be possible? And would anyone be interested in collaborating for a christian, conservative (obviously!) section on the upcoming NFL draft for example? God bless
	::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)		::You mean on the left sidebar like the debate topics? Conservative 23:24, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:41:38 GMT (edit by DavidEdwards)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Irrelevant claims: anti-religious pseudoscience

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:41, 25 March 2012
Line 36:		Line 36:
	::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--DavidEdwards 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--DavidEdwards 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. AugustO 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. AugustO 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--DavidEdwards 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:40:48 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

E.L.A.:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:40, 25 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 439:		Line 439:
	::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.		:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.
		+	::My church doesn't have a problem with STDs, divorce and teenage pregnancy and my svelt pastor does a wonderful job in help making this so! :)

	===Where is the well beaten path?===		===Where is the well beaten path?===

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:37:39 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

... in the <a href="/Republican" class="mw-redirect" title="Republican">Republican</a> primary for the <a href="/Presidential_Election_2012" title="Presidential Election 2012">Presidential Election 2012</a>

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:37, 25 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!-- <div style="background-color: #f5faff; border: 1px solid #cedff2; padding: 20px; "><div style="margin: 0 auto; width: 400px; background-color: #cedff2; border: 1px solid #a3b0bf; padding: 5px;"> </div><center>		<!-- <div style="background-color: #f5faff; border: 1px solid #cedff2; padding: 20px; "><div style="margin: 0 auto; width: 400px; background-color: #cedff2; border: 1px solid #a3b0bf; padding: 5px;"> </div><center>
	*America has much for which to be thankful. ... Let us recommit ourselves to that devotion to God and family* <small>--Ronald Reagan, 1981</small></center></div> -->**		America has much for which to be thankful. ... Let us recommit ourselves to that devotion to God and family <small>--Ronald Reagan, 1981</small></center></div> -->
-	<center>Conservative Rick Santorum won Louisiana, his 11th state, "tying a record .... Not since Ronald Reagan in 1976 has a conservative candidate won as many states as" as Santorum has. [13]</center>	+	<center>Conservative Rick Santorum won [[Louisiana]] in the Republican primary for the [[Presidential Election 2012]], his 11th state, "tying a record .... Not since Ronald Reagan in 1976 has a conservative candidate won as many states as" as Santorum has. [14]</center>

	<!-- Beginning of about Conservapedia (left side) section -->		<!-- Beginning of about Conservapedia (left side) section -->

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:35:49 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

E.L.A.:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 25 March 2012
Line 437:		Line 437:
	:::Nate, you are just upset that I have I provided material which shows evolution to be wrongheaded and atheistic. Plus, I mocked evolutionary belief as well. You certainly cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists so your complaints are inconsequential. Conservative 09:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::Nate, you are just upset that I have I provided material which shows evolution to be wrongheaded and atheistic. Plus, I mocked evolutionary belief as well. You certainly cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists so your complaints are inconsequential. Conservative 09:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	::::"Conservative", you're acting like a clown and doing a huge disservice to this website and the work of others like me who struggle to minister to and find fellowship with all men as our daily work. If you think I care about what you think you've shown you're still not paying attention after more than a year of insulting and continuing this embarrassing misbehavior. I am prepared to ignore most of your carping about "evolutionary belief" because I am confident in my Church's teaching. It is hard to ignore that you would rant at me as if I am an atheist for disagreeing with your beloved Creationist Ministries and as if you know the first thing about me about my relationship with the Lord. You are incapable of seeing how ridiculous and insulting this is. I'll tell you something "Conservative". I study with other Opus Dei supernumeraries in Illinois and Indiana (all are welcome to join us) who all strive to know and emulate Christ in every moment, from prayer and study, our family time, coming and going to work, practicing our trades, service, teaching our children, and our ministry and fellowship. Other men have different relationships with God. Your laughably ineffective and silly rants discredit our hard fought evangelism, this website and Mr. Schlafly's family's long history of work. I grew up in the 70's learning from his mother's books at home and Church. At first I laughed at the things you posted because I thought they were a joke. Now I know they are not and pray for you to find health and solace. Few others will give you that charity. Most will come here to see that the public face you put on this website is a joke and they will laugh at Conservapedia where they should be at peace in fellowship and learning. I was drawn to this site because I am so thankful for Mrs. Schlafly's work in raising our attention about the murder of children and saw Mr. Schlafly's continuing the legacy. I wouldn't have given this site that credit if I'd come at any point after about 2 years ago when I started looking at it because of you. Please take care of yourself and try to be mindful of your error as we all should be. Reasoned debate and discussion is Christ's way. Your pridefulness is shameful. Nate 14:08, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::::"Conservative", you're acting like a clown and doing a huge disservice to this website and the work of others like me who struggle to minister to and find fellowship with all men as our daily work. If you think I care about what you think you've shown you're still not paying attention after more than a year of insulting and continuing this embarrassing misbehavior. I am prepared to ignore most of your carping about "evolutionary belief" because I am confident in my Church's teaching. It is hard to ignore that you would rant at me as if I am an atheist for disagreeing with your beloved Creationist Ministries and as if you know the first thing about me about my relationship with the Lord. You are incapable of seeing how ridiculous and insulting this is. I'll tell you something "Conservative". I study with other Opus Dei supernumeraries in Illinois and Indiana (all are welcome to join us) who all strive to know and emulate Christ in every moment, from prayer and study, our family time, coming and going to work, practicing our trades, service, teaching our children, and our ministry and fellowship. Other men have different relationships with God. Your laughably ineffective and silly rants discredit our hard fought evangelism, this website and Mr. Schlafly's family's long history of work. I grew up in the 70's learning from his mother's books at home and Church. At first I laughed at the things you posted because I thought they were a joke. Now I know they are not and pray for you to find health and solace. Few others will give you that charity. Most will come here to see that the public face you put on this website is a joke and they will laugh at Conservapedia where they should be at peace in fellowship and learning. I was drawn to this site because I am so thankful for Mrs. Schlafly's work in raising our attention about the murder of children and saw Mr. Schlafly's continuing the legacy. I wouldn't have given this site that credit if I'd come at any point after about 2 years ago when I started looking at it because of you. Please take care of yourself and try to be mindful of your error as we all should be. Reasoned debate and discussion is Christ's way. Your pridefulness is shameful. Nate 14:08, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
-	::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)	+	::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.		:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:35:20 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Irrelevant claims:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 25 March 2012
Line 35:		Line 35:
	:::::AugustO 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::::AugustO 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--DavidEdwards 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--DavidEdwards 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. AugustO 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:34:22 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Template:Mainpageright</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

<a href="/Conservative" title="Conservative">Conservative</a> <a href="/Michele_Bachmann" title="Michele Bachmann">Michele Bachmann</a> defends <a href="/Newt_Gingrich" title="Newt Gingrich">Newt Gingrich</a>'s criticism of <a href="/Barack_Obama" class="mw-redirect" title="Barack Obama">Barack Obama</a> for making race the issue in the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Bachmann agreed with Gingrich that ...

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:34, 25 March 2012
Line 3:		Line 3:
	<!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" -->		<!-- Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails" -->
	<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== -->		<!--============================BEGIN COPY BELOW THIS LINE!=============================== -->
		+	Conservative Michele Bachmann defends Newt Gingrich's criticism of Barack Obama for making race the issue in the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Bachmann agreed with Gingrich that "race shouldn’t matter, all human life is valuable." [15]
		+	----
	A new witness says that George Zimmerman was justified in what he did. Trayvon Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and was raining blows on his head when Zimmerman finally drew and fired. And the Mainstream Media were still pursuing the murder narrative, even after this story was available! [16]		A new witness says that George Zimmerman was justified in what he did. Trayvon Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and was raining blows on his head when Zimmerman finally drew and fired. And the Mainstream Media were still pursuing the murder narrative, even after this story was available! [17]
	----		----

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:31:12 GMT (edit by NKeaton)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

E.L.A.:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:31, 25 March 2012
Line 438:		Line 438:
	::::"Conservative", you're acting like a clown and doing a huge disservice to this website and the work of others like me who struggle to minister to and find fellowship with all men as our daily work. If you think I care about what you think you've shown you're still not paying attention after more than a year of insulting and continuing this embarrassing misbehavior. I am prepared to ignore most of your carping about "evolutionary belief" because I am confident in my Church's teaching. It is hard to ignore that you would rant at me as if I am an atheist for disagreeing with your beloved Creationist Ministries and as if you know the first thing about me about my relationship with the Lord. You are incapable of seeing how ridiculous and insulting this is. I'll tell you something "Conservative". I study with other Opus Dei supernumeraries in Illinois and Indiana (all are welcome to join us) who all strive to know and emulate Christ in every moment, from prayer and study, our family time, coming and going to work, practicing our trades, service, teaching our children, and our ministry and fellowship. Other men have different relationships with God. Your laughably ineffective and silly rants discredit our hard fought evangelism, this website and Mr. Schlafly's family's long history of work. I grew up in the 70's learning from his mother's books at home and Church. At first I laughed at the things you posted because I thought they were a joke. Now I know they are not and pray for you to find health and solace. Few others will give you that charity. Most will come here to see that the public face you put on this website is a joke and they will laugh at Conservapedia where they should be at peace in fellowship and learning. I was drawn to this site because I am so thankful for Mrs. Schlafly's work in raising our attention about the murder of children and saw Mr. Schlafly's continuing the legacy. I wouldn't have given this site that credit if I'd come at any point after about 2 years ago when I started looking at it because of you. Please take care of yourself and try to be mindful of your error as we all should be. Reasoned debate and discussion is Christ's way. Your pridefulness is shameful. Nate 14:08, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::::"Conservative", you're acting like a clown and doing a huge disservice to this website and the work of others like me who struggle to minister to and find fellowship with all men as our daily work. If you think I care about what you think you've shown you're still not paying attention after more than a year of insulting and continuing this embarrassing misbehavior. I am prepared to ignore most of your carping about "evolutionary belief" because I am confident in my Church's teaching. It is hard to ignore that you would rant at me as if I am an atheist for disagreeing with your beloved Creationist Ministries and as if you know the first thing about me about my relationship with the Lord. You are incapable of seeing how ridiculous and insulting this is. I'll tell you something "Conservative". I study with other Opus Dei supernumeraries in Illinois and Indiana (all are welcome to join us) who all strive to know and emulate Christ in every moment, from prayer and study, our family time, coming and going to work, practicing our trades, service, teaching our children, and our ministry and fellowship. Other men have different relationships with God. Your laughably ineffective and silly rants discredit our hard fought evangelism, this website and Mr. Schlafly's family's long history of work. I grew up in the 70's learning from his mother's books at home and Church. At first I laughed at the things you posted because I thought they were a joke. Now I know they are not and pray for you to find health and solace. Few others will give you that charity. Most will come here to see that the public face you put on this website is a joke and they will laugh at Conservapedia where they should be at peace in fellowship and learning. I was drawn to this site because I am so thankful for Mrs. Schlafly's work in raising our attention about the murder of children and saw Mr. Schlafly's continuing the legacy. I wouldn't have given this site that credit if I'd come at any point after about 2 years ago when I started looking at it because of you. Please take care of yourself and try to be mindful of your error as we all should be. Reasoned debate and discussion is Christ's way. Your pridefulness is shameful. Nate 14:08, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	:::"evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology" No it's not and you've never shown it to be. You have your head in the sand when you focus on our scandals as if they discredit us and the Protestants are above them. It is a scandal that the Southern United States has so much looser morals and adherence to Biblical principles than you will find in communities of Catholic piety how ever rare you think they are. Southern Protestants have much more problems with obesity, STD's, divorce, and teenage pregnancy than your so-called atheistic areas. These are the saddest indicators of poor spiritual health. I pray for you to find health and peace, "Conservative". You seem very troubled.

	===Where is the well beaten path?===		===Where is the well beaten path?===

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:26:01 GMT (edit by Conservative)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

E.L.A.:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:26, 25 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 437:		Line 437:
	:::Nate, you are just upset that I have I provided material which shows evolution to be wrongheaded and atheistic. Plus, I mocked evolutionary belief as well. You certainly cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists so your complaints are inconsequential. Conservative 09:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::Nate, you are just upset that I have I provided material which shows evolution to be wrongheaded and atheistic. Plus, I mocked evolutionary belief as well. You certainly cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists so your complaints are inconsequential. Conservative 09:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	::::"Conservative", you're acting like a clown and doing a huge disservice to this website and the work of others like me who struggle to minister to and find fellowship with all men as our daily work. If you think I care about what you think you've shown you're still not paying attention after more than a year of insulting and continuing this embarrassing misbehavior. I am prepared to ignore most of your carping about "evolutionary belief" because I am confident in my Church's teaching. It is hard to ignore that you would rant at me as if I am an atheist for disagreeing with your beloved Creationist Ministries and as if you know the first thing about me about my relationship with the Lord. You are incapable of seeing how ridiculous and insulting this is. I'll tell you something "Conservative". I study with other Opus Dei supernumeraries in Illinois and Indiana (all are welcome to join us) who all strive to know and emulate Christ in every moment, from prayer and study, our family time, coming and going to work, practicing our trades, service, teaching our children, and our ministry and fellowship. Other men have different relationships with God. Your laughably ineffective and silly rants discredit our hard fought evangelism, this website and Mr. Schlafly's family's long history of work. I grew up in the 70's learning from his mother's books at home and Church. At first I laughed at the things you posted because I thought they were a joke. Now I know they are not and pray for you to find health and solace. Few others will give you that charity. Most will come here to see that the public face you put on this website is a joke and they will laugh at Conservapedia where they should be at peace in fellowship and learning. I was drawn to this site because I am so thankful for Mrs. Schlafly's work in raising our attention about the murder of children and saw Mr. Schlafly's continuing the legacy. I wouldn't have given this site that credit if I'd come at any point after about 2 years ago when I started looking at it because of you. Please take care of yourself and try to be mindful of your error as we all should be. Reasoned debate and discussion is Christ's way. Your pridefulness is shameful. Nate 14:08, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::::"Conservative", you're acting like a clown and doing a huge disservice to this website and the work of others like me who struggle to minister to and find fellowship with all men as our daily work. If you think I care about what you think you've shown you're still not paying attention after more than a year of insulting and continuing this embarrassing misbehavior. I am prepared to ignore most of your carping about "evolutionary belief" because I am confident in my Church's teaching. It is hard to ignore that you would rant at me as if I am an atheist for disagreeing with your beloved Creationist Ministries and as if you know the first thing about me about my relationship with the Lord. You are incapable of seeing how ridiculous and insulting this is. I'll tell you something "Conservative". I study with other Opus Dei supernumeraries in Illinois and Indiana (all are welcome to join us) who all strive to know and emulate Christ in every moment, from prayer and study, our family time, coming and going to work, practicing our trades, service, teaching our children, and our ministry and fellowship. Other men have different relationships with God. Your laughably ineffective and silly rants discredit our hard fought evangelism, this website and Mr. Schlafly's family's long history of work. I grew up in the 70's learning from his mother's books at home and Church. At first I laughed at the things you posted because I thought they were a joke. Now I know they are not and pray for you to find health and solace. Few others will give you that charity. Most will come here to see that the public face you put on this website is a joke and they will laugh at Conservapedia where they should be at peace in fellowship and learning. I was drawn to this site because I am so thankful for Mrs. Schlafly's work in raising our attention about the murder of children and saw Mr. Schlafly's continuing the legacy. I wouldn't have given this site that credit if I'd come at any point after about 2 years ago when I started looking at it because of you. Please take care of yourself and try to be mindful of your error as we all should be. Reasoned debate and discussion is Christ's way. Your pridefulness is shameful. Nate 14:08, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	::Starting especially in the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church embraced a lot of liberalism and they have the scandals and a ton of members in the Western World who left their church to prove it. If it wasn't for Mexican immigration, the USA Roman Catholic Church would be showing a net loss in membership. You can blather on all you want, but the bottom line is that you can't satisfactorily answer the 15 questions evolutionists and evolutionism is liberal and atheistic ideology. Conservative 14:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	===Where is the well beaten path?===		===Where is the well beaten path?===

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:15:08 GMT (edit by FrederickT3)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Experimental verification: Typography

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:15, 25 March 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:
	They bombarded Lithium atoms with protons having a kinetic energy less than 1 MeV. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[α-particle]]s, for which the kinetic energy was measured as 17.3 MeV		They bombarded Lithium atoms with protons having a kinetic energy less than 1 MeV. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[α-particle]]s, for which the kinetic energy was measured as 17.3 MeV

-	:::::<math>{}~~_3Li~~^7\, +\, {}~~_1H~~^1\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}~~_2He~~^4</math>	+	:::::<math>{}_3\mathrm{Li}^7\, +\, {}_1\mathrm{H}^1\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2\mathrm{He}^4</math>

	The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 amus, the mass on the right hand side only 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century, Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:		The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 amus, the mass on the right hand side only 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century, Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:

-	::::<math>0.~~00186amu~~ \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}kg\cdot(3\cdot10^8\frac{m}{s})^2</math>	+	::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math>
-	::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} kg\frac{m^2}{s^2}</math>	+	::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math>
-	::::<math>\approx \,17.3 MeV</math>	+	::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math>

	Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:		Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:12:20 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

An Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium: fmt

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:12, 25 March 2012
Line 25:		Line 25:
	==An Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==		==An Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

-	For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc^2. (The equation applies to all interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc^2 applies only to nuclear interactions.)	+	For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to all interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.)

	Without special relativity, and this equation, it is impossible to explain the observed mass changes. Here is the most famous example of the mass change.		Without special relativity, and this equation, it is impossible to explain the observed mass changes. Here is the most famous example of the mass change.

-	Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman, and analyzed by Lise Meitner, in 1938.	+	Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.

-	The decay path of Uranium that figured in the Hahn-Strassmann experiment may have been this:	+	The decay path of [[Uranium]] that figured in the Hahn-Strassmann experiment may have been this:

-	:<sup>235</sup>U ~~-->~~ <sup>140</sup>Xe + <sup>91</sup>Sr + 4n	+	:<sup>235</sup>U → <sup>140</sup>Xe + <sup>91</sup>Sr + 4n

-	(The Xenon decayed within about a minute to <sup>140</sup>Ba. There are a large number of fission paths and fission products, but they were searching for the chemical signature of Barium.)	+	(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to <sup>140</sup>Ba. There are a large number of fission paths and fission products, but they were searching for the chemical signature of [[Barium]].)

	The masses of the particles are:		The masses of the particles are:
Line 71:		Line 71:
	\|}		\|}

-	The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc^2 equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)	+	The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc² equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)

-	The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc^2 equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.	+	The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

	== References ==		== References ==

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:08:54 GMT (edit by NKeaton)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:Main Page</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

E.L.A.:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:08, 25 March 2012
Line 436:		Line 436:
	:::::I no longer encourage my children to browse Conservapedia specifically because of the ridiculous nonsense "Conservative" splatters all over the place - they know to just look stuff up now. He's also the reason men from one of my study groups find Conservapedia hard to take seriously. Nate 18:12, 24 March 2012 (EDT)		:::::I no longer encourage my children to browse Conservapedia specifically because of the ridiculous nonsense "Conservative" splatters all over the place - they know to just look stuff up now. He's also the reason men from one of my study groups find Conservapedia hard to take seriously. Nate 18:12, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::Nate, you are just upset that I have I provided material which shows evolution to be wrongheaded and atheistic. Plus, I mocked evolutionary belief as well. You certainly cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists so your complaints are inconsequential. Conservative 09:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::Nate, you are just upset that I have I provided material which shows evolution to be wrongheaded and atheistic. Plus, I mocked evolutionary belief as well. You certainly cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists so your complaints are inconsequential. Conservative 09:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	::::"Conservative", you're acting like a clown and doing a huge disservice to this website and the work of others like me who struggle to minister to and find fellowship with all men as our daily work. If you think I care about what you think you've shown you're still not paying attention after more than a year of insulting and continuing this embarrassing misbehavior. I am prepared to ignore most of your carping about "evolutionary belief" because I am confident in my Church's teaching. It is hard to ignore that you would rant at me as if I am an atheist for disagreeing with your beloved Creationist Ministries and as if you know the first thing about me about my relationship with the Lord. You are incapable of seeing how ridiculous and insulting this is. I'll tell you something "Conservative". I study with other Opus Dei supernumeraries in Illinois and Indiana (all are welcome to join us) who all strive to know and emulate Christ in every moment, from prayer and study, our family time, coming and going to work, practicing our trades, service, teaching our children, and our ministry and fellowship. Other men have different relationships with God. Your laughably ineffective and silly rants discredit our hard fought evangelism, this website and Mr. Schlafly's family's long history of work. I grew up in the 70's learning from his mother's books at home and Church. At first I laughed at the things you posted because I thought they were a joke. Now I know they are not and pray for you to find health and solace. Few others will give you that charity. Most will come here to see that the public face you put on this website is a joke and they will laugh at Conservapedia where they should be at peace in fellowship and learning. I was drawn to this site because I am so thankful for Mrs. Schlafly's work in raising our attention about the murder of children and saw Mr. Schlafly's continuing the legacy. I wouldn't have given this site that credit if I'd come at any point after about 2 years ago when I started looking at it because of you. Please take care of yourself and try to be mindful of your error as we all should be. Reasoned debate and discussion is Christ's way. Your pridefulness is shameful. Nate 14:08, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

	===Where is the well beaten path?===		===Where is the well beaten path?===

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:07:27 GMT (edit by DavidEdwards)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Irrelevant claims:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:07, 25 March 2012
Line 34:		Line 34:
	:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.		:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
	:::::AugustO 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::::AugustO 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--DavidEdwards 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:02:38 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Irrelevant claims:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:02, 25 March 2012
Line 31:		Line 31:
	:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. AugustO 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. AugustO 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--DavidEdwards 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--DavidEdwards 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	:::::*Because they are bolstered by experiments...
		+	:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
		+	:::::AugustO 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:58:46 GMT (edit by DavidEdwards)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Talk:E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Irrelevant claims:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:58, 25 March 2012
Line 30:		Line 30:
	::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--DavidEdwards 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--DavidEdwards 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
	:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. AugustO 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)		:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. AugustO 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
		+	::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--DavidEdwards 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:58:45 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:58, 25 March 2012
(One intermediate revision not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+
	E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap.		E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap.

Line 5:		Line 6:
	For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref>		For more than a century, the claim that E=mc<sup>2</sup> has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the study of antimatter.<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc<sup>2</sup>." October 11, 2005. PBS NOVA. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref>

-	==Experimental ~~Verification~~ ==	+	==Experimental verification==
-	~~It is claimed that there was~~ experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockroft and Ernest Walton. This confirmation was a byproduct of "their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"<ref>Nobel Prize Organization</ref> for which they were honored with the Nobel Prize in physics in 1951:	+	The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockroft and Ernest Walton. This confirmation was a byproduct of "their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"<ref>Nobel Prize Organization</ref> for which they were honored with the Nobel Prize in physics in 1951:

	They bombarded Lithium atoms with protons having a kinetic energy less than 1 MeV. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[α-particle]]s, for which the kinetic energy was measured as 17.3 MeV		They bombarded Lithium atoms with protons having a kinetic energy less than 1 MeV. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[α-particle]]s, for which the kinetic energy was measured as 17.3 MeV

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:55:20 GMT (edit by AugustO)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>Mass–energy equivalence</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

Redirected page to <a href="/E%3Dmc%C2%B2" title="E=mc²">E=mc²</a>

New page

#REDIRECT E=mc²

 </body>

</html>

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:53:15 GMT (edit by Aschlafly)

<html>

 <head>
   <title>E=mc²</title>
   <base href="http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom">
 </head>
 <body id="msgFeedSummaryBody" selected="false">

note at the beginning no longer needed

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:53, 25 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~It has been proposed that this page, User:GregG/RSS 1, be titled, "E=mc²".~~
	E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap.		E=mc<sup>2</sup> is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate light to matter. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc<sup>2</sup> is liberal claptrap.

 </body>

</html>