Archive Index
if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }Keeping track of current events and CP content worth featuring is a very demanding and time-consuming task. All volunteers burn out eventually, so it is best if such duties are rotated on a regular basis. I propose that we form a three-person Main Page Committee that would be responsible for updating all of the main page (both left and right) columns. Each member of the Committee would serve a 9-month term and would have to take at least 6 months off before being eligible to serve again. Initial members would be appointed for terms of 3 months, 6 months and 9 months, so that every three months, one person would rotate off the Committee. If there is a disagreement about Main Page content, the three would vote and a majority would decide. Andy could appoint the Committee from among those who volunteer. In this way, Committee members would give their best efforts every day because they would know that they have only 9 months on the job. More people would have an opportunity to edit the Main Page, so there would be less reason to sit on the side lines and snipe at the Committee's work. Please comment on this proposal. Thanks, Wschact 09:33, 1 May 2013 (EDT)
As things stand, only administrators can edit content on the main page. The only admins that regularly add content are Andy, Conservative, and TerryH. Also toss in the occasional contribution from Karajou and Joaquin Martinez. A quick review of user stats reveals that there hasn't been a new admin promoted in over 4 years. So who exactly is supposed to be rotated on and off of this news committee? Logistics aside, what is the ultimate goal of this committee? If it's to change the editorial tone and content of news items, I'm all for it. I just don't see that as a remote possibility. --DonnyC 20:10, 1 May 2013 (EDT) Whatever the mechanism, any improvement in the main page would be welcome. This project started with high aspirations, and I would welcome a return to those aspirations reflected in more care attention being paid to the quality of material presented to newcomers who are curious about the site. Most days it seems to have set itself up to compete with some of the more unhinged conspiracy websites, rather than to attract contributors capable of building one of the most authoritative reference guides in the world. --TonySidaway 01:17, 2 May 2013 (EDT) I set up a debate page to (hopefully) get everyone's opinion, pro and con, on what should be done with the Main Page in general and MPR specifically: Debate:Should there be a separate section on the main page for blogs, advertisements and other non-news items?. I'm sincerely hoping that getting all of the arguments for and against down in one place will allow Aschlafly and the other senior members to voice their opinions along side the rest of us. This will allow everyone too compare all of the facts and opinions without having to jump all around the site. Fnarrow 02:11, 2 May 2013 (EDT)I think the author of the recent question evolution blog post linking corruption and atheism hasn't looked at the full picture. Three of the top four least corrupt countries are also listed among the most atheist countries, and these countries are all considered more atheistic than North Korea. Further to this, most of the countries considered highly corrupt are also highly religious. I think what this blogger has failed to realise is that they have succeeded only in identifying the one corrupt outlier among atheist nations. WilcoxD 22:54, 1 May 2013 (EDT)
Atheists/agnostics are terrible when it comes to historical ignorance and historical revisionism. See: Soviet Union and morality and Atheism and mass murder and Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism and Atheism and uncharitableness and Militant atheism and Atheism and morality and Atheism and bestiality and Bestiality and Sweden and Atheism and deception and Sexual immorality and Sweden. I hope that clarifies things. Conservative 23:44, 1 May 2013 (EDT) No Cons. It didn't. At least not on the subject being discussed. AlanE 23:57, 1 May 2013 (EDT) I would read all those but they are too wordy. Also, you have failed to show that the person who wrote the QE fan blog did not engage in data cherry picking while attempting to make their point. WilcoxD, with tongue in cheek (olé) 00:34, 2 May 2013 (EDT) I will make things more concise for you. The best mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to atheism is approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987 (this does not include pro-abort advocacy).[1] See: Abortion and atheism. Conservative 01:17, 2 May 2013 (EDT) ... but we're talking about government corruption WilcoxD 01:32, 2 May 2013 (EDT) ....and government corruption would perhaps include the established churches that have not been exactly innocent in the mass murder of many over the years. AlanE 01:58, 2 May 2013 (EDT) AlanE, I notice you failed to put up mass murder statistics relating to Christendom that even remotely compares to the atheism and mass murder figures I cited. Don't think I didn't notice. I did. Conservative 02:11, 2 May 2013 (EDT) Wilcox, you don't think that governments that engage in mass murder and promote (or fail to keep in check) other moral rot are invariably corrupt as well? If not, why not? Conservative 02:11, 2 May 2013 (EDT) Cons, there are not a lot of definite statistics concerning the Albigensian crusade, the pre-Soviet pogroms, the massacre at Acre, the St Bartholomew Day massacre, the thousands of burnings at the stake enacted over the years (let's not just kill the non-believers - let's make it as painful as possible - a good Christian thing to do) and so on and so on. Check out the drop in Europe's population from the Thirty Years War in the early 17th century. It goes on forever. Yes Cons. I know so many died in the 20th century, but are you telling me the same would not have happened in previous centuries if the technology had allowed it? Look at history from both sides of the fence, Cons. AlanE 02:45, 2 May 2013 (EDT) AlanE, what technology did Stalin and Mao use that was so revolutionary in terms of killing their own people? We have the same technology, why isn't it being used now on the same scale? Was there a significant decline of atheism in the world in terms of the percentage of people who are atheists? See: Decline of atheism. Also, evolutionists killed a lot of people through incompetence too! See: Trofim Denisovich Lysenko and Great Chinese famine. Also, see this article. Conservative 05:45, 2 May 2013 (EDT) I'd have to agree with AlanE there mate. He is entirely correct on this matter. Dvergne 05:47, 2 May 2013 (EDT) Also when are you going to un-protect April Fools Day so I can reformat and fix the article as it seems someone has reverted it too its previous dreadful state before you protected it. Dvergne 05:51, 2 May 2013 (EDT)Darwinism and meteorology don't mix well? [2] Conservative 05:33, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
Ouch, pretty dramatic drop off in readership of your blog over the past few weeks, maybe you should start promoting it more on twitter, facebook, google+, myspace, soundcloud, vine, foursquare, youtube, vimeo, pinterest, path, badoo, bebo, cyworld, formspring, reddit, 4chan, Hi5, instagram, Mobli, Renren, Yammer, Linkedin, Researchgate, wordpress, geocities, Ning, Tumblr and Tea Party community. Successful marketing and promotion through these mediums will almost certainly send your readership through the roof. If it was really effective you may even end up rivaling the pageviews that this great site gets. Dvergne 05:45, 2 May 2013 (EDT) Who said it was my/our blog? I/we certainly did not. Since you are obviously the web traffic expert at Conservapedia, I was wondering how much traffic have you generated to Conservapedia via your content/links/PR? Is it possible the blog author(s) are engaged in activity that you can not readily discern, but will have a long term impact? "...when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near." - Sun Tzu. "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." - Sun Tzu. "The quality of decision is like the well-timed swoop of a falcon which enables it to strike and destroy its victim." - Sun Tzu. ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? - Sun Tzu. Conservative 14:07, 2 May 2013 (EDT)I had trouble getting past the first sentence:Great tasting news blog posts....Less analysis and commentary filling! What a terrible opener. I can now see why the author of that blog chooses to remain anonymous. --DonnyC 14:30, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
Who is DonnyC? Conservative 15:04, 2 May 2013 (EDT) Who am I? Someone who's not afraid to walk into the lion's den and maul some lions. --DonnyC 18:05, 2 May 2013 (EDT)Is Jewish. He is also a registered Republican and worked for three years in the Reagan administration (you know, Ronald Reagan, the conservative icon). He started the Military Religious Freedom Foundation because while at the United States Air Force Academy his sons were accused of killing Jesus, and were told they would burn in hell by senior cadets.--CamilleT 17:52, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
I have added a section reguarding the 2011 referendum to: http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_Democrats but I have made a mistake in referencing and don't know how to fix it. I would appreciate it if one of you good folks could fix it for me. Many thanks--Patmac 21:43, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
Fixed. --DonnyC 22:01, 2 May 2013 (EDT) Thanks mate. --Patmac 22:04, 2 May 2013 (EDT)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22382098 http://news.sky.com/story/1086321/local-council-elections-ukip-make-big-gains There is a potential big change in British politics. Although you can't rule out the usual mid-term protest vote, there is a real chance UKIP could usurp the Lib Dems as the third party in the next general election. And they are taking votes from all the major parties. It seems that the voters are seeing the EU, or at least British membership of, for what it really is, a mistake.--Patmac 10:11, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
Ok don't bother then, I guess real news has no place here--Patmac 08:20, 4 May 2013 (EDT)
A very interesting read. GregG 14:20, 4 May 2013 (EDT)
I don't know why this quote is on the main page; Dr. Scott Todd was clearly making a hypothetical statement about data pointing to an intelligent designer (meaning that he does not concede that it's true) and how the conclusion that there was an intelligent designer is outside the realm of science. Again, this reflects badly on our project, so I will request its removal from the main page. Thanks, GregG 09:11, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
GregG, where is it written that science must exclusively use naturalistic explanations and be illogical? See: Rules of the game. That sounds like atheism to me! Why should scientists allow the religion of atheism to warp their view of reality? Last time I checked the scientific method was originated by a theist and not an atheist. Many miracles never occur in Christendom because of individuals who lack faith and whose worldview is too naturalistic. Second, history is a social science. Using your false view of science. the resurrection of Jesus could never be considered by historians as ever happening. Archaeologist never could consider the possibility that Walls of Jericho fell down by supernatural means. Next Christians having an overly naturalistic worldview is unbiblical. Jesus said: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father." (John 14:12). The Apostle Paul wrote: "For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:2). The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy: "But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Timothy 3:1-5). Next, your objection to the use of this quote reflects badly on you and not on me or this project. By the way, has Kenneth Miller gotten back to you concerning the 15 questions for evolutionists? You still haven't gotten back to me on this matter. Conservative 14:29, 5 May 2013 (EDT) Conservative, I don't know if Dr. Scott Todd is an Atheist or not, so that is not the point I'm going to make here. However, when you say "Sounds like Atheism to me" in reaction to his statement that "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic", you're mistaking the intellectual process of Agnosticism as originally defined by Huxley for the refusal to accept God no matter what. As neither the existence of God as an entity or a person's belief in it, can be physically tested, it therefore cannot be admitted into the scientific process. You have also made this mistake when calling me an Atheist in the past, I very much believe in God, I simply consider myself an "Agnostic Christian" as his existence has not and cannot be proven through the scientific method. Science and Religion should not be forced to confront one another, (an unfortunate activity which both sides tend to partake in...) but rather should be used to support and reinforce one another. Fnarrow 14:47, 5 May 2013 (EDT) Every reputable science text and class since the late eighteenth century says, explicitly or implicitly, that science must exclusively use naturalistic explanations. Any theory that uses non-naturalistic or supernatural explanations is not science. This is nub of the whole science v religion, reason v faith dichotomy. Rafael 14:47, 5 May 2013 (EDT) Rafael, the argument that "every reputable science text and class since the late eighteenth century says" is not a compelling argument. It is not even true. There are certainly Christian schools who don't take this view and their academic performances often exceed the public schools who hold to a naturalistic worldview. Second, even if your claim were true, it is a blatent appeal to authority and illogical. Conservative 14:53, 5 May 2013 (EDT)Fnarrow, the term "agnostic Christian" is an oxymoron. You are merely double-minded and Scripture warns about being double-minded. James wrote: "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." (James 1:8). Conservative 15:11, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
Perhaps you should stick to the fifteen questions because you are way, way off the mark on the philosophy of science. Science insists on naturalism because it is an empirical method - the antithesis of a blatant appeal to authority. Note that word: method - not a body of knowledge, not a popularity contest but a process. Yes, Christian schools often do very well academically - I went to one myself - but literature, philosophy, art, languages, history, economics and any number of other disciplines - including arguably psychology and some branches of psychiatry - don't require a naturalistic world view. Social sciences are not science; although they use some of the techniques science uses, the scientific method does not fit them properly. The priests and brothers who ran my school were very clear on the difference between the world of the flesh, the concrete world, the world of reason, and the Kingdom of God, the realm of values, faith and the metaphysical. Please, please, don't embarrass yourself further - you are trying to compare apples and bricks. Both are necessary, but a house built of apples is as pointless as a brick sandwich. Rafael 16:57, 5 May 2013 (EDT) By the way, churches which have embrace Darwinism and a more naturalistic worldview, not only do not often experience miracles, but they are often shrinking. And this is happening particularly in the Western World. These churches are often dead churches which deny the power of God. Christian groups which embrace the supernatural and in regions where a naturalistic worldview is less prevalent among Christians, there is a big growth in the number of adherents of Christianity. For example, in Germany, creationist churches are growing while Darwinist churches are shrinking. In addition, pentecostal/charasmatic churches are growing quickly in both the Western World and globally as well.[3] In addition, not only are biblical creation and biblical creation growing in adherents, but they are both true as can be seen HERE.Conservative 15:30, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, are you perhaps confused by the distinction between Philosophical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalim? It is difficult to test for , or take into account, the existence of God in any way that holds scientific rigor. This does not mean that God does not exist; it merely means that God is ineffable to scientists.--DTSavage 15:39, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
DTSavage, I am not confused. It is you who are confused. Why don't you show me an ardent advocate of methodological naturalism or group of people who have done this who are known to have the miraculous in their lives. It is the impotent, foolish, sickly, and dying so-called Christian groups who are advocating methodological naturalism while the vibrant and intellectually honest Christians are opposing this ideology. Again, not only are biblical creationists/Christians growing in adherents, but they are advocating a true worldview as can be seen HERE. The lack of intellectual honesty among ardent evolutionists is not surprising given that a university study showed a morals decline among adherents of Darwinism.[4] The university study showed that evolutionists are more likely to be whores and whoremongers than creationists. Conservative 16:51, 5 May 2013 (EDT) Conservative, I am currently doing my best to do scientific research, at least in the field of ecology (which is not identical to evolution), which is what I am studying. How would you suggest I go about including God in my research in a way that is scientifically rigorous?--DTSavage 19:26, 5 May 2013 (EDT) DTSavage, I don't believe you are sincere in your question. Why don't you demonstrate your sincerity by having you and another Darwinist debate Shockofgod and VivaYehshua on the 15 questions for evolutionists. Unless of course, you are too afraid to do so! Conservative 19:44, 5 May 2013 (EDT) Conservative, I will happily discuss (I don't believe it needs to be a debate) whether or not God is a factor that can, or should, be included in scientific research. I don't believe that the 15 questions for evolutionists are relevant to the current discussion.--DTSavage 19:58, 5 May 2013 (EDT)Rafael, re: the European priests/brothers: What is European Roman Catholicism know for? A shrinking body of adherents and pediphilia scandals. As you know, I am a Protestant, but even I will admit that charasmatic Catholicism is growing. They hold less to the anti-supernaturalism that infects so many European Roman Catholics. I am betting that they are more supportive of motherhood (less selfish, etc.) and lose less of their adherents to atheism/agnosticism (atheism is a weak ideology that tends to lose more of their adherents[5]). Again, as far as Protestant Christianity, not only are biblical creationists/Christians growing in adherents, but they are advocating a true worldview as can be seen HERE.
Darwinism is know for uncharitableness (Social Darwinism), evolutionary racism, sexual immorality and it underpins the murderous regimes of Communism and Nazism. See: Social effects of the theory of evolution. And again, the lack of intellectual honesty among ardent evolutionists is not surprising given that a university study showed a morals decline among adherents of Darwinism.[6]The university study showed that evolutionists are more likely to be whores and whoremongers than creationists. Conservative 18:01, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
As usual, you fail to engage with question at hand and instead run around like a terrier in a field full of rabbits, wagging your tail with glee while not catching anything. Stick to the fifteen questions and name calling and stuff that doesn't require any rigour. Rafael 14:10, 6 May 2013 (EDT)Conservative
Please read this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9934538/Red-Nose-Day-2013-Night-of-comedy-raises-record-75m.htmlThis is the charitableness of a mostly "Darwinist" nation. Converted to USD that is about $1.50 given per person. Have you any reference to a "Creationist" country giving more? And your link to Whores and Warmongers, despite being offensive, I would like you to think of which side of the political spectrum supports war more, you don't see many conservative anti war protestors, they are overwhelmingly liberal. And please don't accuse me of being anti-war, I am not, In fact I have been there and got the T Shirt to prove it. I am in support of the Afghan war in particular, and not for any ideological reasons. If the Taliban win control in Afghanistan there is a good chance they will gain control in Pakistan, who have the bomb, drop one on Delhi and we will have a bloody mess like the world has not seen since WW2. --Patmac 18:21, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
Patmac and other liberals: Please don't waste my time with anecdotal evidence. Give me evidence that holds up to more Ceteris paribus like conditions. And we know that American religious conservatives give more to charity per capita than American liberal evolutionists. See: Liberals and uncharitableness and Atheism and uncharitableness (We know that liberals are more likely to be Darwinists. See: Evolution and liberalism). Furthermore, we know that liberal religionists and atheists/evolutionists tend to be more superstitious than religious conservatives. See: Irreligion and superstition. Why are liberals/Darwinists/atheists/agnostics such big tightwads and so prone to believing bunkum?Conservative 19:24, 5 May 2013 (EDT)Since this discussion of the role of methodological naturalism and the philosophy of science has been effectively derailed, I would like to interject with a question for User:Conservative: Can you provide an example of something miraculous that has occurred in your own personal life? --DonnyC 19:44, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
DonnyC, I have had several supernatural events occur in my life. And no signs or accounts of the supernatural will be given to Darwinists until you agree to the debate Shockofgod and VivaYehshua in an oral creation vs. evolution debate on the 15 questions for evolutionists which will be distributed to tens of thousands of people! Show me your sincerity and that you are not merely a stubborn lot of liars and insincere posers! Conservative 19:51, 5 May 2013 (EDT) Conservative, I can understand your reluctance to share your supernatural experiences. Whatever those experiences were, I am sure you reached the conclusion that they were supernatural/miraculous because you were unable to find a naturalistic explanation for the event. As I am sure you don't regularly attribute mundane events like finding your freezer stocked with your favorite flavor of Hot Pockets to supernatural causes. That is all science is, it is the attempt to exhaust all naturalistic explanations for an observed phenomenon. And factoring in the supernatural from the beginning, completely defeats the purpose of doing science. --DonnyC 20:18, 5 May 2013 (EDT)Attention Darwinists: I am afraid you have been so thoroughly put to shame in this debate/discussion that I am just going to have to declare victory at this point and attend to more important matters. Feel free to engage in last wordism though. :) Conservative 20:10, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
Is this the same shockofgod who was banned from you tube for phishing? Stealing others log on details? Does not sound like someone who can be trusted to me. Oh, you may declare victory but I for one, do not admit defeat--Patmac 20:13, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
First of all, history is NOT a science. Secondly, I may be wrong in what is the intent of the statement here, but naturalistic ideas are a necessity in science because science requires theories and hypotheses to be testable. Religion fundamentally asks that we take the belief in God on faith, and that it is not something that can be tested but must be based on trust. That is why religion is not and never can be science. SJCootware 20:15, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, what gives you the right to judge the sincerity of my belief in God? I am not of two minds, I am of one mind and that mind is both clear and stable. Due to this, I am able to separate Religion (which studies and explains the SUPERnatural) from Science (which studies and explains the NATURAL). These are two entirely separate systems and therefore cannot possibly contradict one another in the mind of someone who is being honest with themselves and with others. Also, I'm increasingly concerned with your misunderstanding of the definition of "Agnosticism" for it is not a religion but merely a logical process in which one studies the physical evidence available with no regard for preconceived notions or beliefs and thereby allows himself (or herself) to discover the truth of anything with is knowable through scientific discovery. Therefore, there is contradiction in considering myself an "Agnostic Christian" as it simply means that I believe God lies beyond the detection of science (Supernatural and therefore a subject of religious study) and cannot be proven nor disproven through any physical means; this is the "Agnostic" part of the label. The "Christian" part of the label is defined through the fact that I know in my heart/mind/soul/whatever you want to call it that God exists. I will close by saying that I find it not only personally insulting, but insulting to Christians everywhere when you start labeling those who disagree with you as being a "Darwinist", "Atheist" or other title while knowing nothing about what truth God has placed in their heart. When you use these label people with these names and then proceed to state that "evolutionists are more likely to be whores/whoremongers" you are indirectly suggesting that the users of this site whom you are attacking are themselves likely to be "whores/whoremongers." I don't know what particular branch of Christianity you identify yourself with, but I've never personally experienced one which would encourage their followers to make blind accusations like that. I know I have no power here, but I have to say that I would much appreciate it if you could from this point forward debate the topic at hand instead of making personal attacks on the other members here. Thanks, Fnarrow 23:17, 5 May 2013 (EDT) Leave him alone mate, he is right here, it seems you are too afraid to debate the 15 questions of evolution. You are narrowminded Fnarrow.Snarrow 08:09, 6 May 2013 (EDT)SJCootware,
Maybe it is against my better judgement, but I am responding to your post. How is naturalism/atheism or methodological naturalism testable? Do you possess some crystal ball showing that the miraculous does not happen in the course of past events? Did the apostles of Christ, who claimed to be eyewitnesses, die for a lie and the resurrection of Jesus Christ never occurred despite the excellent evidence for it? If so, what is your alternative naturalistic explanation for the apostles' behavior and why is it better than the Christian explanation for Christianity? What proof and evidence do you have that naturalism is correct? What scientific proof do you have the methodological naturalism is a correct procedure and that it trumps logic and evidence?[7]
Second, I did not say history is science. I said history is a social science. And historians (at least good historians) weigh evidence using various reasonable procedures and logic.
Third, I cite: "The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques" by which to explain it." [8] Conservative 14:39, 6 May 2013 (EDT)
It seems that some here want to dismiss God with a simple "can't-pass-the-falsifiability" test. Since dogma can work both ways, here's an example from the pic on the right. The caption below reads "Heads of four titanotheres, showing progressive stages of development." This work was done by an evolutionist; this caption was done by an evolutionist. So, my questions are...
1. Is this a true statement? 2. How is this a true statement? 3. Was this example subject to "falsifyability" testing? 4. From where and by what methods did the author of this work get his evidence that makes the caption true? Karajou 01:31, 6 May 2013 (EDT) I appreciate the example, but I at least, speaking as someone in the sciences, am not trying to dismiss God by saying that God can't be falsified. I'm just saying that I have absolutely no idea how to incorporate God into research in a Scientific context. I asked Conservative for his opinion on the subject, but he did not answer me. I am sincerely curious how this might be done, because I believe that if God could be incorporated into scientifically rigorous research, this would allow for increased cooperation between science and religion, which is likely far better for society than the two being at odds.--DTSavage 01:38, 6 May 2013 (EDT) DTSavage, while I still have doubts about your sincerity of alleged evolutionary beliefs, I thought I would share these articles nonetheless since the expression of your so-called Darwinism beliefs seems less militant at this juncture: Ecology, biodiversity and Creation and Toward a biblical basis for ecology, with applications in mycorrhizal symbioses in orchids and Symbiotic relationships. Conservative 10:37, 6 May 2013 (EDT) Thanks, Conservative. Reading those articles has definitely given me some food for thought.--DTSavage 13:24, 6 May 2013 (EDT)As a variable, God is uncontrollable, undetectable, unpredictable, and most importantly, unrepeatable. So the question remains, how would a scientist incorporate God into their research? --DonnyC 14:30, 6 May 2013 (EDT)
Naturalism and methodological naturalism are untestable notions via the scientific method. Also, origins science is a historical science and not operational science.[9] Conservative 15:21, 6 May 2013 (EDT) Abraham Lincoln was fond of this riddle: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does have a dog have? Four, because no matter what you call it, it's still a tail. Rafael 15:25, 6 May 2013 (EDT) Conservative, you're not answering the question. My work encompasses both of what you would call "operational" and "historical" science. So my question is, how am I supposed to account for an uncontrollable, undetectable, unpredictable, and unrepeatable variable in my work? --DonnyC 15:28, 6 May 2013 (EDT) DonnyC, origins science is a historical science and good historians (historians are social scientists) have reasonable procedures for weighing historical evidence.[10][11] Therefore, when evaluating claims of God intervening in history, there are reasonable methods to ascertain the probability of those claims being true or untrue. For example, see: Origins science and avoiding historical fallacies and Historicity of Jesus and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and History Second, how are you going to account for the fact that naturalism and methodological naturalism are untestable notions using the scientific method - especially in the light of the fact that the scientific method was originated by a theist(s) and not an atheist and that modern science was launched in a Christianized Europe? See: Christianity and science. Also, what dramatic breakthroughs did science have as a result of atheism? Is atheism testable using the scientific method? Can you show that atheism has had a better effect on science than Christian influence on science? See: Christianity and science Next, if you contend that atheism/naturalism and methodological naturalism have had a better influence on science than biblical Christianity, how do you explain that the irreligious and adherents of liberal theology are more superstitious than theologically conservative, Protestant Bible believers? See: Irreligion and superstition. Lastly, I cite: "The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques" by which to explain it." [12] 16:08, 6 May 2013 (EDT) Conservative, could you please clarify this sentence "Therefore, God intervening in history has reasonable methods to ascertain various supernatural claims in relation to their historicity." I was with you up until that point but then lost the thread... I don't know if it was simply a typo/omitted word or something I'm just not reading correctly, but either way I'd appreciate some clarification as to what you meant so I can come to an accurate conclusion regarding your statements. Thanks, Fnarrow 17:01, 6 May 2013 (EDT)Fnarrow, thanks. I revised the sentence (additional clarification was provided). Conservative 17:31, 6 May 2013 (EDT)
No problem, that's what I figured you had meant, but I didn't want to make any assumptions. Fnarrow 17:42, 6 May 2013 (EDT)Is this a matter for debate? Naturalism and methodological naturalism are positions or stances, rather than theories which can be confirmed or disproved.
Atheists frequently resort to circular reasoning, out of desperation to deny any possibility of God's existence. First they confine science to physical science, insisting that the supernatural cannot be studied and should not be considered. Then they conclude that the only plausible source the multitude of species (current and historical) is the product of physical causes and "natural selection". Finally, if plants, animals and people have come into existence via physical causes alone, there is no need to postulate a Creator.
One flaw in this argument is the assumption that the supernatural cannot be studied. Another is the discovery, promoted by intelligent design theorists, that organisms like the flagellum are irreducible complex.
I suggest that we work together to describe all three theories of human and biological origins. Let's make the stances (and theories) easily understandable to our readers, and stop wasting editorial space trying to convince each other here.
I'd like to see comprehensive articles on Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, and the Theory of Evolution. After that we can more easily outline and describe the arguments for and against these ideas. --Ed Poor Talk 08:43, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
Quite a bit of conflict, unrulyness and down right undemocratic things happening in General Election in Malaysia at the moment which mainstream media seem to be ignoring. Might be worth a link say what happens when military strongmen control government instead of the people, which is how it should be. DickVCome say g'day ay 09:23, 5 May 2013 (EDT)
No. Well actually I've found plenty, but they were in centuries that were already full. WilcoxD 19:36, 6 May 2013 (EDT)
Please go ahead and add the conservative word into the list under the correct century. The exponential growth theory is just a theory. The data should not be trimmed to shoehorn in the theory. Wschact 22:25, 6 May 2013 (EDT) I've previously added several to different centuries, but it so happened that none of the ones that affected the geometric doubling were deemed Conservative enough. I've also tried correcting several erroneous entries, but if this affected the doubling then these corrections were also removed. WilcoxD 23:43, 6 May 2013 (EDT) Wschact, when you say 'The exponential growth theory is just a theory', can you explain what that theory actually is? I understand that it's an observation (even though some may question the accuracy of the observation for reasons mentioned above), but to call it a theory implies a postulated mechanism for how the observed phenomenon comes about. What is that mechanism? --DHouser 08:15, 7 May 2013 (EDT) I gather Andy is using terms like theory and hypothesis interchangeably. Don't read too much into it. He simply noticed that the number of terms seemed to be growing exponentially. Let's not get sidetracked. --Ed Poor Talk 08:29, 7 May 2013 (EDT) I believe the theory has something to do with how ideas or ideology spread. In any event, one way to test the theory would be to divide the data by 100 year intervals that begin at a different point, say 1620, 1720, 1820, etc. If the theory was valid, and not the result of shoehorned data, it would fit no matter how you shifted the measuring intervals. Wschact 02:17, 10 May 2013 (EDT) That's a nice way to re-analyse the data, but my interpretation is that the 'theory' is a bit more precise than that. We're not looking at just a general exponential trend, but precise doubling every century, with no margin for error. For that to occur would require some kind of supernatural (divine) intervention, and as such it would seem likely that the intelligence behind the intervention would base the sequence around accepted human time-scales such as the calendar century.--DHouser 08:11, 10 May 2013 (EDT)http://thebatavian.com/howard-owens/three-batavia-churches-hit-anti-religious-graffiti/37315 Would anyone consider this "respectfully disagreeing?" ZetaSonic 01:54, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
He/they are just mad that the father of secular humanism, Paul Kurtz, who lived in the Buffalo metropolitan area, left no legacy and he received a "shattering blow" to this atheism related endeavors via the hands of his fellow atheists shortly before he died Et tu, Bruti? The Roman Empire was no match for Christianity and neither was the atheist faction "secular humanism". Conservative 23:14, 7 May 2013 (EDT) I think I'm starting to enjoy your version of reality Conservative. I'm sure the vandal(s) was choking down God-hating tears as he whispered "this is for you Paul Kurtz" while he/they committed his/their crime. --DonnyC 23:42, 7 May 2013 (EDT)Love it!! Absolutely love it!!!! "Ripped to Sheds indeed. Made my day! Thank you! AlanE 01:46, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
The district is an R+11. This statement would be like saying the ideology of Republicans is a loser even when the opponent has a big scandal when having looked at Charles Rangel's results in 2010. Just as Rangel took a D+43 and got a result consistent with a D+31, Sanford took an R+11 and got results consistent with an R+5. --SJCootware 2:08, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
It seems to me there was a very large debate in this area earlier today when I was unable to edit... guess I must be misremembering.
The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
Welcome to 1984, I guess old Mr. Orwell was off by less than 30 years, not too bad in the grand scheme of things. Fnarrow 23:51, 8 May 2013 (EDT)
May 9, 2013: Ascension of Jesus --AugustO 05:36, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
Thank you introducing some substance. It's far more important than the "amusing" creationist vs evolutionist story et al. I'm starting to wonder whether this site hasn't reached a tipping point of irrelevant and unimportant nonsense. Rafael 08:35, 9 May 2013 (EDT) Thanks - unfortunately, it didn't make it to the main page. What a pity - another chance missed to remind us of our Christian teachings. --AugustO 01:56, 10 May 2013 (EDT)Sheds? Really? Seems to be an error. The question for me is: should I point it out or follow User:DonnyC's advise: I'd point out a spelling error in your post... but I'm worried that in your excited state that you would rip me to sheds. This is even more a conundrum as User:DonnyC was ripped to shreds by User:Conservative: a block of three month for a quite productive editor (see e.g. Judges 1-7 or Habakkuk) - seems to be only a sign of a bruised ego...
BTW: User:DawsonT should not have been blocked for violating the 90/10 rule, but for trolling: He made only one edit - a total of five words - and was answered with a 500+ words diatribe! Very effective trolling indeed. And after writing some thousand words, User:Conservative was to tired to even read a paragraph of less than 150 words, but instead blocked the editor under some pretext some time later. IMO, this block should be undone, and User:DonnyC reinstated without silly conditions like If you decide to return after your 3 month block, there will be a 3 month probationary period where you will not have main page talk privileges.
--AugustO 07:57, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
AugustO, I am not ever going to change my view of the 90/10 rule. My view is that if someone creates some worthless contribution on a talk page on his first edit, I can block them. They created poor content and have a 100/100 talk page ratio. Second, changing DonnyC's block is not on my radar as far as my priorities because I am not changing it. If DonnyC engages in that type of behavior again, the block is going to be longer. Conservative 12:12, 9 May 2013 (EDT) changing DonnyC's block is not on my radar as far as my priorities because I am not changing it that doesn't make much sense, I'm afraid: it's just circular reasoning... --AugustO 12:20, 9 May 2013 (EDT) BTW, could you please bother to correct the typo on MPR? I don't care what your blog looks like, but on the Main Page of Conservapedia, I prefer correct spelling - that has nothing to do with style over substance, but with looking professional. --AugustO 12:30, 9 May 2013 (EDT)AugustO, for someone who is interested in good writing, you are being very unclear about what typo is on the main page. Second, I am not going to spend a lot of time justifying my block with DonnyC with you. The block was just and if you don't like it, I don't care. I think you are being unreasonable. I have discussions with evolutionists like HunterC as he will actually have a discussion and address what the other party is saying. I also find liberals are often not willing to debate anyone of the opposition because they have little to no confidence in what they are spouting. Penn Jillette is a prime example. DonnyC just wants to be a heckler and ignore what the other party is saying. He also has not created much content in terms of articles. I am not going to put up with it. Conservative 12:52, 9 May 2013 (EDT
You must be kidding - on both accounts! Haven't you been quite successful in a spelling-bee? --AugustO 12:47, 9 May 2013 (EDT) I revised my above post. Second, if you are going to be purposefully obtuse about a matter that you supposedly want fixed on the main page, then I have a very low priority with both of your requests. Conservative 12:52, 9 May 2013 (EDT) This begs the question who or what is obtuse: The section is titled Darwinism will be ripped to sheds The first sentence of this section is Sheds? Really? Seems to be an error. Even Dr. Watson could have figured this one out! --AugustO 13:04, 9 May 2013 (EDT)Thanks. Second, I have a number of deadlines I have to meet. I wasn't going to search the main page for a typo for someone who was purposefully being unclear. If you don't like that, that's tough enchiladas, my friend! :) Conservative 13:13, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, less than 3 weeks ago you said you were going to tone it down, when in fact you have got worse. You are banning people for breaking the 90/10 rule, and at the same time you have filled this talk page with enough words to fill a small novel, a novel where the same chapter is repeated again and again, accusing good honest folk of being Darwinist, liberal etc, etc. Please, pause and take stock because right now you acting like a dictator, and dare I say it, you are showing many liberal traits in doing so. Act like a good conservative, argue and defend your view but show some respect to those who hold differing views. Respect is a conservative value yet you show none and then wonder why you receive none. --Patmac 13:14, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
purposefully being unclear? I wasn't unclear at all - and especially not purposefully. Please refrain from such groundless accusations. Frankly - as AlanE above - I thought you were able to remember and recognize what you have written on the Main Page only yesterday. --AugustO 14:12, 9 May 2013 (EDT) In your spelling bee snarky comment you were purposefully being unclear about the typo. Anyways, I met my most pressing deadline. By the way, please refrain from snarky comments. Frankly, I thought you were capable of less snarky comments! :) I do recall someone recently asking for more decorum. My razor sharp mind definitely does recall you wanting more diplomacy/decorum on this talk page. I guess that doesn't apply to you. Typical liberal/Darwinist hypocrisy! :) Conservative 15:33, 9 May 2013 (EDT) Above, your razor-sharp mind seemed to have failed you. The typo was mentioned three times, by User:AlanE, User:DonnyC and me. It just seemed to be inconceivable that you didn't recognize the phrase Darwinism will be ripped to sheds which you have written a couple of hours ago and which is cunningly concealed in the very title of this section. BTW, I asked for manners, that doesn't mean that you may not get testy - but you shouldn't sling words around which are seen as insults on this site, like liberal. --AugustO 16:06, 9 May 2013 (EDT)I do regret that deadline pressures contributed to me missing AlanE's notice of the typo.
I don't regret not paying close attention to recent DonnyC posts subsequent to him intentionally dodging my recent response to him. You don't have to worry about DonnyC. Now that he is being held accountable and actually has to respond to creationist interlocutors on the main page talk page instead of stonewalling their responses, he has been effectively defanged. And I hear some howling on the horizon. It sounds like a like a pack of hungry biblical creation dire wolves ready to rip big chunks of meat out of Darwinist bunkum! :) Those 15 questions for evolutionists are not going away and it is VERY OBVIOUS that evolutionists have not satisfactorily answered them. Conservative 17:36, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, you totally ignored my last entry, you still attack. And I for one support Donnyc. How about we have a vote about Donny being unblocked. I vote yes--Patmac 18:29, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
If you support it, please feel free to take it up with Mr. Schlafly. brenden 13:23, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
"In a previous post, I pointed that wolf packs can be very aggressive and sometimes conduct their attacks for over 24 hours on a particular prey. Wolves have a lot of endurance. I have been thinking of working out twice in a day at a local Young Man Christian Association. In case you are an atheist, I am referring to a YMCA! The Question Evolution! Campaign is a worldwide grassroots movement that will see a lot of expansion in 2013. When creationists intensify their round the clock attacks on Darwinism, I certainly don't want to experience fatigue when I join the fray!"[13]
He/she must have a Chuck Norris Total Gym too. :) He/she does not sound like an evolutionist slob who is not familiar with exercise science, nutritional science and medical science. See: Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese. I thought evolutionist loved science and had a fundamental understanding of applied biology! Conservative 21:52, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
If you do work out twice a day, my advice would be to take advice on what you are doing. Muscle building works by ripping or tearing existing tissue and protein through diet "mends" the tears and builds more muscle tissue. I don't know your age but I am guessing 35+ and after that age the whole process of repair takes longer and it is not as efficient, the main reason that endurance sportsmen retire at about that age. Without knowing your circumstances, I would suggest 45 mins to an hour once a day is enough, and try to do different things each day, example would be weights on one day, cycling rowing or running on the second etc, and give yourself 2 days clear a week.--Patmac 22:19, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
~
I don't believe Ranulph Fiennes is a creationist, but then he is only 68.--Patmac 22:39, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
I would like to see a before and after picture of Trent and Ed Brayton, but I am not holding my breath. From what I understand Trent isn't a big fan of motivation speakers who stress the importance of goals such as Zig Ziglar. :) Zig Ziglar lost a lot of weight. Has Trent? To use a favorite saying of Trent, "The proof is in the pudding!". :) Conservative 22:49, 9 May 2013 (EDT) I agree with you Conservative. So many of the evolutionists are fat and living alone. Hell, I'll bet half of the faceless Darwinists that hang around on the internet are in some form of institution. If they would only turn to the power of Creationism run through the QE! blog they would instantly become more popular with the ladies, especially Latinas!!! Care to share some more of your secrets for living well? --DamianJohn 22:57, 9 May 2013 (EDT) Damian, I see you left out an Ole a while ago...and three acutes - here, have these... é, é, é. AlanE 23:08, 9 May 2013 (EDT)Oh, and by the way, Cons. the verb is "breathe", the noun is "breath". You breathe (at least I do) you have a breath. So, it should be "I am not holding my breath", not "I am not holding my breathe" as you wrote above. It's all do to with the wonderful complexities of our beautiful language. I spell this out because I don't want to have to plough (plow) through another 1000+ words of sheds v shreds. Okay? ````
According to most dictionaries, "anyway" is the correct spelling of the word. :-) Wschact 02:09, 10 May 2013 (EDT)I was under the impression that we had agreed upon a more comprehensive policies of using informative titles on the Main Page right, a while back? brenden 13:38, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
Specifically, I think it could be reworded asProminent leftist websites experience drop in traffic According to Alexa, total net traffic for some atheist websites is decreasing... (continue on) brenden 13:41, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
Brenden, I don't think that website has much influence. The intelligentsia certainly don't respect it and I don't think that they have there own Wikipedia article yet. If course, this is quite ironic since the founder of that wiki was booted after he insisted via an edit war that intelligent design is not science because it did not have enough high profile science journals endorsing it (science is not a voting both. For example, Galileo Galilei and Nicolaus Copernicus were in the minority but they were right). In addition, if austerity measures fully hit the Western World which seems likely, I don't think their leftism will be very fashionable. Communism is certainly less popular in Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed economically. Lastly, I couldn't put their crowning achievement on the main page because the topic of colonics would be off-putting to a lot of people. :) Many people are enjoying their Spring in North America, but the editors of that wiki are obsessing about other people's colons. :)Conservative 14:17, 10 May 2013 (EDT)Editors other than "Conservative" - I've got a serious question for you. It's even more difficult to take this site seriously when so many people are doing what is tantamount to trolling. "Conservative" posts something stupid and sometimes even trolls you guys by repeating it on this talk page. You guys predictably post some concern. Here's the question - have you ever once, one single time, ever had a satisfying exchange with "Conservative"? He does not admit fault. He is not humble. He taunts and insults you, calls you names, and raises absurd irrelevant nonsense, anything but responding to you seriously. What is the point of even talking to him? Seriously. Has it ever been a productive use of your time? Just don't do it and you'll find that you can go along and get along a lot better in this world. Get over yourselves and do something better with your time. Nate 14:31, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
Seriously. User:C. All it would take is 20 seconds to highlight the rewording, press Ctrl-C, open up Main page right, and replacing your previous title. brenden 14:33, 10 May 2013 (EDT) Nate, I see the proud, liberal Roman Catholic predictably defends the atheists. You did say you were proud to be a Roman Catholic and then cited some family history and relatives who had some posts in the Roman Catholic Catholic Church, didn't you? The Apostle Paul wrote: "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" - Philippians 3: 3-9. Nate, the Apostle Paul did not emphasize his family line (the flesh) in relation to his religion, why do you? Just admit it. This is a case of my enemies enemy is my friend. Conservative 14:43, 10 May 2013 (EDT)Am I missing something? The graph on the QE blog shows the atheist site is GROWING in popularity.
I checked on Alexa itself and, yes, there it is. The atheist wiki is showing an upward trend.
Then I compared the atheist wiki with this site and I was shocked. Deeply shocked. Even allowing for the blip at the end of last year, this site is trending DOWN and quite dramatically down.
What's more, the atheist site has much higher rankings in Global and US traffic.
I wondered recently if this site had reached a tipping point. The data says "more than likely".
So, instead of endless links to yah-boo-sucks blogs that often backfire - like this one - we should take stock and work out how to stop the rot. Rafael 14:44, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
Rafael, who am I going to believe? You or my own eyes? I can see that the global marketshare of the website has dropped since the beginning of 2013 according to Alexa. Stop making excuses for them. Conservative 14:51, 10 May 2013 (EDT) Brenden, I notice you did not answer my question about your worldview. Just as I suspected! Another public school indoctrinated atheist who can't spell the word atheist due to his substandard schooling! Conservative 14:56, 10 May 2013 (EDT)User Conservative. Can you please post the graph in question here? It's beyond my technical skills.
That way, our colleagues can see for themselves and decide whether my conclusions stands. Rafael 15:07, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
Two questions, What is a voting both and why does being a member of the old established church make somebody a liberal? Insulting RCs won't help fight atheists CamD 15:10, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
Both very good points, User C. I hope the plans for Conservapedia can turn it around and give it some credibility again.
Talking of your global reach, do you remember the Whitehouse petition to stop commemorating Darwin Day? The one you and the QE blog promoted back in January? It barely achieved 100 of the 100,000 signatures needed. It doesn't take an MBA to hear the alarm bells and see the red lights flashing there but has anyone taken stock? Has anyone stopped to work out how it could be better next time around? Or is doubling down the only strategy they know?
By the way, can you please post the graph I asked for? A similar Alexa graph for this site would also be enlightening, but I realise you are a busy man. Rafael 15:47, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
Rafael, you don't need a graph. You can can see for yourself at the blog article. Second, how much was that survey promoted? Did someone post it on the internet and then move on to other things. Many people start things and then don't complete their work. That is very common. What is your point? If you are making a point, I don't think it is a very big one. Bottom line, global creationism is growing rapidly and unlike Darwinism, it is true.[14] Lastly, why are you referring to me/us as you? Also, why are you saying I/we are a "busy man". Do you know the gender of me/us? Do you know my/our schedule today? Conservative 16:16, 10 May 2013 (EDT)I strongly suggest our colleagues follow the QE link and see for themselves. They might also wonder why you didn't want to post the graph for discussion here. Rafael 16:32, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
I suspect Rafael uses the pronoun "You", because typing out I/we or me/us or you/you people is pedantic, and frankly looks as if the person was addressing an imaginary set of people. brenden 17:26, 10 May 2013 (EDT)Brenden, you still haven't said whether you are an atheist yet. Given the deep shamelessfulness of being an atheist, I can understand if you don't want to say that you are. Was this just an oversight on your part? There must be a reason why you are not answering this question. What is it? Conservative 17:52, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu. In all seriousness, my religious views are none of your business, and any further requests about them will be ignored. We are at Conservapedia to build an encyclopedia, not to engage in silly side-shows every time a suggestion or criticism is raised on the Main Page Talk. brenden 23:30, 10 May 2013 (EDT)Here's the current rankings (and logically their impact) for a few websites:
Wikipedia- Alexa Traffic Rank: 6 United States Traffic Rank in US: 8
The - 'Athiest wiki' (RW) - Alexa Traffic Rank: 36,464 United States Traffic Rank in US: 12,452
Creation.com (CMI) Alexa Traffic Rank: 68,730 United States Traffic Rank in US: 22,752
Conservapedia - Alexa Traffic Rank: 69,714 Traffic Rank in US: 19,144
The Question Evolution! Blog - Alexa Traffic Rank: 3,418,874 United States Traffic Rank in US: 494,937
EJamesW 15:25, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
I don't think EJW was talking about you. Rafael 15:59, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
No problem, my/our mistake. Conservative 16:00, 10 May 2013 (EDT) -) Rafael 1632, 10 May 2013 (EDT) By the way, we all know: why a certain website was launched, why they obsessively still focus on CP and why they scurry around like hamsters creating content when I/we point out their Alexa rankings are dropping! Dance gentlemen, dance! And remember, no matter what heights they may achieve in web traffic, it will always be a reflection of how utterly obsessed they are with Aschlafly, lowly me/us (a bondservant(s) of the Most High who mostly cites the work of others in CP articles and has some essays and humor pieces) and with God Almighty! "Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist there is no God." - Heywood Broun Conservative 16:40, 10 May 2013 (EDT) Given that the website site traffic is irrelevant, should the article be removed? Especially since it's about an atheist Web site that matters little. Nine 17:07, 10 May 2013 (EDT)I think it is best left up since it humbles their socially challenged, oversized, atheist, nerd egos. It will serve as a reminder to them of their lowly place on God's earth. In addition, it directs them to the blog article which reminds them that there is more to life than colonics and colons. Conservative 17:41, 10 May 2013 (EDT)
A few things that have me scratching my head a bit about the site...
1. Why is there so much focus on Christianity, atheism, spirituality, secularism, etc. rather than on actual conservative issues? Why are there over 10 "atheism and ____" pages, and yet the page on free market, supply side economic, investment, and other important conservative issues practically untouched?
2. Why are the pages about opposing world views (e.g. liberalism, Keynesian economics, Barack Obama) so much longer and so much more frequently updated than pages about our own views? Conservatism is about so much more than attacking non-conservatives. call me crazy, but I feel that conservative views are strong and substantial enough to stand on their own merit, and informing people of our own view is far more effective than dismantling opposing views.
3. Why is everyone on this site so obsessed with atheism? If someone could answer this without reversing the question to something like "Why are atheists so obsessed with gods?", that would be all the more substantial. Attacking atheism isn't going to get us back the senate and the Whitehouse, and it certainly isn't going to get us out of the recession that was brought on by liberal fiscal policies.
So someone please address these issues so that perhaps the site can really be a good representation of the American conservative world view? KatieKomori 17:19, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
I totally Agree. As a Conservative Atheist sites like these make me disenchanted with conservatism. I wonder when users like Conservative and the owner himself will realize that the silent majority of Atheists are conservative by nature. We believe in looking at what is true and what is not and discerning it for ourselves through independent thought. When looking at politics from an intelligent perspective that looks at all the evidence the result will normally be conservative. it is only the small, yet very loud, minority who are liberals who are anti-religion. I don't care what religion you are so why are some people so insecure that they cannot sleep at night without attacking me for my mere existence. Atheist Conservative rant over. Ryancsh
"For example, I just had an atheist threaten me with hellfire. The atheist said that if my God is real, he hopes I burn in hell. Of course, this "atheist" was an "agnostic" since "atheists" have no proof and evidence that atheism is true. And we know that deep down that "agnostics" and "atheists" know that God exists. For example, children see the world as designed - even in Japan which is largely non-Christian. See: Children see the world as designed
Question: Is there anything more sad and pathetic than an atheist/agnostic threatening a Bible believer with hellfire?
"Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." - Francis Thomson
Please see: 5 truths which cause Darwinists and atheists to fly into uncontrollable bursts of rage
Why do the Darwinists rage? Why do the atheists imagine a vain thing?" Conservative 16:33, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
Indeed. But how is this news? Seriously, can we not have a dedicated question evolution debate page? As for rage, sometimes I think you have a fear of water.--Patmac 17:17, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
I agree with Patmac, this topic seems to always find its way into every talk page, somehow. Shouldn't this be in the evolution talk page, Conservative? KatieKomori 17:23, 11 May 2013 (EDT) Liberal Darwinists, I think you want Christian conservatives to ignore the main weapon against Darwinist/liberal public school indoctrination in 2013. That is not going to happen in 2013. Remember Darwinists and atheists, the religious right and creationists are the potter of the culture war and you are the clay! [15] Why do you have to be so reactionary? Just accept that creationism is growing in the USA, Europe and the world at large and you just have that it will lead to more and more social conservatism.[16][17] The sooner you accept the inevitable, the easier it will be for you to look at the main page and main page talk page. And remember, as soon as you satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists, then you will have the right to complain, but not before then. Conservative 17:56, 11 May 2013 (EDT) Well, speaking as an atheist, the only thing those five "facts" made me fly in to was uncontrollable bursts of laughter. I especially enjoyed the part about how "God can outperform evolutionists and atheists on cognitive flexibility tests and emotional intelligence tests." --EEdwards 18:01, 11 May 2013 (EDT) If you want to call trying to de-noise the site by creating more cohesion between topics "reactionary", then that's your prerogative, I suppose. KatieKomori 18:05, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
I agree with you Conservative, but I as asked, how is this news?--Patmac 18:03, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
My right to complain is exactly what it is, a right, not a condition of answering questions about which I cannot answer because I am not qualified to answer, I would not know where to start. Not that it was a complaint in the first place, it was a suggestion. To cede a point, my answer to question 1. God created it--Patmac 18:12, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
Patmac, my apologies. Personal remark removed you. For example, children see the world as designed - even in Japan which is largely non-Christian. See: Children see the world as designed. "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to little children." - Jesus Conservative 18:20, 11 May 2013 (EDT) So you're determining the validity of your world view by the number of children who believe it? KatieKomori 18:22, 11 May 2013 (EDT) Of course he is. He's a big believer in Santa too. And the monster that lives under his bed. He also has an imaginary friend called "Jesus." --EEdwards 18:24, 11 May 2013 (EDT) Jsuk, a lot of people here believe in an imaginary disorder called Santa Syndrome. It's supposedly a leading cause of atheism, though mention of it in any psychological circles is deafeningly silent. KatieKomori 18:31, 11 May 2013 (EDT)Contrary to belief us Brits are not indoctrinated in evolution, I never learned anything about it. When I was at school at least it was only taught to over 14's after the option to drop subjects. I dropped biology so my knowledge of the subject is limited, I know nothing of DNA other than it is helix-ed and is a code for life. However I can answer 2 of them. Question 1: I believe that God created life, but I am sure evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life so an irrelevant question. Question 13: Again,irrelevant. --Patmac 18:28, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
EEdwards, all true Bible believing creationists would never lie to their children because the Bible says not to lie. It is the compromisers to biblical authority and those who rebel to biblical authority who lie about Santa. By the way, it sounds like you have Santa Syndrome. :) Conservative 23:06, 11 May 2013 (EDT)From #4: "In 2011, only two of the Miss USA beauty pageant contestants thought evolution should be taught in schools. Evidently, most beautiful women find the "Argument from beauty" argument for the existence of God to be quite an attractive argument." See: Argument from beauty.
Taken from: 7 reasons why young earth creationist men get more of the beautiful girls than atheist men
Does anyone know if Beth Ditto is an evolutionist? Conservative 01:18, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
All this reminds me of the guy who slipped and fell from the top of the Empire State Building. As he passed the 100th floor, he thought "it's OK, I haven't hurt myself". At the 99th floor, he thought "so far so good, I haven't hurt myself". At the 98th floor he thought "I don't know what the fuss is about, I haven't hurt myself". At the 97th floor... Rafael 10:08, 12 May 2013 (EDT) Rafael, setting aside your irrelevant comment, is it true that atheist men are less likely to be involved in sports? If you deny this matter, why do you do so? Conservative 10:49, 12 May 2013 (EDT) See the Alexa traffic data above. 96th floor..."I'm OK, I don't see what all the fuss is about". Rafael 11:07, 12 May 2013 (EDT) Rafael, if you don't answer my question above, then you are admitting defeat. By the way, have you figured out yet how many web properties I/we contribute to yet? Conservative 11:13, 12 May 2013 (EDT) Rafael, one last thing, I/we are going to write the content for two web pages today and they are going to posted on the internet tomorrow. If you can oblige, please tell me where they are posted. :) Conservative 11:20, 12 May 2013 (EDT) 95th floor..."I'm not falling, I'm flying!" Rafael 12:54, 12 May 2013 (EDT) I hope the young earth creationist men are not having sexual relations with the beautiful girls. That would be fornication. CamD 13:17, 12 May 2013 (EDT)Rafael, there is one other thing, what do you think of our/my blog that was created on May 4, 2013. Do you like the design? :) "...just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions. He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain." - Sun Tzu. :)
Also, I/we received some encouraging feedback about some new content that I/we created which is being published to the web this week. The review was: "Nice. Sounds good. Strong .....". Have you figured out where it is being published yet? :)
And Rafael, let me know when you find all my/our website/blog content at various web properties. It is going to be challenging! "Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious, he is inaudible. Thus, he is master of his enemy's fate." :) Conservative 13:22, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
The question is does anyone care?. Probably just another worthless blog to spam the news page with. It's funny how spamming links to external sites is a blockable action. But the rules don't apply to you, do they Conservative?--Patmac 13:43, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
For Heaven's sake, has anyone actually read the article? It's clearly a spoof. Whether the Question Evolution blog has been hacked, or whether the whole site is a set-up, I'm not sure, but no one could be writing this sort of thing without their tongue firmly in their cheek.--DHouser 14:02, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
I was wrong to call questionevolution a worthless blog, I am sorry. Evolution, just like any other scientific theory should be questioned. It is not however a valid news source--Patmac 15:28, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
Patmac, for a person who doesn't care what I do, you sure do post a lot to me. Conservative 15:39, 12 May 2013 (EDT) After reading the blog entry in question, I'm happy to crown its author as the undisputed McGonagall of creationist internet evangelism. JohanZ 14:50, 13 May 2013 (EDT)JohanZ, were you on any sports teams in high school? :) Have you ever heard the song "You gotta be a football hero"? :) Conservative 09:43, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
Aye. Played no.4 lock forward for the school and for my local side. Played at U-19s level aged 16 and gave as good as I got. How about yourself? JohanZ 13:38, 14 May 2013 (EDT)Give me a break, the first paragraph of the cited article completely refutes the assertion, Replacing missing teeth with new bioengineered teeth, grown from stem cells generated from a person's own gum cells, is a future method that could be superior to the currently used implant technology, but for now not all required pieces are in place. --NormaN 22:16, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
It was notable enough to be announced on a Scientific website. You're just being bitter.--Jpatt 22:01, 13 May 2013 (EDT) Of course it is notable my good sir, it simply is neither amazing nor a breakthrough. Facts can be stubborn things.--NormaN 21:12, 14 May 2013 (EDT)Here's a partial list of advancements made by using embryonic stem cell research. BlakeJay 10:57, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
Really? Seems more like propaganda than advancements. "Could be" conclusions "might be" , "scientists hope" and more wishful thinking. Nice try.--Jpatt 21:59, 13 May 2013 (EDT) Opening paragraph of the article cited on the main page (emphasis added): "Replacing missing teeth with new bioengineered teeth, grown from stem cells generated from a person's own gum cells, is a future method that could be superior to the currently used implant technology, but for now not all required pieces are in place" Same thing. WilcoxD 00:47, 14 May 2013 (EDT) I understand WilcoxD, you want to point out the hypocrisy. The fact is they are growing teeth with adult stem cells. The teeth are not grown in humans at this point: (emphasis subtracted) If you can show me some other entity already accomplishing this feat I will bow down. --Jpatt 22:09, 14 May 2013 (EDT)Help me out here....what is the "Obama Administration" supposed to admit to? Is Obama now in charge of Boston Homicide? Is the Obama Administration performing the murder investigations now? -Winger77
OK, maybe this will "help" you here: the Obama Administration is investigating Tamerlan Tsarnaev and has his DNA. It also has the DNA from the 9/11 triple-murder. Even liberals are smart enough to realize that the next step is to compare the DNA to solve the crimes.--Andy Schlafly 11:48, 13 May 2013 (EDT) As a lawyer, I am sure that Andy realizes how prejudicial such statements by the President or senior Justice Department officials would be to the pending cases against his brother. Anyone who believes that accused people should receive a fair trial with a minimum of prejudicial pre-trial publicity (as well as anyone who feels some moral compunction to refrain from accusing a dead person who cannot respond to accusations) would not want to see the investigation of the earlier deaths politicized. All Americans want to see the Boston Marathon bombing and any related crimes investigated with professionalism. It may prove to be the case that there was a wider conspiracy which involved earlier acts, perhaps including the prior killings. But, this episode should not be politicized; rather it should be left to law enforcement professionals to handle in a dispassionate manner. Wschact 11:55, 13 May 2013 (EDT) The Obama Administration is the one playing politics with its liberal denial in refusing to admit how Tamerlan Tsarnaev's DNA compares with the DNA of the 9/11 triple-murderer. The DNA almost certainly match, and the public should not be kept in the dark because Obama cares more about his approval ratings than the truth.--Andy Schlafly 14:37, 13 May 2013 (EDT) "the DNA almost certainly match"...well, I guess you got it all figured out then Schafly. Although, what exactly would a be the benefit of keeping America in the dark on this? Wouldn't it be better for the old approval rating that Obama apparently cares about in his final term to announce how he has solved this murder mystery? - Winger77 Andy; your comment that a president should make statements about cases that are sub judice is frankly disturbing. How on earth can the justice system operate if comments are made which prejudice the whole system? And how on earth can you, as a lawyer not know this? As a criminal defence lawyer myself, if a person in authority made a statement indicating my client's guilt, I would have an automatic grounds for appeal, and in some cases the charges would have to be thrown out. --DamianJohn 21:36, 13 May 2013 (EDT)Winger77, your issue aside, don't refer to contributors by their surname.--Patmac 15:49, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
Why should this case be treated differently than any other "cold" homicide case? Assume that there are DNA samples from the tripple murder, and assume that law enforcement is actively pursuing the possibility that more than one person was involved in the tripple murder. Would not the best approach to be to keep the details of the investigation private until additional arrests can be made? Certainly the defense counsel to any person arrested for those crimes or for some conspiracy related to those killings will get access to the DNA test results and to the DNA samples for further testing. Why should CP get worked up about the Obama Administration not taking a high-profile role in a law enforcement matter? This is not worth the front page of CP and is not worthy of "CP proven right." Nobdoy was actively arguing that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was definitely not involved, they were saying that it was too early to tell if he was involved or not. Thanks, Wschact 23:19, 13 May 2013 (EDT) But it is obviously not "too early to tell," and there is no prosecution against Tamerlan Tsarnaev that could possibly be influenced. When you do you think the DNA match should be released by the Obama Administration, if ever?--Andy Schlafly 23:37, 13 May 2013 (EDT) It should never be released by the Obama Administration, that much is obvious. It may be tendered as evidence in a judicial proceeding, including a coronial enquiry and/or a trial. Once tendered into evidence the fact-finder in that instance will be able to make a determination on its probity and accuracy. --DamianJohn 23:46, 13 May 2013 (EDT) The goal is to bring all those involved in any possible conspiracy to justice. It is obvious that two brothers would be unlikely to act alone. We already have three other people who are now in the criminal justice system for aiding them after the fact. It is possible that some person or persons were involved in radicalizing them and possibly aiding them before the fact. It is possible that the conspiracy extended back to 2011 and to crimes committed in that year. All Americans want this investigated by law enforcement professionals rather than a CP posse. Four people are currently facing criminal charges, and we should respect their rights. I would hope that the CP front page would be written from the prespective that all citizens, including those accused of doing terrible things are presumed innocent until proven guilty and that the Constitution with its Bill of Rights must be valued even in the face of horrific acts. A conservative would demand a Constitutional perspective rather than mob rule and trial by internet. Wschact 04:46, 14 May 2013 (EDT) Hear hear. Regardless of your politics, surely one tenant that is absolutely non-negotiable, is that a person accused of a crime is entitled to due process of law, which includes the presumption of innocence. Cases like these are not particularly unique in a country with on average 40 homicides per day. Just let the justice system operate. It is one of the USA's best contributions to the world, and shouldn't be messed with just because you happen to not like the politics of the current administration. --DamianJohn 05:06, 14 May 2013 (EDT) There will not be any trial of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. So is your position that the match of his DNA with the 9/11 triple murders should never be released to the public??? If so, the result would be to keep the public in the dark, and make it more difficult to prevent future recurrence of horrific crimes, just as the Boston Marathon bombing was tragically not prevented.--Andy Schlafly 10:02, 14 May 2013 (EDT) My position is three-fold. (1) It should never be released by anyone other than a relevant judicial body, and in particular should never have anything to do with an elected official of the executive. It is a Judicial matter and should be handled by the judiciary. Turning the criminal process into a political football cheapens the political process and will entirely destroy your justice system. (2) Evidence of a DNA link between a suspect (even a dead one) and a past crime is simply that, evidence. It needs to be weighed and assessed for it's probity by a body capable of doing so. Unlike what you see on TV, in my experience, trials rarely turn on one specific piece of evidence, and releasing one piece of evidence outside it's proper context is likely to have a far more prejudicial than probative effect on any future trial. (3) Releasing evidence of such a technical nature to the public would have literally no effect on the USA's readiness to fight terror in the future. The proper use of any such evidence (if that is what you are concerned about), will be in a coronial or legislative enquiry into shortcomings in the justice system. Unfortunately, given the overly-partisan nature of the USA political scene right now, all we will see is people attempting to score political points and nobody will attempt to fix any procedural shortcomings if there were any (and that very much remains to be shown). I liken the situation to when General Macarthur returned home in 1951 after being sacked by Truman. He came home amid a wave of fury and emotion, all and sundry accusing Truman and others of betrayal and treason and it looked like democracy itself might have been in peril had their been a march on Washington. The reality was coolly shown in a Senatorial enquiry that the positions that the positions that Macarthur was advocating sounded good in a headline, but were not sound given the world political situation (he advocated inter alia nuking China if necessary to win the war in Korea, and was not concerned about the reaction the USSR might take). Much like here, cool heads need to prevail, the criminals should be tried and sentenced in accordance with law, and any evidence relating to those crimes should be handled according to the laws of evidence that are in place. Every defendant, whether they be principle offenders, parties or accessories after the fact are to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and no person in authority should make any statement prejudicing the judicial process. --DamianJohn 17:53, 14 May 2013 (EDT)Andy, Tamerian's brother has been arrested and is facing trial. Three other people who assisted after-the-fact are facing trial. If your theory is true, there may be others who will be arrested and face trial. Shouldn't those trials be fair ones? Thanks, Wschact 11:02, 15 May 2013 (EDT)
Andy seems to have gone quiet on the subject. Are we witnessing the very first time in Conservapedia's history that Andy has changed his mind about something? --DamianJohn 17:54, 15 May 2013 (EDT)Look at this atheist committing the slothful induction fallacy and the fallacy of exclusion in the blog comment section of the blog article HERE. Obviously, he lacks machismo which certainly can mean: an "exhilarating sense of power or strength".[18]. Olé! Olé!Olé! Señor 15 questions for evolutionist! Conservative 13:48, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
94th floor "I'm not falling, I'm rising!" Rafael 14:19, 14 May 2013 (EDT)The whole atheism/creationist debate is a current and serious one but is not going to be won by constantly portraying the opposition as fairies, wimps, bad with girls, fat, of low IQ, immoral etc. Can you not see that these tactics only hurt your position? I know many irreligious men here in my small town who would eat me for breakfast and I am no softy, and some of them have very hot wives or girlfriends, because in my experience some women love a bad boy. I don't see CMI using such tactics,
--Patmac 16:24, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
What creationist ever said that atheists have lower IQs? While it is true that medical science suggests that overweight and obese atheists suffer brain impairment, who said that the atheist population has a lower IQ? Is it not atheists who often falsely claim to have higher intelligence than theists? See: Atheism and intelligence and Brights Movement. If you could support your claim, I would appreciate it. Conservative 20:06, 14 May 2013 (EDT)Every time I read a post of yours my belief in creationism diminishes--Patmac 20:11, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
Patmac, I don't believe you. See: Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation and Atheism and deception and Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality. Conservative 20:15, 14 May 2013 (EDT)Sorry, I can't take any of your articles seriously. Something I wrote earlier but deleted as I did not wish to cause offense but as you have hit the ball into my court, here we go:
See
http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_style
Points 1, 2, 5, (arguably 6) and an inverted point 9 (Shockofgod)
--Patmac 16:24, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
You know what Conservative, I give in, you win, I will not react to your posts anymore unless it is a direct insult of myself or someone/thing I hold dear--Patmac 20:27, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
Patmac, I have pointed out that I don't want your attention and that it is you who keep posting to me. With your repeated cries of attention from me, you are being inconsistent in trying to paint me with liberal style. Conservative 20:37, 14 May 2013 (EDT) Patmac, if evolutionists/atheists/agnostics want to stop being seen as wimps, the solution is so easy. Debate VivaYehshua! Conservative 10:41, 15 May 2013 (EDT) Question for Conservative: why do you lump people who believe in evolution with atheists and agnostics, as if the three groups were interchangeable? As a Roman Catholic who believes that evolution is a well-tested scientific explanation for how life, once already created by God, became diverse, I would certainly object to being lumped in with people who do not believe in God. GregG 10:50, 15 May 2013 (EDT) Conservative can obviously correct me, but my take is this Greg, if you believe that evolution is the mechinism for how life became diverse, you have essentially conceded that Gensis is not literal, as Adam and Eve, as complex humans, could not have been created directly by God. As a result of this, there would be no original sin, which would make Jesus' sacrifice useless, and as a result, make Christianity false. I think Conservative views this as a serious issue, and therefore, if you reject a literal interpretation of Genesis, you are rejecting Christianity, despite your stated religion. --Krayner 11:07, 15 May 2013 (EDT)GregG, I asked you about 2 Peter 3: 3-7 (along with the underlying Greek) before and I don't believe you gave me a satisfactory response in terms of a good faith response and due diligence. The same applies to the 15 questions for evolutionists. I am also not convinced that you do strongly believe in evolution and believe it is well-tested scientific explanation. I have seen to many stubborn and prideful Darwinist posers in my life. Also, you have the evolution article at your disposal which shows it is not well-tested scientific explanation if you look at the article's content, its sources and the recommended resources (external links, etc.). Now you want me to answer your question. Given my current priorities and your past behavior, that is not going to happen.
Lastly, I am not convinced of the sincerity of atheists/agnostics. Many times I have seen Shockofgod ask so called atheists in debates if they thought God was evil. They say yes which means they concede that God exists. If someone asked me if leprechauns are evil, I would say that that I don't believe they exist. I certainly wouldn't say that I believe leprechauns are evil. I think atheism, agnosticism and Darwinism are jokes. And often when you ask people probing questions about their supposed atheism, agnosticism and Darwinism they exhibit the types of behavior associated with people who engage in insincere denialism and/or willful ignorance and stubbornness. They most certainly do not behave like sincere inquirers of the truth. Conservative 17:41, 15 May 2013 (EDT)
@Krayner: I do believe in original sin. I also think that there were original humans who committed the original sin and from whom all humans are descended. @Conservative: I will try to respond point-by-point so that we don't get sidetracked by distractions:GregG, I asked you about 2 Peter 3: 3-7 (along with the underlying Greek) before and I don't believe you gave me a satisfactory response in terms of a good faith response and due diligence.I am not aware of such a request until now (and, unfortunately, since you did not provide a link, I cannot evaluate whether or not you asked me before; please accept my apologies). From my research, it seems the passage treats creation metaphorically. The point of the verse 5 is not a modern scientific explanation of the origin of the Earth (like something from a science textbook); it is an explanation of God's authorship of all creation, written for people living around the 1st to 2nd centuries A.D., about 1500 years before the scientific method, and who, if they knew any science, would likely know Greek "science" such as that of Democritus and Aristotle. With regards to verse 6, I do believe that there was a Great Flood, although the extent may be overstated in the Bible for allegorical effect.
The same applies to the 15 questions for evolutionists.I think I've stated my position on this numerous times, and since you have a knack for writing, I will quote you about why I don't answer/debate the 15 questions: "Given my current priorities and your past behavior, that is not going to happen."
I am also not convinced that you do strongly believe in evolution and believe it is well-tested scientific explanation.It depends on what you mean by "strongly believe in evolution." I do not study biology (as I've said before, my biology expertise spans two years of high school courses, the latter of which was AP Biology), I do not teach biology, and I do not do biological research, so in that sense I guess one can say that I do not strongly believe in evolution. I will say that, based on my understanding of biology and the evidence regarding evolution, it is not a close call for me as to whether evolution is a well-tested scientific explanation.
I have seen to [sic] many stubborn and prideful Darwinist posers in my life.I certainly don't see myself as "stubborn and prideful."
Also, you have the evolution article at your disposal which shows it is not well-tested scientific explanation if you look at the article's content, its sources and the recommended resources (external links, etc.).Turnabout is fair play. You have the TalkOrigins FAQ and website "at your disposal which shows it is ... well-tested scientific explanation if you look at the [page]'s content" and the linked pages and their bibliographies.
Now you want me to answer your question. Given my current priorities and your past behavior, that is not going to happen.I see this as ironic coming from the same party that relentlessly promotes (and possibly authors posts on) a blog where answering questions in a live debate format with a fourth party is a requirement for unrestricted posting of comments.
Lastly, I am not convinced of the sincerity of atheists/agnostics. Many times I have seen Shockofgod ask so called [sic] atheists in debates if they thought God was evil. They say yes which means they concede that God exists. If someone asked me if leprechauns are evil, I would say that that I don't believe they exist. I certainly wouldn't say that I believe leprechauns are evil.I find this passage quite illuminating of Shock's debate style: apparently resorting to loaded questions and trick questions instead of addressing the merits. By the way, from what you describe of the atheist's response, I don't see it as an admission that God exists; I see it as saying "If God exists [possibly with the characteristics attributed to Him in the Bible], then He is evil." I could say "Santa Claus is a generous man" without admitting that he exists.
I think atheism, agnosticism and Darwinism are jokes.I personally think the RIAA, Monsanto, and Microsoft are corporations I think are not behaving as ethically as they ought to be. This doesn't make them interchangeable.
And often when you ask people probing questions about their supposed atheism, agnosticism and Darwinism they exhibit the types of behavior associated with people who engage in insincere denialism and/or willful ignorance and stubbornness. They most certainly do not believe like sincere inquirers of the truth.I can't speak about this as I am not an atheist and do not have regular conversations with atheists about atheism. I will say that I am a "sincere inquirer[] of the truth." GregG 19:16, 15 May 2013 (EDT) GregG, I am not going to spend my time wrangling with Personal remark removed. I made this decision concerning you shortly before I got the above message from you (Your message at 10:50, 15 May 2013) and I decided to limit my interaction with you as much as possible and put the time to better uses. My decision was timely as it will prevent me from wasting a lot of time in yet another unproductive discussion with you. I am sorry to report this to you, but you have not given me a better alternative. Conservative 21:28, 15 May 2013 (EDT)
"And whenever an evolutionist debate opponent backs out of a debate that he agreed to of course that means that the creationist debate opponent won the debate by default. VivaYehshua won the debate by forfeit. It is like a chess match where the opponent tips over his king as his first move!" [19]
When is Fergus Mason going to debate VivaYehshua liked he promised to?Conservative 22:11, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
Mr. Mason is being shown the French pause. :) He knows what he needs to do! Debate VivaYehshua. Conservative 22:51, 14 May 2013 (EDT) Did your big sister used to take care of school bullies for you too? WilcoxD 02:01, 16 May 2013 (EDT)Mr. Mason is bulldog with no teeth. That why he backed out of his debate with VivaYehshua. He knows this, I know this and VivaYehshua knows this. Conservative 02:25, 16 May 2013 (EDT)
There's an easy way for you to prove that, User:C. Seeing as Viva has been banned, why don't you debate me? Viva tells me you're not so good at oral debates, so we can have a written debate here if you like (unless you're, you know, a bit lacking in the old ma-cheese-mo.) Just get Popeye to keep his banhammer in his pocket for a couple of hours and I'll happily wipe the floor with you and your 15 stupid questions. Now that your excuse is blown it's time to put your money where your mouth is and debate me like a man. Otherwise get back down your hole with those bunnies.--Fergus Mason 09:13, 19 May 2013 (EDT)I have searched on how to do this, the closest I got was finding a chat room where he has not be seen for weeks. So instructions on how debate this fellow would be appreciated. Thanks --Patmac 10:37, 16 May 2013 (EDT)
What is the point of your question? Are you just trying to be a Personal remark removed and seeking attention? We know evolutionists quake in their boots at the mere thought of debating VivaYehshua! Let a Darwinist make a debate challenge. Then VivaYehshua will emerge from the fog of creation vs. evolution war and do battle! And remember, the debate must be on creationist terms and certainly not Darwinists terms as their empire is crumbling. See: Infrastructure of Darwinism is crumbling HERE and HERE. Conservative 10:41, 16 May 2013 (EDT) I did make a debate challenge, User:Conservative. I made it to YOU, and you ran away and hid behind Viva and Shock. Are you willing to debate me about your ridiculous questions or not? Don't try the "obscure internet evolutionist" excuse either. You know who I am, whereas you won't even reveal your gender, species or numbers (although we all know EXACTLY who you are, despite your farcical attempts at generating mystery.) So come on: put up or shut up. Either debate me or get back down your hole with the other coprophages.--Fergus Mason 10:17, 19 May 2013 (EDT)I was not addressing you Conservative. Can anyone advise how I can contact VivaYehshua please. Not so much for a debate but to ask him if he knows that his name is being used as a pawn in someone elses crusade--Patmac 11:59, 16 May 2013 (EDT)
Patmac, Viva is one of my Skype contacts. If you like I can ask him if it's OK to give you his contact details. You'll find me on Skype at fergus.mason1. In any case he knows that User:Conservative has been doing this. I did try to debate Viva, although he doesn't like the 15 questions and wanted a general debate about evolution instead, but I kept getting banned by other moderators. That wasn't Viva's fault; he's actually quite a cool guy.--Fergus Mason 09:29, 19 May 2013 (EDT) I believe User:C posted a while ago, a link to a chatroom frequented by VivaYeshua. brenden 13:41, 16 May 2013 (EDT) I hunted through the links and eventually ended up in this chat room which I found near the bottom of this blog post. The people in that room are pretty cool, I stayed a while and had some good conversations. However, they said that VivaYehshua was banned about a month ago and basically said, I'm paraphrasing here, that Conservative should fight his own battles... sorry Patmac, I tried to find an answer to your question. Fnarrow 23:07, 16 May 2013 (EDT)to: Fnarrow, VivaYehshua, a chat room moderator of Shockofgod, was banned from Shockofogod's chat room? I don't believe it. Your claims lack credibility - especially in the light of your absence of evidence presented for your claims. Conservative 23:30, 16 May 2013 (EDT)
I just left the chatroom as well, and great discussions, but VivaYehshua was indeed banned for a month, and Conservative, they did say you should debate on your own. --Krayner 23:36, 16 May 2013 (EDT) Head over there now and ask the Mod named ActuarialNinja he's the one who told me... And many other who were there when it was discussed are still there. I have no desire to debate anyone and therefore have no dog in this fight, I'm just passing the facts along. Fnarrow 23:54, 16 May 2013 (EDT)Should be on main-page-right. brenden 20:21, 16 May 2013 (EDT)
Is it news or more yah-boo sucks from the blogger that can't read a graph? Rafael 12:03, 17 May 2013 (EDT) == Christianity Declining In The UK ==[[20]] I wonder if there's something Conservapedia can do to stop this change JRegden 01:16, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
Faux Christianity (Liberal Christianity) is declining, Bible believing Christianity via immigrants and their children is increasing.[21] Conservative 01:49, 17 May 2013 (EDT)In one word, JReg, no. The will is not here. You and I can do what we can but don't expect any sense, let alone help, here. Rafael 10:53, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
What right have you to label any form of Christianity false? I am Anglican, are you telling me I am not a real Christian? Does respect mean anything to you?--Patmac 11:39, 17 May 2013 (EDT) Patmac, what are your thoughts about David Jenkins, former Bishop of Durham, who called the resurrection a conjuring trick with bones?[22] Is there sound evidence supporting the historicity of the Bible and the divine inspiration of the Bible and Bible inerrancy? See: Biblical archaeology and Bible prophecy and Bible history. Why do you think that liberal Christianity is shrinking within global Christianity? Do you believe in the law of non-contradiction? Do you believe it is possible to ascertain religious truths (Jesus is reported to have said it is possible to know religious truth in the gospels in John 8:32)? Why did Paul and Jesus warn about false teachers and false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing? Have their ever been wolves in sheep's clothing as far as Christianity? Why did the Puritans/pilgrims come to America and did they have a right to publicly disagree with the religious officials/teachers in Europe and say that they were teaching error? Conservative 13:41, 17 May 2013 (EDT)I agree with some of your points but that is not what I asked. I challenge you to give a one word answer. I am Anglican, are you telling me I am not a real Christian? Yes or No--Patmac 13:44, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
Patmac, which points do you disagree with and why? Also, do you think that respect should be automatically given or do you think it is earned and that dishonorable behavior can cause people to be rightfully disrespected? I say this because often the people who demand respect the loudest are the ones who least deserve it. Conservative 13:49, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
Ha, I just knew you could not give a one word answer. Reading between lines though, you do not consider me and my fellow 73 million Anglicans Christian. By extension, and because of the similar doctrine, I take it that you do not consider the circa 1 billion Roman Catholics as true Christians either. What about the hundreds of millions who are members of The Eastern Orthodox churches? Together we make up over 75 % of Christians and close to a quarter of the World's population.--Patmac 14:00, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
To answer some of your points: The Bishop of Durham was wrong and does not represent the majority view. No, I do not believe in Bible inerrancy. The Pilgrim Fathers migrated because they were discriminated against. Until you just mentioned it I had not heard of the law of non-contradiction. Jesus and Paul were both of course correct about the wolf in sheeps clothing, all that glitters is not gold and beware of Greeks' bearing gifts are two similar sentiments. You are correct in calling me theologically liberal and I am secure enough in my faith that I have no need to defend it. I will leave that to the Queen, she is "The Defender of the Faith"
However, back to the point, Am I a Christian? --Patmac 14:00, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
Why would I allow myself to be dragged into a discussion of theologically conservative Protestantism vs. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity or discuss other matters with you, when you have dodged some of my questions above plus displayed illogical behavior on top of this matter. If you are being unreasonable, why would I want to have a protracted discussion with you? Conservative 14:24, 17 May 2013 (EDT) Conservative believes in only the true sort of Christianity as spread in God's chosen country. Anglicans and Catholics are simply wrong. CamD 14:27, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
I HAVE NEVER INSULTED YOUR RELIGIOUS FAITH. And I would never do so. If you can't answer my question perhaps you can ask VivaYehshua to do it for you? --Patmac 14:31, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
I answered some of your points above, take a look. Other points: I have no idea why Liberal Christianity is shrinking.Yes I believe it is possible to ascertain religious truths . As I said above until you mentioned it I had never heard of the law of non-contradiction. Points answered. --Patmac 14:43, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
I have just read your article Cons, at least the bullet points and it does seem logical but I would suggest, and I am really going out on a limb here, that Quantum Mechanics, which is not logical, "seems" to contradict it. This is the best I can do at the moment.--Patmac 15:06, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
Patmac, if want me to continue this discussion, you are going to have to show me via a gesture of good faith that it is worth pursuing the discussion further. Please do some research on why liberal Christianity is shrinking and get back to me. I certainly do not want to spend a lot of time in a discussion with a person who will not accept any reasonable criticisms of Liberal Christianity or could not accept that it could be shrinking due to teaching error, spiritual deadness or other causes indicating its unsoundness. Theologically conservative Protestantism is experiencing explosive growth within the world and within global Christianity and many of its adherents are reporting credible reports of the miraculous (I would be glad to discuss this with you, but first you have to show your gesture of good faith). Conservative 15:10, 17 May 2013 (EDT)I do not want to debate, I want you to answer. I have addressed all your points. Now, do you consider me to be a Christian? Liberal or otherwise?--Patmac 15:15, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
Patmac, please do some research on why liberal Christianity is shrinking and get back to me. I certainly do not want to spend a lot of time in a discussion with a person who will not accept any reasonable criticisms of Liberal Christianity or could not accept that it could be shrinking due to teaching error, spiritual deadness or other causes indicating its unsoundness. Conservative 15:20, 17 May 2013 (EDT)I will do the research but I place my own caveat, that you answer my question. Am I a Christian?--Patmac 15:22, 17 May 2013 (EDT)?
Due to various people wanting more of my time, I will not be reading any talk pages of Conservapedia in 2013, 2014 and 2015. In addition, I will not be posting to any talk pages of Conservapedia as well during this period. Conservative 22:44, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
JohanZ 23:17, 17 May 2013 (EDT) So there is just one of you? Rafael 01:38, 18 May 2013 (EDT) This illustrates my previous observation about competing demands on the valuable time of volunteers. No volunteer can contribute at a peak level for a long period of time. There is always the danger of burn out or other deferred time commitments catching up with the volunteer in the long run. That is why we should have a three person committee editing and updating the Main Page. Each member would serve for 9 months and then rotate off, with the terms staggered, so that every calendar quarter, one new committee member would join and one would rotate off. If there is a disagreement between the members, it would be decided by a majority vote of the three. This would allow other editors to make suggestions on this page about the Main Page and be assured of a fair and prompt consideration of the input. It would also result in greater civility, because everyone would know that they may have a turn in the "hot seat" and would not launch into intemperate language out of frustration. Since User:Conservative is not available to respond to this page and to edit the Main Page at the expense of "people wanting more of his time", I believe this is the ideal time to implement the Committee approach. Thanks! Wschact 18:27, 18 May 2013 (EDT)I thought a little bit about User:Conservative's announcement, and while I was at first very annoyed (see here), I'm now taking it cum grano salis:
I assume that someone advised User:Conservative neither to provoke fights at talk-pages nor let himself drawn into those. In one of his strange face-saving maneuvers, he decided to make the absurd announcement above. Over time (i.e., the next few days) we will get back to some kind of normal routine...It would be nice if I were wrong and User:Conservative graduated from University in three years time, stating in his address as valedictorian that this was only possible because he put the time he gained by ignoring talk-pages to good use. --AugustO 09:06, 21 May 2013 (EDT)
I/we underestimated the amount of speculation my announcement would cause. Plus, I/we will confess that I/we was/were a little curious about the reaction it would cause and took a few peeks as far as the reaction. In doing so, I/we saw that GregG was being taken to task over his unbiblical views about the Great Flood which pleased me/us greatly. :)
Some clarification:
I/we do have some people who are asking me/us for more of their time for various reasons. In addition, I/we set some new goals for myself/ourselves. New goals often require new priorities be set. Next, nobody advised me/us to establish this new policy which will be in effect until 2016. It was done on my/our own initiative and without influence from other parties. Conservative 16:16, 24 May 2013 (EDT)
What strength of character! What self-discipline! What magnanimousness! Not. --AugustO 16:28, 24 May 2013 (EDT) AugustO, from this point onward you will see User: "ironwill" Conservative perform a feat of wiki willpower that will be completed January 1, 2016! Second, when a proud man receives a comeuppance for trying to turn a Great Flood into a not so Great Flood, it is only fitting that Bible believers be pleased. :) Conservative 19:25, 24 May 2013 (EDT)They should pray more. CamD 09:43, 18 May 2013 (EDT)
Did they suffer some kind of overload following the announcement above? BBRodriguez 21:47, 18 May 2013 (EDT)Can anyone tell me what orbital regression software was used in these calculations? I didn't see it mentioned in the article and I can't find any way to make the claims fit the actual physics. Thanks, Fnarrow 10:13, 18 May 2013 (EDT)
Could someone trim this headline into oblivion?
Baa3 is a good, but not a very impressive rating! Other nations which are often bashed as being secular by User:Conservative have much better ratings, like Sweden or the UK. From the link „ The Islamic anti-evolution campaign is taking place in Turkey, and not Egypt or Saudi Arabia, because it is the Muslim nation where evolution has been taken most seriously.” So, maybe Turkey will become a world leader in anti-evolutionism, but it isn't there yet. „Imagine how it would be doing if it adopted the Christian creationism over Islamic creationism.” Imagine what could happen if pigs could fly! That's not news...--AugustO 03:07, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
Who are you talking to August? Remember that Conservatve will not read any talkpages in the years 2013,2014 and 2015. I have my suspicions that by 2016, new events will have taken our attention. --DamianJohn 03:16, 19 May 2013 (EDT)I'm asking for any sysop to remove this item. It gets even worse when it is in juxtaposition with the new one „The UK has just had one lost economic decade, and it's about to enter a second. When is the UK going to remove Charles Darwin off its currency? ”: the UK's Moody-ranking is Aa1, while the ranking of Turkey is Baa3 - still behind Bulgaria!
BTW: I think it is absurd that someone who doesn't read this talk page is allowed to make edits to the main page: how does he expect a simple typo to be corrected? --AugustO 05:46, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
I am in two minds about that. On the one hand you make a good point about typographical and other corrections, but then I understand that Conservative is an extremely busy person who is making significant progress in the battle against the Darwinistic agenda. --DamianJohn 06:37, 19 May 2013 (EDT) 100 percent agree AlheeG 07:51, 19 May 2013 (EDT)Yeah of course. the economic problems in the UK are all caused by having Darwin on its currency. No other country has Darwin on is currency , whats their excuse? What is America's excuse? For over half a decade Conservative has been spreading his hatred on Conservapedia, when is Mr Schlafly going to ban him? When is Mr Schlafly going to realise this man is destroying Conservapedia's reputation? How long is he going to be allowed to post articles that would land him a criminal charge in many western democracies, all on a supposedly family focused encyclopedia? I bring up a post(s) from Conservative where he states The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is gay bathhouses! and By the way, is your "liberal Christianity" "pastor" a lesbian or sodomite? http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Enforceable_rules_for_sysop_conduct Theses phrases are borderline criminal and have no place on a family focused encyclopedia. I would suggest his rhetoric is better suited on the Westboro Baptist Church's website--Patmac 11:58, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
Can everyone agree that reading Talk:Main Page and responding to concerns noted here is an integral part of editing the Main Page. That is, no person should be allowed to edit the main page if they refuse to read this page, or lack the time to read this page. Thanks, Wschact 23:55, 20 May 2013 (EDT)HSBC thinks that he is in some way qualified to tell the governer of the Bank of England how to run things. Perhaps if he spent more time stopping his bank laundering drug and terrorist money then more intelligent people may pay more attention to his protestations as opposed to the easily duped and led. Davidspencer 12:40, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
The whole article should be taken with a pinch of salt. Lost decade? Until HSBC and the corporate socialist comrades ran the global economy aground in 2007, the British economy was doing quite well. Osborne's austerity measures are not enough? There's some evidence that it's those very measures, with their obsession with ecoomic liberalism, that are hamstringing a recovery. Wealth inequality is a problem but we shoudn't do anything about it? He would say that, wouldn't he. The hard reality is that nothing is going to change until HSBC and the rest of the corporate comintern stop feeding at the taxpayers trough. Rafael 15:00, 19 May 2013 (EDT) Oh I know Rafael, it's utter rubbish. If this person, who has been Group Chief Economist at HSBC since 1998, says anything I suggest that everyone treats it with a pinch of salt the size of the Cheshire Plain. This man has been Group Chief Economist at HSBC during the time that the company almost went bankrupt and was involved in laundering money for drug runners worldwide resulting in the bank being fined hundreds of millions of pounds in multiple countries for breaking the law, this and this being just 2 examples. They were fined 1.9 BILLION DOLLARS by the US authorities but User:C thinks that the man in charge whilst all this law breaking was taking place is someone worth listening to? Ridiculous quite frankly. Davidspencer 15:40, 19 May 2013 (EDT) Incidentally, it's a good job that user:c is so busy he can't read any talk pages otherwise he may have spent most of his day editing here at Conservapedia. Davidspencer 16:20, 19 May 2013 (EDT)... is today. --AugustO 15:35, 19 May 2013 (EDT)
I see that Conservative blocked someone today for edits he did not even read! In fact he seemed to take pride in it. I think that these two may have some history based on Conservative's behavior, but is this kind of banning normal? Am I likely to be banned for using a talk page too much as well? BBRodriguez 08:17, 20 May 2013 (EDT)
It happened again! Someone else replied to my topic and was immediately banned for talk page edits he didn't even read!Would think that the absolutely horrible devastation caused by the Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma would be worth a mention on your main page and maybe a link to donate to Red Cross appeal for it.
Praying for the Oklahoma victims would be a better suggestion - which I will do personally now.--Andy Schlafly 10:12, 21 May 2013 (EDT) He that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him: how doth the charity of God abide in him?Nonsense. Christ admonishes us to pray in private and love our neighbors. Christ truly loves a gift of charity. Show me where He favors prayer for our brothers and sisters over helping them in their time of need. Nate 13:01, 21 May 2013 (EDT)
It's great to give to the unfortunate and poor (which is not necessarily the same as the Red Cross). But that is not what Jesus did. Jesus prayed, often publicly, for people.--Andy Schlafly 13:33, 21 May 2013 (EDT) Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
(Matthew 25:34-46, Douay-Rheims) (This reminds me that I should also create an article on the works of mercy [23].) GregG 18:23, 21 May 2013 (EDT)The Bible quotes are great. Jesus expressly talked about the Great Flood, and how people misbehaved right up until the Flood occurred. See Luke 17-24 (Translated)#17:27. Do you think Jesus was somehow wrong, and liberal denial right?--Andy Schlafly 23:17, 21 May 2013 (EDT)
Jesus is incapable of lying. I do think a Great Flood occurred, but I don't think the Bible is making a scientific statement as to the precise details of the flood but is rather (in this case) using literary techniques that the people to whom it was first written would be familiar with. My personal opinion is that based the scientific evidence we have, it's not likely that the flood occurred with the precise details specified in the Bible. GregG 23:24, 21 May 2013 (EDT) EDIT I also find it intriguing that User:Conservative posted several stories about the Great flood immediately after Mr. Schlafly and I were discussing it, even though User:Conservative says that he no longer reads these pages. GregG 00:06, 22 May 2013 (EDT) Jesus is quoted in describing the Great Flood. Is the quotation authentic in your view, or not? Liberal denial is a stubborn thing, but logically there is no reason to deny the authenticity of the quote, or the Flood itself.--Andy Schlafly 20:00, 22 May 2013 (EDT) I believe that the entire Bible, including the Deuterocanonical books and the entirety of the four Gospels, is authentic. This, of course, does not mean that Jesus is making literal statements every time he speaks. Indeed, in John 11, Jesus speaks metaphorically at first about Lazarus's death and then, when the disciples misunderstand, clarifies that Lazarus has died: These things he said; and after that he said to them: Lazarus our friend sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him out of sleep. His disciples therefore said: Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. But Jesus spoke of his death; and they thought that he spoke of the repose of sleep. Then therefore Jesus said to them plainly: Lazarus is dead. (John 11:11-14, Douay-Rheims) GregG 20:00, 23 May 2013 (EDT)Andrew Schlafly, could you give some examples for this? As far as I know, Jesus prayed privately, as he taught his pupils:
But you, when you pray, go into your private room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father Who is hidden, and your Father, who sees in a hidden manner, will reward you openly. Matthew 6:6 (CBP)
Yes, Jesus gave thanks publicly and made public blessing, but he prayed in private...
--AugustO 02:10, 22 May 2013 (EDT)
This quote is taken out of context. Why didn't you include the context, by which Jesus was urging people not to be like liberals?--Andy Schlafly 20:02, 22 May 2013 (EDT) „Why didn't you include the context, by which Jesus was urging people not to be like liberals?” I just assumed when talking about iconic verses with knowledgeable Christians that they would recognize the verse and therefore the context: the Sermon on the Mount. „This quote is taken out of context.” In which way does the context change the meaning of the verse? Pray in private vs. don't behave like a liberal: pray in private - what difference does this make to the validity of the advice? I'd rather like an answer to my question above: Andrew Schlafly, could you give some examples of Jesus praying, publicly, for people? --AugustO 01:05, 23 May 2013 (EDT)The item at the top of the front page reads, "Associate of Tamerlan Tsarnaev confessed that they did the 9/11 anniversary triple-murder. But then the associate is shot dead by an official, and liberal denial persists about Tamerlan's murderous past." I have not seen any evidence of any "liberal denial" on this issue. We already discussed above that neither liberals nor anybody else was arguing that Tamerlan definately was not involved in the killings, but rather felt that it was premature for law enforcement to announce that he was involved. Now, there are wide-spread press reports saying that Tamerlan's friend admitted that he was involved, before he was shot. I would remove the "liberal denial" comment at the end of the item. I believe that both liberals and conservatives agree that the Constitutional presumption of innocence requires that the government should be careful when disclosing information while people are facing trials. That is completely separate from liberal denial, and the front page item is not a good example where liberal denial can be criticised. Thanks, Wschact 04:34, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
I would have thought that this new information (if it is true) is validation of the reasons why the DNA results should not have been released. How would you like to explain to the public that because you prejudiced a trial for political gain, a murderer would have to be set free? It isn't something that I imagine would be pleasant. --DamianJohn 05:14, 23 May 2013 (EDT) Aside from a sense of fairness, main stream media are very careful about the reporting of pending criminal proceedings out of a sense of self-preservation. A key to the long-term survival of a media organization is avoiding defamation lawsuits from those accused of a crime or their families. I hope that CP will be around for a long time, and has proper procedures in place to avoid making unsubstantiated accusations of specific individuals committing criminal acts. Thanks, Wschact 14:05, 23 May 2013 (EDT)Racist "fried chicken" remark + some very twisted logic = Obama calling a woman heckler a "young lady"
only on Conservapedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winger77 (talk)
I looked at the video: Barrack Obama addressed the woman as "Madam" - a male heckler would certainly be addressed as "Sir" - and he said about her: The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to. Obviously I do not agree. Yes, he said „cut the young lady some slack”, but while the lady was certainly out of her teens, that seems to be quite mild, compared to paternalistic, sexist references which you can find on the main page of Conservapedia, like: Also, many of their atheist nerd editors still lose ladies to creationist men! So, I'm quite baffled by this news item - surely, I don't understand the subtleties of American politics. --AugustO 18:28, 23 May 2013 (EDT) Had the same remark been by, say, Todd Akin, the liberal media would be smearing him now. Does anyone seriously think that Sergio Garcia is a racist, as the liberal media almost imply?--Andy Schlafly 19:16, 23 May 2013 (EDT) Probably not, although it was a stupid thing to say. I don't understand the whole fried chicken business, but I do know it is a remark calculated to offend, even if it doesn't necessarily mean that the speaker himself is racist. One of nasty, petulant or rash would be more appropriate to describe Garcia. Still, I have no idea why you think Obama was being misogynistic in the slightest. I think it is ironic as someone who calls out "double standards" whenever the media give a liberal an easy time on something you seem to be very tough on liberals for things you wouldn't care about had they been done by conservatives. --DamianJohn 19:47, 23 May 2013 (EDT)I take offence to this article and strongly request it's removal--Patmac 12:24, 26 May 2013 (EDT).
I agree. I also think that these edits are unacceptable, and unbecoming of an administrator, no matter what rank. brenden 18:25, 26 May 2013 (EDT)As a daily reader for well over two years now, I repeatedly see the phrases liberalism is declining Evolutionary belief is crumbling and today's declaration the secular left is collapsing . . . and yet there seems to be no predicted liberal apocalypse (my own words). None of the sources point to anything that hasn't been going on for a while already, and if my opinion matters, the liberal/conservative balance seems to be quite steady, has been for a while, and seems to be for the future?
Polling shows gains for conservative truths among the public. Liberal beliefs have virtually collapsed in several key areas, such as gun control. global warming, and communism. Pro-abortion views are declining among youth. The phony theory of evolution is being questioned far more than before.--Andy Schlafly 09:14, 27 May 2013 (EDT) It makes perfect sense to me, guessing you where not reading it properly or you where drunk/impared. - WarickWhy do people deny global warming? The only thing I can think of is that it would hit them financially. --Patmac 16:41, 27 May 2013 (EDT)
Sometimes people act against their own interests. Just think of Lenin and the Mensheviks. Rafael 08:33, 28 May 2013 (EDT) Perhaps someone will write an article or essay on the Decline of Liberalism and give the long-term data. I have not found short-term data to support the claim. Both "liberal" and "conservative" public policy positions evolve over time with events. In the 1920s conservatives were arguing in the United States for temperance and the prohibition of alcohol, and liberals were arguing for legalizing alcohol. In the 1960s, conservatives were arguing for an aggressive war in Southeast Asia, while liberals were arguing for a withdrawal from Viet Nam. Eventually, public policy debates get resolved, without either side "crumbling" -- they just move on to other issues that they believe are more important to the country. Wschact 06:38, 28 May 2013 (EDT)Google also estimates 150,000,000 search results for the search "creationism and just so stories".
To be fair, better targeted searches would be 'evolution "just so stories"' and 'creationism "just so stories"', which get 139,000 and 101,000 respectively.
To be fairer still, such searches make no indication of whether a website article approves of or dismisses the concept searched for, so these sort of hit counts are of little use in get a feel for popular opinion on either matter. --DHouser 10:14, 27 May 2013 (EDT)
Does Conservapedia think (or hope) that people do not actually click on the links and read them? A quarter of that 54% oppose the law because it's doesn't do far enough ("not liberal enough")....basically, approximately 60% either approve Obamacare or think it should be expanded. While "According to the survey, 35 percent of Americans said they are opposed to Obamacare because they believe it's too liberal" - Winger77
0 comments:
Post a Comment