Conservapedia - An encyclopedia you can trust

I wish Schlafly posted about sports every day:

Completely unseeded players have won grand slam women's tennis titles (singles) roughly 10% of the time since 2007. In light of how many players are seeded, that casts doubt on the ability of experts to predict the winner.

And on the men's side, the winner is not from the top two seeds often enough, which likewise casts doubt on the expert opinions.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

25% of the entered players winning 90% of the time is pretty good

Schlafly sez that Murray lost to Federer in the final last year because atheist Britain didn't pray hard enough

Another bust of a Hollywood movie: $150 million loss for "Lone Ranger." [17] The public doesn't want liberal claptrap.

"Atlas Shrugged"
Budget:$8,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend:$1,686,347 (USA) (15 April 2011)

$6.3 million loss. The public doesn't want conservative claptrap.

god lone ranger was basically inconvenient truth 2 eh

conservapedia otm

Tom Brady — has relatively weak throwing strength, which makes him less effective when there is a good pass rush that forces him to throw while moving. But the media over-promote Brady because he says so little of religious value.

LOL

If liberals really thought Fidel were still alive, then why aren't they calling for Obama to meet him???--Andy Schlafly 12:44, 17 August 2013 (EDT)

Brady requires almost perfect pass protection (from players like Logan Mankins and Matt Light) in order to do well, because his throwing arm is relatively weak and he can only pass well when stationary and upright. When the opponent has a strong pass rush, as the Giants and Ravens do, then Brady underachieves. The addition of the pro-life Tim Tebow to the Patriots in 2013 gives the coach the option to switch to a passer who can perform better under pressure and allows the Patriots to utilize the popular spread offense against archaic, liberal teams like the New York Jets.

If liberals really thought Fidel were still alive, then why aren't they calling for Obama to meet him???--Andy Schlafly 12:44, 17 August 2013 (EDT)

the logic is unassailable

Matt, you should be contributing to this particular topic of the RationalWiki

Conservapedia proven right, again: "7.2 Magnitude Earthquake Rocks The Philippines." [9] Liberal denial refuses to admit that big earthquakes are increasing, and it's not caused by global warming.

I'm lost in double negs, there.

Donald George Bradman (27 August 1908 - 25 February 2001) was an Australian cricketer who is an overrated sports star. His greatest success came during the tour of England in 1930 when he made scores of 8, 131, 254, 1, 334, 14 and 232. The series aggregate of 974 is the highest ever achieved. He retired from cricket in 1948 with a Test average of 99.94 (more than 30 runs higher than other great batsman) and with 29 centuries in just 52 Tests. In 1949 he was knighted for his services to cricket and in 2000 was selected as one of five Wisden Cricketers of the Century, getting 100 votes out of 100. Bradman used an unusual batting technique and had difficult relationships with his team-mates. He never truly mastered batting on sticky wickets.

and there was that series when Larwood and Voce bowled 100mph bouncers at his head the whole time and he only averaged 57 or so lol

Sachin Tendulkar - The lamestream media, especially in India, treat him almost as a god but he went for over a year without scoring a century in international cricket matches and he isn't ranked among the top ten batsmen. Faced tricky questions about avoiding import tax on a Ferrari sports car.

Conservapedia, your trusted source for non-lamestream cricket fact.

nice that there's somewhere else dedicated to opposing the sinister Indian plot to control cricket history and it's not just my Dad

maybe yr dad is a Conservapedia editor

if you'd seen him struggle to get into his own Facebook account you'd appreciate why i just lolled at work

Would've thought Conservapedia would be on the side of the tax avoider myself

heh

Lamestream science, like the lamestream media, is characterized by senseless reversion to atheistic or liberal theories rather than genuinely considering and publicizing the truth. A style of lamestream science is to ignore and deny every new piece of evidence that disproves the atheistic or liberal theory. Another style of lamestream science is the outright dismissal of any scientific insight that is based on the Bible.
Examples of lamestream science

1. The liberal atheistic theory of Darwinian Evolution
2. The theory of Relativity, several deep problems of this theory remain inadequately addressed in the science community.
3. Global warming a proven liberal hoax even under its liberal euphemistic nickname climate change.
4. Much of geophysics is distorted by liberals in order to preserve their belief in an old earth. A good example of this is radiometric dating which has been proven to be unreliable many times by Christian scientists.
5. Cosmology is also often distorted by liberals in order to provide counter-examples to creationism. For example, the evidence that the speed of light varied in the past is overlooked or dismissed by lamestream scientists because it does not fit their atheistic viewpoints.

http://conservapedia.com/images/c/c7/Chopping_down_evolutionary_belief.jpg

For example, the evidence that the speed of light varied in the past is overlooked or dismissed by lamestream scientists because it does not fit their atheistic viewpoints.

wait waht

i know i want to investigate this

it's a big thing with them, because the speed of light, if constant over time, is just game over for a young universe

i get why it's a thing for them, i am interested in exploring the evidence, please tell me it involves Moses or something

ah I see so by altering the speed of light you can fit the bible's chronology into the lifespan of the universe. Makes perfect sense!

Creationist Barry Setterfield has proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past. [9] This idea initially found wide acceptance by creationists, but is now widely rejected, although some still hold to the idea.
One criticism of it by anticreationists was that if the speed of light had changed, we should see the difference in the Fine Structure Constant as measured by nearby stars versus distant stars, but this was not observed. Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant may indeed have changed. They subsequently published this in Physical Review Letters.[10][11] However, although this showed that mainstream scientists are open to new and controversial ideas, the methods Webb used were shown to contain simple flaws, which discredited the results. [12]. A later study of 23 absorption systems using the 'Very Large Telescope' found no measurable changes.[13].
These problems with the theory have led most creationists to drop the idea, although some credit it with stimulating further research.[14]. Systematic uncertainties are difficult to quantify and so Webb's results still need to be checked by independent analyses, using quasar spectra from different telescopes. Their efforts are ongoing, apparently by several different teams of scientists.

angels something something Jesus something something = speed of light not constant over time

aww no it's mathsy and has some bearing on actual science, boooo

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html

hold onto your hat

One of the attacks concerned Einstein’s special relativity, E = mc2 and the like. (If c is a billion times greater in the past, then E would be a billion billion times greater, so would not a campfire be like an atom bomb, and so on?) Critics at the time used this to mock CDK, but Setterfield answered that rest mass itself is inversely proportional to c2, so that energy is still conserved. He also claimed that there is experimental evidence that the charge to mass ratio of an electron has been decreasing (supporting his claim that mass has increased as c2 has decreased). But as usual, the skeptics, along with ‘progressive creationist’ (long-age) astronomer and ardent ‘big bang’ advocate, Dr Hugh Ross,5 kept repeating this claim as if Setterfield hadn’t thought of this and answered it. Whether one agrees with his answer or not, it was improper to ignore it (or perhaps his critics, lacking any qualifications in physics, didn’t understand it).

it's better than if it were strictly theological. it's truly terrible science by people who understand the basic principles but have to try to find a way to fit the basic principles into an existing non-scientific framework. it's just the best really

that New Scientist link appears to be a bit more credible i think, but my first not-very-physicsy thought is that this stuff cd be like pre-Copernican epicycles, a mathsy attempt to save some phenomena or something

the roman solider (?) is a weird choice to chop down the tree of evolution.

this is long but worth it

Randy S. from the United States writes in response to Dr John Hartnett’s book review Heretic challenges the giants!:

On to your reference #1:
1.”The starlight-travel-time problem could stilled be explained with a supernaturally imposed time dilation event on Day 4 of Creation Week when God created the Universe. I first suggested this … .”
However what you have failed to successfully explain is, 1) how our local system containing the miraculously created earth, Sun, and planets could possibly have been spared from complete vaporization caused by the enormous heat and harmful cosmic radiation generated by your Day 4 cosmic expansion event, and 2) how that event is anything short of a big bang in and of itself! (The question naturally arises: Why is ok for God to be involved in your big bang, but not the one standard cosmology asserts at the opening creation moment of everything?)
But Humphrey’s new model has the very same problem. The moment he mixes ‘timelessness’ and matter, he has conceded a big bang. Though he imagines a peaceful 13 billion year expansion, he has nonetheless postulated an enormous locally-if not cosmically-explosive situation.
By the way, is the creationist public fully aware that both your models contain the germ of vast eons of cosmic evolution, just like the standard big bang model? After all, you both assert the existence of galaxies, galaxy clusters, superclusters, and cosmic superstructures over 13 billion years old at the universe limits. Only our local system is truly 6000 years old to you.
Shaun Doyle responds:

It’s not a problem if God causes a time dilation event supernaturally. He is obviously going to take care of any natural consequences of any supernatural action he does because he supernaturally created the world to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18). The difference between the Humphreys and Hartnett cosmologies and the orthodox big bang cosmology is that Humphreys and Hartnett base their understandings on a natural reading of Genesis 1 whereas the big bang doesn’t fit with the picture of Genesis 1 (See Christian apologists should abandon the big bang).

The earth is the obvious focal point for the creation account, so it’s a valid reference frame to use for the time indicators in Genesis 1. That doesn’t preclude time moving faster elsewhere in the universe. All those processes still truly took place during one day on Earth, regardless of how fast or slow they took place elsewhere.

But the so-called light-travel-time ‘problem’ is only a problem if creationists are constrained to explain Day 4 of the Creation Week naturalistically.

these are all from creation.com btw not conservapedia, though I got to the former via a link from the latter presented as support for a claim

look guys, this is really quite simple

time is relative

therefore speed of light (distance travelled by light over TIME) is relative

now, we know from the BIBLE that adam and eve were the wellspring and source of all human life (AND THEY WEREN'T NO MONKEY'S HYUK HYUK)
and therefore all human life on earth since the garden of eden has been RELATED

it follows that since that TIME, LIGHT has been experienced on EARTH at a different SPEED than elsewhere in the UNIVERSE (because there was no RELATIVITY there)

Speed Of Light

Fri Dec 28 05:28:27 GMT 2007 by Joshua Wilson

I loved this article - it confirms the message given to the prophet Rael in 1973 by our extra terrestrial creators, the Elohim!

Chuck Norris endorses the Total Gym exercise system.[37]

― Matt Armstrong, 03 February 2011 23:32 (2 years ago)

another on the long list of products that i used to sell in my callcentre nightshift/college days- this one wasn't bad tho tbf

Secret fat cats fund the left wing of the Republican Party and Karl Rove-founded groups, including massive checks as big as $22.5 million. [20] How much of the secret funding of Crossroads GPS is from pro-aborts?

39% is the new record low for Obama's approval rating. [47] And this time he can't release a phony birth certificate to halt the decline.

If Barack Obama ate less cheeseburgers and greasy fries and set a better example, perhaps less people in America would be sick. Doctors wonder why Obama sets such a bad example in his photo-ops.[22]

They're not even trying now, are they? Also, "fewer," godsdammit.

Tim Tebow, a devout Christian dismissed by the media, led the Denver Broncos to the playoffs his first season as a starter, and was inexplicably traded to the New York Jets, who preferred to play "expert" quarterback Mark Sanchez, costing them the season and finishing a pathetic 6-10. Tebow was again rejected by the New England Patriots in favor of "expert" quarterback Tom Brady. The team performed poorly in the first quarter of the 2013 season, with Brady playing at a mediocre level of play.

They didn't even source that last claim! I'm beginning to question the depth of research here.

No one in the liberal media or anywhere else stopped the fake interpreter.--Aschlafly 11:38, 11 December 2013 (EST)

Liberals run the media and controlled the event. Some conservatives surely did notice, but conservatives had no authority over the telecast or the event. And some liberals may have noticed too, but they won't publicly say something that is politically incorrect or embarrassing to fellow liberals.--Aschlafly 12:16, 11 December 2013 (EST)