Thursday, January 3, 2013

2013 is starting off to be a BAD year for Darwinism. Study shows that the world's biggest pro-evolution website is driving away newcomer editors! Also, video shows evolutionists at Wikipedia are clowns!

The evolutionists at Wikipedia continue to make a big mess! Wait until you hear about a study concerning Wikipedia. In addition, we feature a video below which shows that the evolutionists at Wikipedia are clowns!

On October 5, 2012, we did a post entitled Making 2013 be the WORST year in the history of evolutionism, atheism and agnosticism - a quick introduction .  It's only January 3, 2013 and already it is starting out to be a BAD year for Darwinism!

Wikipedia is an free online pro-evolution encyclopedia that was founded by an atheist and an agnostic. It is the biggest and most well trafficked website which has recently loss global market share according to Alexa. See: Evolutionists at Wikipedia have created a "broken, disorganized mess". Loses 20,000 editors in 5 years

Alexa web traffic graph of Wikipedia

A recent study shows that Wikipedia, is driving away newcomer editors: Study: Wikipedia is driving away newcomers

The USA Today reported on January 3, 2013:
Old editors, impersonal rejection and restrictive rules are driving newcomers away from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, report behavioral scientists.

Wikipedia, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," was launched in 2001 and now contains some 23 million articles, according to its own entry.

However, new rules instituted in 2007 to increase the website's quality have driven vital new volunteers away from the effort, report computer scientists led by Aaron Halfaker of the University of Minnesota in a new study in the American Behavioral Scientist journal. Wikipedia had 50,000 English-language edition editors in 2006, and now has about 35,000, they report...

Wikipedia has changed from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection, and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit," conclude the study authors.

On top of this, Quora appears to have Wikipedia in its cross hairs for 2013. See:  The biggest and most trafficked pro-evolution website is going to be in the cross hairs in 2013 

If it's on Wikipedia it must be true! Fossil Fiasco Still Looking for the Missing Link

2012 and 2013: BAD years for evolutionism and evolutionism 

2012 and 2013 and our Question Evolution! group


Making 2012 be the WORST year in the history of Darwinism

2012 has been a very BAD year for Darwinism and atheism just like we predicted!

2012 has been a very BAD year for Richard Dawkins's website according to Quantcast

2012 is shaping up to be a BAD year for atheism and evolutionism! Great new charts and developments!

Why are the years 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?

2013 and our group's plans:

Making 2013 be the WORST year in the history of Darwinism.

Making 2013 be the WORST year in the history of Darwinism. - Part 2

Creationist bloggers vs. evolutionist bloggers - Creationist bloggers will triumph!

Question Evolution! Campaign resources and other resources

Question Evolution! Campaign

15 questions for evolutionists

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 1 - Questions 1-3

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 9-15

Creation Ministries International Question Evolution! Videos


  1. How does the fact that a horse and a donkey make a sterile offspring disprove evolution? That's exactly what evolution says would happen when two similar but separate species mate, the offspring would be sterile. I don't understand the point made in this video.

    1. Timothy,

      The purpose of the video is to show how ridiculous the Wikipedian evolutionists are. Artist renditions to "support" Darwinism and other such nonsense is not compelling.

      Second, are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: )
      via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

      If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room:,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at

      If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

      There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.

  2. Thanks for not answering my simple question and threatening to ban me from your blog if i don't submit to your "debate". Not too interested in a free flow of ideas are you?

    1. Timothy,

      Are you saying those artistic renditions at Wikipedia were compelling? The post was clearly focusing on Wikipedia and the video adequately showed the foolish behavior of Wikipedia editors with their artistic renditions and other weak evidence.

      I certainly don't have to take the position that mules disprove evolutionism.

      Secondly, I am interested in the free flow of ideas. I am giving you the opportunity to present your evolutionist ideas to tens of thousands of people. If you felt confident in your evolutionism and were not merely one who had "evolutionary gut feelings" or a poser, then surely you would accept this debate offer. See:

      Now if you are truly interested in the free flow of ideas, you will accept our debate offer. On the other hand, if you want to scurry into your intellectual bunny hole, that certainly would not be surprising.

  3. I'm glad that you don't have to take the position that mules disprove evolution, which was my original point. Why do you need to debate me in front of "tens of thousands" of people? We seem to agree on the only point I was making. The video seemed to claim otherwise though which is why I was confused.

    1. Tim,

      We agree on the point. I am glad we cleared that up.

      Second, we never said we felt a need to debate. We merely offered to do so.

      Third, are you an evolutionist? If so, how confident are you in the evolutionary paradigm?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.