Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Alternative reality wikis started by millipj


Posted by: millipj on Mar. 02 2007,12:57

Saw this on the < Guardian > site. You may already have seen it but it is so breathtaking in its dishonesty that it is worth a browse if not
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A website founded by US religious activists aims to counter what they claim is "liberal bias" on Wikipedia, the open encyclopedia which has become one of the most popular sites on the web. The founders of Conservapedia.com say their site offers a "much-needed alternative" to Wikipedia, which they say is "increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Compare and contrast


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dinosaurs
Wikipedia,
"Vertebrate animals that dominated terrestrial ecosystems for over 160m years, first appearing approximately 230m years ago."

Conservapedia
"They are mentioned in numerous places throughout the Good Book. For example, the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are almost certainly references to dinosaurs."

US Democratic party

Wikipedia
"The party advocates civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention."

Conservapedia
"The Democrat voting record reveals a true agenda of cowering to terrorism, treasonous anti-Americanism, and contempt for America's founding principles."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and of course the quotemine filled
< Evolution >
and
< Intelligent Design >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligent Design is the theory that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause (God), rather than natural processes, such as evolution. [1]

To date there have been over 40 peer reviewed articles supporting Intelligent Design in such notable publications as the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and internationally respected scientific journals such as Rivista di Biologia. [2]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Chris Hyland on Mar. 02 2007,13:08

This is just a rip off of < Wikiality >.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Mar. 02 2007,14:06

< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....ves.php >
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 02 2007,17:29

Heheh.

I just went exploring there at Fundipedia myself.

< Rant >

< Something pretty funny I found >
Posted by: jeannot on Mar. 02 2007,18:03

Quote (millipj @ Mar. 02 2007,12:57)
... internationally respected scientific journals such as Rivista di Biologia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


mmmfff...

Hahahahahaha!    :D
Posted by: Ichthyic on Mar. 02 2007,18:45

yeah, that's like saying:

internationaly respected author: Ann Coulter.
Posted by: GCT on Mar. 02 2007,18:50

Or like calling Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dembski the Isaac Newton of Information Theory?
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Mar. 02 2007,19:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In Christian discourse, the name Jesus almost always refers specifically to Jesus of Nazareth, believed by Christian followers to be God's dad, who came to earth as a human c 2 AD. However, God has recently revealed on His blog that Jesus is actually His nephew, not His son.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: phonon on Mar. 02 2007,22:52

I'm very upset. They took down the cactus page, which was an obvious case of vandalism, but it was so funny that it was just classic.

It's still pretty good though.

< http://www.conservapedia.com/Cactus >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cactus

Cactus is the collective term for plants from the Cactaceae family. They typically grow in hot desert enviorments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



edit: Found it

< http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/26/conservapedias_entry.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The secularist view of the Cactaceae is that they are roughly two million years old, and that they have evolved exclusively in the new world. This view fails to explain, however, how it is that the Opuntia genus is native to the island of Opus, near Greece. Cacti are known for their high content of alkaloids, and have often been used in the sacramental rights of the Native Americans. Because of this, the early Catholic missionaries in the west thought the plants to be the work of Satan, and this is perhaps a preferable view to that of materialistic evolution since it is difficult to imagine how something like mescaline could have evolved by natural selection. Besides that, the psychoactive content of many cacti have inspired the writings of such ungodly men as Aldous Huxley and Albert Hoffman.

Several species of cactus are now endangered in the west due to "poaching" by collectors and invasive species. But, since Genesis suggests that man has been given dominion over all of the earth, the environmentalist concerns on this note are entirely inappropriate. It may also be that environmentalists, in addition to flauting the Word of God, are merely concerned about the effects that declining cactus populations will have on their supply of mescaline.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



They didn't have the full text that stated the theory of intelligent design would hold that the Native American belief that their ancestors inhabited cacti and caused them to grow was a better explanation than Darwinism. I wish I could find the full text.
Posted by: phonon on Mar. 02 2007,23:05

< http://www.conservapedia.com/Copernicus >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The reception to his work was initially positive within the Catholic Church (contrary to popular belief, Galileo was not persecuted for supporting the Copernican theory, but because he was disrespectful to the Pope). However, the reaction was negative among Protestants who felt it conflicted with some literal interpretations of the Bible, such as the account of how Joshua benefited from the sun standing still as it passed over the earth. "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." Joshua 10:13. But there were few Protestants in Poland then (or now), and Copernicus died without much controversy. To this day, most Protestant countries reject the Copernican theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.conservapedia.com/Descartes >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Renee Descartes was a French philosopher, probably the greatest philosopher of all time (although Kant, Aristotle and Ayn Rand also lay claim to this title).

Descartes locked himself in a stove and meditated, arriving at the unsurprising conclusion that nothing existed. He then used Anselm's proof of the existence of God to decide that perhaps he wasn't deluded, and perhaps things did exist after all. He thought the soul lived in the pineal gland, and when you lift your arm it's just an accident because your brain doesn't control your body, God does. This "god-robot" theory of consciousness got him into ferocious arguments with Hobbes, but then Hobbes loved a good argument and was usually wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.conservapedia.com/Kant >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kant's own suggestion for a moral daily life was the categorical imperative: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Expressed another way, an act is moral only if it works as a rule for everyone. For example, littering would be wrong because if everyone did it, then there would be an ugly mess. On the other hand, if a murderer asks you where someone is hiding, you should always tell them because lying is wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.conservapedia.com/Francis_Bacon >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A scientist during the Age of Exploration who lived from 1561 to 1626 and promoted research based on experimentation. Bacon was, notoriously, a confirmed bachelor throughout his life. He was however, one of the strange bachelors. One who got married. As can be seen from the illustration, Bacon (like most men of his time) had a beard. Despite this, he was known to also wear a hat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 04 2007,10:06

Linked from the evolution article at Fundipedia, < a whole passel of quoteminey goodness > at CreationWiki.

Lots of fun.
Posted by: lkeithlu on Mar. 04 2007,12:35

Quote (phonon @ Mar. 02 2007,23:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A scientist during the Age of Exploration who lived from 1561 to 1626 and promoted research based on experimentation. Bacon was, notoriously, a confirmed bachelor throughout his life. He was however, one of the strange bachelors. One who got married. As can be seen from the illustration, Bacon (like most men of his time) had a beard. Despite this, he was known to also wear a hat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the weirdest thing I've ever seen. bachelor? beard? hat? relevancy to the topic? what the he11?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 04 2007,13:00

Quote (lkeithlu @ Mar. 04 2007,12:35)
Quote (phonon @ Mar. 02 2007,23:05)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A scientist during the Age of Exploration who lived from 1561 to 1626 and promoted research based on experimentation. Bacon was, notoriously, a confirmed bachelor throughout his life. He was however, one of the strange bachelors. One who got married. As can be seen from the illustration, Bacon (like most men of his time) had a beard. Despite this, he was known to also wear a hat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the weirdest thing I've ever seen. bachelor? beard? hat? relevancy to the topic? what the he11?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think this confirms the theory that it's mostly homeschooled 13-year-olds who write their entries.

I'm inevitably reminded of < this >.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Mar. 04 2007,15:03

This is so bad funny good insane that I'm crying laughing projectile spitting out my nose writing my congressman.

I'm totally confused with these articles.

I say "drink".
Posted by: Ichthyic on Mar. 04 2007,17:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I say "drink".

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



show me... drink!

*ding*

number one answer!
Posted by: phonon on Mar. 04 2007,20:54

It's like I want to change my handle to "God Robot."
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 04 2007,21:27

Har-Har

< http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:The_Theory_of_Evolution >
Posted by: snoeman on Mar. 05 2007,08:00

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2007,21:27)
Har-Har

< http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:The_Theory_of_Evolution >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From the "Seriously Flawed, Pt. 2" section:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is the first entry I checked out to see what Conservapedia was like, and to see if it's really the quality source it claims to be. Sadly, it is not. What a terrible, unscientific, irrational, and ideological understanding of the Theory of Evolution. Conservatives should be ashamed to have this be a representation of Conservative understanding of scientific issues. Thoughtful conservatives who want the straight science of evolution need to look elsewhere. I won't be back.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The conservative view of scientific issues? Even though this entry correctly summarizes the, uh, quality of the evolution article, it's nonetheless a bit saddening.  The fact that there is an expectation that our best method of understanding our world is subject to view through the lens of political ideology is unsurprising, but still saddening.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 05 2007,09:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... internationally respected scientific journals such as Rivista di Biologia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Most notable for being the only journal in the world that will print Davison's articles anymore...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The conservative view of scientific issues? Even though this entry correctly summarizes the, uh, quality of the evolution article, it's nonetheless a bit saddening.  The fact that there is an expectation that our best method of understanding our world is subject to view through the lens of political ideology is unsurprising, but still saddening.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not surprising indeed. It reminds me of how the USSR had 'Marxist science' and Nazi Germany had 'National Socialist science'. Now we essentially have 'Republican Biology', 'Republican Climatology', 'Republican Geology', etc. They're getting more and more willing to reject all mainstream science to do this. All part of this 21st century American notion that ALL reality is political, and that 'truth' belongs to whoever argues the most belligerently.

One could also write a whole book on this modern day compulsion of American conservatives to carve out their own whole parallel little wingnut-friendly world for themselves, when they can't shape the real world to their own specifications. (The extreme of this are those nutters who want to form their own little fundy republic in South Carolina.) Can't help but wonder how far that trend will go.
Posted by: BWE on Mar. 05 2007,14:01

Aaarrrgh. How the heck do you set yourself up as a user on stupidpedia? It says: click the .... lower left of your screen.

That part's got nothing. Like their genetalia I suppose. Hmmphff.

Can anyone supply a link to that page? The one where you actually create an account. That is NOT the same page where you log in, even though it says it is. Grrrr.

Has it occurred to anyone here that they are successfully creating an alternate reality for their minions to be free in?
Posted by: Ichthyic on Mar. 05 2007,15:31

Quote (BWE @ Mar. 05 2007,14:01)
Aaarrrgh. How the heck do you set yourself up as a user on stupidpedia? It says: click the .... lower left of your screen.

That part's got nothing. Like their genetalia I suppose. Hmmphff.

Can anyone supply a link to that page? The one where you actually create an account. That is NOT the same page where you log in, even though it says it is. Grrrr.

Has it occurred to anyone here that they are successfully creating an alternate reality for their minions to be free in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I did notice this, if you click on the "propose a change" link:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No 'join up' on the login page?
I had to email the Eagle Forums, and they kindly signed me up.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



so, sounds like they are now filtering exactly who gets to create an account.

shocker.

oh, btw, here is the wall of "shame":

< http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Ipblocklist >

I wonder if there is anybody yet who has their handle here, and has also been banned from UD AND AIG.  

wouldn't that be like winning the trifecta?

I do note there are no Church-burnin' Ebola-boys on that list.

we're slackin'.
Posted by: steve_h on Mar. 05 2007,16:52

Quote (BWE @ Mar. 05 2007,21:01)
Aaarrrgh. How the heck do you set yourself up as a user on stupidpedia? It says: click the .... lower left of your screen.

That part's got nothing. Like their genetalia I suppose. Hmmphff.

Can anyone supply a link to that page? The one where you actually create an account. That is NOT the same page where you log in, even though it says it is. Grrrr.

Has it occurred to anyone here that they are successfully creating an alternate reality for their minions to be free in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I copied the last bit of the signup URL of wikipedia to the end of a conservapedia one and got this:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are not allowed to create an account

To be allowed to create accounts in this Wiki you have to log in and have the appropriate permissions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Ichthyic on Mar. 05 2007,17:25

IOW, to be able to log-in you have to uh, log-in.

perfect.
Posted by: steve_h on Mar. 05 2007,17:37

From conservapedia:

News:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach," says a Conservapedia contributor in England's Guardian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


from the grauniad:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found that the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views," Andy Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia, told the Guardian. "In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds - so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: steve_h on Mar. 05 2007,17:59

Also from the News section:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wired News has a story on Conservapedia < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That wired news is almost entirely about how everyone is taking the piss. However at the end

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Conservapedia has fallen victim to countless attacks. One entry in particular has gotten a great deal of attention: the page about a tree-dwelling mollusk called the Pacific Northwest arboreal octopus.

Schlafly is amused by the page and its references to the endangered species falling victim to the ravages of logging and suburban encroachment. He sees it as a parody of environmentalists, and he plans to leave it up.

"Conservatives have a sense of humor, too," he says.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The entry on the arboreal octopus reads:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At the request of its original author, this entry no longer exists here. You are welcome to visit other entries on Conservapedia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 05 2007,22:23

Re "The conservative view of scientific issues? Even though this entry correctly summarizes the, uh, quality of the evolution article, it's nonetheless a bit saddening.  The fact that there is an expectation that our best method of understanding our world is subject to view through the lens of political ideology is unsurprising, but still saddening."

Well, there's a guy on another BB who labels everything he dislikes as "liberal", and everything he likes as "conservative", regardless of whether doing so makes any sense or not.

Henry
Posted by: Ichthyic on Mar. 05 2007,23:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, there's a guy on another BB who labels everything he dislikes as "liberal", and everything he likes as "conservative", regardless of whether doing so makes any sense or not.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



weren't we just talking about Coulter on another thread?

;)
Posted by: phonon on Mar. 06 2007,09:50

From Jesus' General:
< http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2007_03....9675985 >

< http://www.conservapedia.com/Bonobos >

Those immoral Bonobos.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bonobos
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bonobos, or "pigmy chimpanzees", are an endangered[1] ape species in the genus Pan (the only other being the common chimp). Bonobos are more peaceful and social than the common chimpanzee. Bonobos share about 98% of their DNA with humans and slightly more than the common chimpanzee shares with humans.[2] Unlike many other apes, they walk upright a signficant fraction of the time.
[edit]
Anatomy and Behavior

Females are smaller than males but unlike in many other ape species the female hierarchy of dominance matters more than that of the males. Bonobos pass the mirror test and have facial expressions close enough to those of humans such that humans can often recognize what emotion a bonobo is expressing. [2] Individual bonobos also have very different facial features such that humans can easily differentiate one bonobo from another.

Proponents of evolutionary psychology often point to bonobos as examples of an evolutionary adaptation in which a species acquired the strategy of bartering sex to enhance social status or to resolve disputes[3]. Homosexual activists haved cite bonobos as examples of animals who perform homosexual acts[4][5] . The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a group which believes that homosexuality is a mental disorder that can be cured argues the bonobo behavior is is not sexual but rather are aggressive acts to assert dominance much like when a dog mounts a person's leg[6].
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 06 2007,14:42

Re "weren't we just talking about Coulter on another thread?"

Undoubtedly, since that name seems to come up on a lot of threads. :p
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 06 2007,17:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Schlafly is amused by the page and its references to the endangered species falling victim to the ravages of logging and suburban encroachment. He sees it as a parody of environmentalists, and he plans to leave it up.

"Conservatives have a sense of humor, too," he says.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, like when Ann Coulter joked about putting rat poison in Judge Souter's creme brulee. That was a regular laff riot. :D

I kept expecting Dembski to report her to the Department of Homeland Security, but oddly it never happened. :O
Posted by: argystokes on Mar. 06 2007,21:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Account creation has been re-enabled until 11:00 PM EST tonight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Faid on Mar. 06 2007,21:38

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 04 2007,13:00)

I think this confirms the theory that it's mostly homeschooled 13-year-olds who write their entries.

I'm inevitably reminded of < this >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG this was beautiful, in a surreal way...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The three gods were "Good," "Bad," and "Indifferent." These beliefs later resurfaced among the Manatees.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Oh also:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Zorroastrologism was founded by Zorro. This was a duelist religion.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




:D
Posted by: phonon on Mar. 06 2007,23:10

< http://www.conservapedia.com/Entropy >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Entropy is a measure of disorder in a system, first postulated by Lazare Carnot in 1803.

Creationist scientist Henry Morris argues that the law of Entropy, also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, disproves evolution: "...the Second law, however, that wipes out the theory of evolution. There is a universal process of change, and it is a directional change, but it is not an upward change."[1]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually entropy isn't the measure of disorder in a system, but who cares. Of course the only thing they can say about it is that is disproves evolution.

< http://www.conservapedia.com/History_of_entropy >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Entropy developed as a way of accounting for the basic asymmetry in the conversion of work and heat. Work is easily converted into heat, but heat is not easily converted back into work. The conversion of work into heat occurs spontaneously, but the opposite conversion does not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That's more accurate. Entropy can result in an increase of disorder, but I don't know if there is a rigorous definition of the word "disorder."

< http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Second_law_of_Thermodynamics >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many Creationists claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution.[1] Evolutionists deny this claim stating that the earth is not an isolated system because energy is pumped in from the sun. However, the universe as a whole is an isolated system. An isolated system never exchanges matter or energy with its surroundings. It is impossible for the total entropy of an isolated system to decrease, therefore the universe is becoming more and more disordered. In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:) Total horse dung, of course.

< http://www.conservapedia.com/Should_....ools%3F >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Post Your Thoughts
[edit]
yes...

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But isn't creationism/ID (thanks for grouping them together for us) also a Muslim idea? No? It's only the Christian version that's not taught in schools? My bad.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    REPLY
   Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Compare and contrast: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy >
Posted by: phonon on Mar. 06 2007,23:16

< http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Theory
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A hypothesis that has been tested with a significant amount of data,[1] for which a sufficient amount of evidence (and a lack of disconfirming evidence) has been found that it would be perverse to withhold assent.

The discovery of new evidence often leads scientists to revise their thinking and discard or refine previously held theories, such as Newtonian Physics, Luminiferous Ether, and Phrenology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What? Luminiferous Ether and Phrenology, but not Evolution? Well now.
Posted by: guthrie on Mar. 07 2007,02:35

I was still minded to think this was a hoax, but I've just heard people on radio 4 talking about it.  The host was refereeing a short exchange between some idiot called Schlafly and someone from Wikipedia itself.  The idiot called Schlafly kept complaining that pro-american and pro-christian articles were being edited out on wikipedia.  

How can someone so stupid that they don't even read the instructions be allowed to appear on radio?
Wikipedia says specifically that they are aiming for a neutral point of view.  Pro-christian and pro-american articles are not neutral.
End of story.  

He should have been slapped down like a recalcitrant 5 year old, but they were nice to him.
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Mar. 07 2007,07:04

Quote (guthrie @ Mar. 07 2007,02:35)
some idiot called Schlafly
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's Phyllis Shafly's son.

Every right-wing fundie-watcher knows who Phyllis Schafly is.
Posted by: guthrie on Mar. 07 2007,09:28

Ahh yes, that's why the name is familiar.

What was also amusing was that he protested about some entity called "nearly headless nick" who had been reverting their alterations on Wikipedia.  Those of us who read will be aware that that is one of the ghosts at Hogwarts, in the Harry Potter books.  He didn't seem to have a clue what the name was from.
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 07 2007,11:39

Compare and contrast:

< Wikipedia on Conservapedia >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Widely disseminated examples of Conservapedia articles that contradict the scientific consensus include the claims that all kangaroos descend from a single pair that were taken aboard Noah's Ark, that "Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb" and that gravity and evolution are theories that remain unproven.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Conservapedia on Wikipedia >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The administrators who monitor and control the content on Wikipedia do not represent the views of the majority of Americans, and many are in fact not American.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why do you want to learn about kangaroos, Einstein, gravity or evolution anyway?  They're not even American.
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 07 2007,11:45

The tard just keeps on coming:

< Moon >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Long John Silver had only one leg.  So that settles it.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Mar. 07 2007,13:13

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 07 2007,12:45)
The tard just keeps on coming:

< Moon >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Long John Silver had only one leg.  So that settles it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That whole article is one large apologetic.

Even I caution my 10 year old from quoting Wikipedia.  Like any other encyclopedia I tell her to ALWAYS refer to the linked articles AND to google the subject to find alternatives not listed.

This dimbulb has one link, not in support of his ramblings but to point to items he disagrees with.  I hope I meet this author at a PTA meeting or some other public forum.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 07 2007,13:25

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 07 2007,11:45)
The tard just keeps on coming:

< Moon >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Long John Silver had only one leg.  So that settles it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Cyclops was God?
Posted by: Ichthyic on Mar. 07 2007,13:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do you want to learn about kangaroos, Einstein, gravity or evolution anyway?  They're not even American.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



well, some yes and some no, but at least in the case of gravity, I think the nutters are trying their best to reduce the effects of gravity on themselves by pumping their skulls full of as much hot air as they possibly can.

soon, they'll be neutrally buoyant, and then they can start spouting how there really is no gravity.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So Cyclops was God?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



now, now, the cyclops was the SON of a greek god.  clearly he was created with one eye as a sign of the one god.

oh wait.
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 07 2007,13:56

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 07 2007,13:25)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 07 2007,11:45)
The tard just keeps on coming:

< Moon >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And Long John Silver had only one leg.  So that settles it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Cyclops was God?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hitler has only got one ball,
Goering has two but they're too small,
Himmler has something similar,
And poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.


Hitler was God.

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02, 2006 18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See?
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Mar. 07 2007,18:23

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 07 2007,13:56)
Hitler has only got one ball,
Goering has two but they're too small,
Himmler has something similar,
And poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, I haven't heard that one in YEARS . . . .

To get the full effect of it, you need to sing it to the tune that was whistled by all the soliders in "Bridge on the River Kwai" . . .
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 08 2007,07:58

< http://www.conservapedia.com/Incest >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A sexual practice followed rigorously in the southern states of the USA
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 08 2007,08:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No. Infinite regression is a cop-out. It is closely akin to circular reasoning, except that the line of reasoning is not so much a circle as a spiral, into the infinite past or at least through an infinite number of prior steps. For example: How did life originate on earth? It didn't--it couldn't have. So where did it come from? Did God create it? No--no God-talk in scientific circles. (Francis H. Crick once wrote a nasty letter to Winston Churchill suggesting that a brothel would be just as appropriate as a chapel at Oxford University.) Therefore, life was deposited on earth from the outside. How? By a ballistic missile or a comet's tail. Where did that life come from? From another planet. But how did life arise on that other planet? It didn't--couldn't have--too much information. Did God create life on that other planet? Oh, no. Therefore life was deposited on that planet as well. Where did that life come from? From another ballistic missile. And so on, and so on, for an infinite number of steps.

Am I the only one who recognizes such a line of reasoning as absurd? And not merely absurd, but self-serving of the interests of those seeking to deny God's existence and His role as Creator. It is a very travesty of logic, and that is why I sought to classify it as a logical fallacy.

Why, then, is it not a logical fallacy? Can an infinite regression ever exist in nature? I'm waiting for the evidence.--TerryH 23:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Is infinite regression ever valid >

Which I happened across by clicking from the subheading two below < Special Pleading > on the logical fallacy page.

The irony is strong with this one, my Master.
Posted by: Ichthyic on Mar. 08 2007,13:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The irony is strong with this one, my Master.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Master says not to bother trying to turn this one.
Posted by: phonon on Mar. 11 2007,20:27

I'm sorry that this has nothing to do with Jesuspedia, but I didn't know where else to put it and I didn't want to start a thread about one video. But, you have to check it out.

< http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7592727299684964168 >
Posted by: k.e on Mar. 11 2007,20:42

Quote (phonon @ Mar. 12 2007,03:27)
I'm sorry that this has nothing to do with Jesuspedia, but I didn't know where else to put it and I didn't want to start a thread about one video. But, you have to check it out.

< http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7592727299684964168 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shhhh ......don't tell Air Force Dave about this.

What a waste of pixels.
Posted by: phonon on Mar. 11 2007,21:56

Wait a minute, maybe I should start a new thread. This guy is a comic book artist and he has a whole website of videos that are awesome. I think I'll try to show how pop media and goofy ideas can come together to make some ridiculous claims that are really believable to people who don't think it through.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Mar. 16 2007,17:28

The beauty about conservapedia is you can be the dumbest person in town and rule there.

I created an account a while back and I make edits to articles that are so completely absurd that they are acceptable.  I'm a born again loon there and make articles dumber and no one challenges my edits because, like I said, from a fundy perspective my edits are so lunatic fringe that they are mainstream on the conservapedia site.

No one is going to question you there if you use tbe bible to rationalize your opinion/edits.

It's fun being in the belly of the beast sometimes :-)
Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Mar. 16 2007,17:56

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 16 2007,16:28)
The beauty about conservapedia is you can be the dumbest person in town and rule there.

I created an account a while back and I make edits to articles that are so completely absurd that they are acceptable.  I'm a born again loon there and make articles dumber and no one challenges my edits because, like I said, from a fundy perspective my edits are so lunatic fringe that they are mainstream on the conservapedia site.

No one is going to question you there if you use tbe bible to rationalize your opinion/edits.

It's fun being in the belly of the beast sometimes :-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I once got on a creationists-only email list by pretending to be a hyper-literalist named Joseph, who was not only a YEC, but a geocentrist to boot.  I cut-and-pasted lots of crapola from the Biblical Astronomer site, along with the appropriate Bible verses.  Oddly enough, not a single creationist on the list was able to point out why any of my "scientific arguments for geocentrism" were wrong -- but EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM wanted to argue with me over my interpretation of those Biblical verses.  Shocker, huh.

I also put out the argument that learning foreign languages was sinful and anti-Biblical, since God specifically created different languages at the Tower of Babel so we humans couldn't all talk to teach other.  Not only were the fundies utterly unable to make any coherent argument against that, but I actually made a convert to my point of view.

They are idiots, all.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 16 2007,18:11

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 16 2007,16:56)
I also put out the argument that learning foreign languages was sinful and anti-Biblical, since God specifically created different languages at the Tower of Babel so we humans couldn't all talk to teach other.  Not only were the fundies utterly unable to make any coherent argument against that, but I actually made a convert to my point of view.

They are idiots, all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you Lenny, that's the best laugh I've had all week.
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 16 2007,19:47

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 16 2007,16:56)
I also put out the argument that learning foreign languages was sinful and anti-Biblical, since God specifically created different languages at the Tower of Babel so we humans couldn't all talk to teach other.  Not only were the fundies utterly unable to make any coherent argument against that, but I actually made a convert to my point of view.

They are idiots, all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Praise Jeebus!  You made a convert!

After all, God must be telling us something because bable and bible sound so much alike!

If you just put it through the Dembski Filter, it will prove it to you.  Where you = troutmac.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Mar. 18 2007,16:24

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 07 2007,19:23)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 07 2007,13:56)
Hitler has only got one ball,
Goering has two but they're too small,
Himmler has something similar,
And poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, I haven't heard that one in YEARS . . . .

To get the full effect of it, you need to sing it to the tune that was whistled by all the soliders in "Bridge on the River Kwai" . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I forgot this one too.  Thanks for the memory.

I think I'm the last generation (born 1966) to actually use these songs and rhymes.  All the WW2 references and songs were still passed around the elementary school.  We didn't care about the names, just the use of "balls" (or "dick" or others of course).  I don't hear these references any more, although I don't hang out in elementary school anymore also.  They're all singing about Michael Jackson and "Beat It" now.  Weird Al, take a bow.  You'll be immortilized to 4th graders for generations to come.
Posted by: Arctodus23 on April 21 2013,16:48

Creation Wiki has asserted that:

[quote=CreationWiki]ID theorists draw exclusively upon empirical evidence to support the existence of a creative intelligence or designer. ID purports that design can be detected without any understanding of who the designer is or why the agent acted, or even how the phenomenon in question was actually produced. ID is a unique scientific position that stands in stark contrast to naturalistic, materialistic philosophy of science which puts forth abiogenesis rather then intelligent agents as the main mechanism that created biological systems for sustaining life. It can also clearly be distinguished from religious creationism in that it stakes no claim regarding the specific identity of the creator, nor does it use references from scripture when forming theories about the history of the world. In fact, many ID theorists support the idea of common descent and billions of years of time. ID simply postulates that certain features within the cosmos present clear evidence of being deliberately and intelligently designed.
[/quote]

 What a load of horseshit. Someone needs to slap the people that edit this.
Posted by: Robin on April 22 2013,13:03

Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 21 2013,16:48)
 What a load of horseshit. Someone needs to slap the people that edit this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No no! See, this is from Creationwiki. Thus the world knows it's fake. It's like The Onion articles - everyone knows they are satire because that's their rep.

:D
Posted by: Arctodus23 on April 23 2013,15:36

Quote (Robin @ April 22 2013,13:03)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 21 2013,16:48)
 What a load of horseshit. Someone needs to slap the people that edit this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No no! See, this is from Creationwiki. Thus the world knows it's fake. It's like The Onion articles - everyone knows they are satire because that's their rep.

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think, they believe this nonsense. I get a good laugh out of it.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 23 2013,19:33

< Evolution ... and obesity? >
Posted by: The whole truth on April 23 2013,22:00

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 23 2013,17:33)
< Evolution ... and obesity? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does that mean that all the overweight people on Earth are evolutionists? If that's so, there are a lot more evolutionists than I thought, especially in the USA.

What's the minimum I should weigh to be considered a bona fide evolutionist? :)
Posted by: Arctodus23 on April 25 2013,16:18

< Anti-E=mc^2 propaganda >
Posted by: Cubist on April 25 2013,16:55

Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 25 2013,16:18)
< Anti-E=mc^2 propaganda >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Talk_page for that one is amusing. Aschafly is clearly ramming his personal dogma down Conservapedia's throat, never mind all the C'pedians who, equally clearly, know exactly how and why Aschafly is wronger than lime green bowling shoes. Granted, Aschafly does regard C'pedia as his personal mouthpiece, so the dissenters are missing the point… My single favorite comment:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Additionally, the page for this is just a mess. The opening section claims it to be liberal claptrap, while the rest of the article lists experiments that conclusively prove it to be true (None of which I think I've ever seen you directly address). If real-world results contradict your supposed logic, perhaps there is a problem with your logic?--RobertDW 21:31, 16 January 2013 (EST)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arctodus23 on April 28 2013,12:57

< Anti-English launguage propaganda! >
Posted by: stevestory on May 04 2013,15:31

Quote (Cubist @ April 25 2013,17:55)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 25 2013,16:18)
< Anti-E=mc^2 propaganda >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Talk_page for that one is amusing. Aschafly is clearly ramming his personal dogma down Conservapedia's throat, never mind all the C'pedians who, equally clearly, know exactly how and why Aschafly is wronger than lime green bowling shoes. Granted, Aschafly does regard C'pedia as his personal mouthpiece, so the dissenters are missing the point… My single favorite comment:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Additionally, the page for this is just a mess. The opening section claims it to be liberal claptrap, while the rest of the article lists experiments that conclusively prove it to be true (None of which I think I've ever seen you directly address). If real-world results contradict your supposed logic, perhaps there is a problem with your logic?--RobertDW 21:31, 16 January 2013 (EST)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


man, that's something. On the main page:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Political pressure,[2] however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation. Simply put, E=mc˛ is liberal claptrap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and in the talk pages:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's a liberal fiction that E=mc2 has ever been applied in any practical way. The equation defines rest mass in terms of the speed of light - an absurdity.--Andy Schlafly 10:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With all due respect, relativity was factored into the design of the GPS satellite system. If you want to calculate the energy release of an atomic bomb, E=mc2 is very useful. We don't know with great precision the speed of light, and we don't know with great precision the value of "c". But God gave us brains and curiosity, so we will learn more precise values for both. So far, they match. If someday in the future, someone calculates "c" and measures the speed of light to more decimal places and discovers that they are different, I will have an open mind as to why. The constant "c" carries through consistently in Einstein's calculations for the Special Theory. The coincidence that "c" happens to equal the speed of light is one of the beautiful things about God's universe. Although I do not spend my life's work on theoretical physics, I am pleased that God has inspired some very smart people to devote their lives to thinking about relativity, and I wish them success and happiness. Wschact 11:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   Relativity was not factored into the GPS design, and E=mc2 has never been useful in any other way.
__
                   We've discussed the claim about relativity and GPS over and over on this site, and as a matter of historical fact (not to mention obvious engineering efficiency), theoretical relativity was not part of its design. It is far easier and more accurate simply to synchronize directly based on observation, as may be needed.--Andy Schlafly 11:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If relativity isn't factored into the GPS design, why does the < Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification > (and you can't get more official than that) state that they have to compensate for relativistic effects? --AugustO 12:30, 12 November 2012 (EST)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And schlafly doesn't reply.
Posted by: Nomad on May 04 2013,18:08

So, about that E=mc^2 denialism, umm...

How exactly did this happen:
< http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci....140.htm >

An Argonne national laboratory run "ask a scientist" site that says that compressing a spring increases its mass because of the aforementioned formula?  The hell?
Posted by: Henry J on May 04 2013,23:14

For that, E/c^2 would be a very tiny amount in mass units; I expect it would generally not be measurable.

Henry
Posted by: Nomad on May 05 2013,02:08

Oookay..  <frantic googling ensues>

Woops.  I'd swear I was specifically taught that that formula only applied to nuclear reactions, that chemical and other forms of potential energy didn't do that at all.

I appear to have entered a parallel dimension in which conservapedia has taught me something.
Posted by: Henry J on May 05 2013,19:22

Well, for chemical and physical (but non-nuclear) reactions, it (AFAIK) doesn't affect the mass enough for that to be detectable. So beginning physics courses are apt to defer that point until later, especially if the course is talking about Newtonian physics and not Einstein.

Henry
Posted by: Arctodus23 on May 06 2013,05:57

Quote (Nomad @ May 05 2013,02:08)
Oookay..  <frantic googling ensues>

Woops.  I'd swear I was specifically taught that that formula only applied to nuclear reactions, that chemical and other forms of potential energy didn't do that at all.

I appear to have entered a parallel dimension in which conservapedia has taught me something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't you mean Wackopedia?
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.