Conservapedia

[ImaginalDisc]

I think this is my second or third thread on a new Wiki, but here's "Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page)" an allegedly an alternative to Wikipedia for the American Christian Right Wing.

They have a page accusing Wikipedia of liberal bias (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia) and include some of the following

Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deception.

Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

The Wikipedia entry for the Piltdown Man omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.

Their article on faith (http://www.conservapedia.com/Faith) with a blurb on the main page reading: Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions.

Their article on Evolution (http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution) contains real howlers, though. Such as Evolutionists have no real evidence that macroevolution occurs and there is no consensus on how it allegedly occurs. . .

Of course, you can either laugh or cry on their article on the ACLU (http://www.conservapedia.com/ACLU): The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was run for its first 30 years by a non-Christian socialist named Roger Baldwin, who helped found it in 1920 in response to the Espionage Act and Sedition Act. Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."

No bias at all is detectable in their article on the Boy Scouts: The Boys Scouts of America was founded on February 8, 1910. The movement began two years earlier in England, where Sir Robert Baden-Powell founded it. He had been a hero of the South African Boer Wars. Empahsis added.

Really, read it and weep.

[Mr Clingford]

Would you explain the bias in the last quote as B-P had been a hero of the Second Boer War 1899-1902 (?).

[Beerina]

No bias at all is detectable in their article on the Boy Scouts:The Boys Scouts of America was founded on February 8, 1910. The movement began two years earlier in England, where Sir Robert Baden-Powell founded it. He had been a hero of the South African Boer Wars.

I must admit I'm not up on my Boy Scout history. What is biased in this?

[ImaginalDisc]

Would you explain the bias in the last quote as B-P had been a hero of the Second Boer War 1899-1902 (?).

Because "hero" is not a neutral term. By comparison, the Wiipedia article on him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baden_Powell) begins with: Robert Stephenson Smyth Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell OM, GCMG, GCVO, KCB (22 February 1857 – 8 January 1941), also known as B-P, was a Lieutenant-General in the British Army, writer, and founder of the Scouting Movement.

It also details the Siege of Mafeking, which conservapedia doesn't, without resorting to glowing praise.

[Mr Clingford]

Well, he was regarded as a hero. Also he was about the only high-ranking British officer who wasn't rubbish. Yes, like many of his day he could/should have treated the blacks under him much better, but he was innovative, resourceful and clever in many ways in the defence of Mafeking.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, he was regarded as a hero. Also he was about the only high-ranking British officer who wasn't rubbish. Yes, like many of his day he could/should have treated the blacks under him much better, but he was innovative, resourceful and clever in many ways in the defence of Mafeking.

That is an opinion, not an objective fact. It's pretty hypocritical of Conservapedia to accuse Wikipedia of bias and to call a fellow a "hero."

[Mr Clingford]

It's an opinion based on some research of the Boer War! Also, Wiki article on the siege says that the siege turned BP into a 'national hero'.

[ImaginalDisc]

It's an opinion based on some research of the Boer War! Also, Wiki article on the siege says that the siege turned BP into a 'national hero'.

Then the phrase, "he was regarded as a national hero" would have been fine.

[Mr Clingford]

I think your other quotes go a long way to justifying your opinion, but I think you over-reached with regard to BP.

[ImaginalDisc]

I think your other quotes go a long way to justifying your opinion, but I think you over-reached with regard to BP.

"He had been a hero" is not an unbiased statement. However, if you just compare the Wikipedia BSA article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America) to the Conservapedia article, I think it's pretty clear which one is more neutral.

[Malachi151]

Is "hero of the South African Boer Wars" kind of like saying "hero of the Blitzkrieg".....

[Mr Clingford]

I agree with you on the bias in the two articles on the BSA but I think BP was not only seen as a hero but actually was - eg, read about his many clever ideas in the defence of the town.

[Mr Clingford]

Is "hero of the South African Boer Wars" kind of like saying "hero of the Blitzkrieg".....Perhaps, yes, in the sense of how well a soldier did his job. No, for invoking Godwin!

[Beerina]

Well, he was regarded as a hero. Also he was about the only high-ranking British officer who wasn't rubbish. Yes, like many of his day he could/should have treated the blacks under him much better, but he was innovative, resourceful and clever in many ways in the defence of Mafeking.

Exactly. He was considered a hero at the time, even if people today wouldn't consider him such because the war was disrespectful. The phrase, perhaps written as "considered a hero of the war" would be a legitimate entry. Bias is shown on Wikipedia indeed, if this is the case.

[Miss Anthrope]

Oh boy, can't we all just get along?

Seriously, though, sometimes Wikipedia is biased, and that depends solely on the editors, and more often than not people will try to fix it. My problem with Wikipedia is that it's become like usenet 2.0 with edit wars and it's just silly. I don't consider it a great source of information simply because who knows what state of accuracy an article is on any given day. I don't want to have to read the talk pages to determine this each and every time. I'll visit it for quick synopsis and to find links to real information.

I just think it's funny that Conservapedia is answering this perceived bias with.............A WHOLE LOT OF BIAS! At least Wikipedia will address POV issues and you do indeed find NPOV articles there. I am skeptical about Conservapedia being willing to do the same.

[hgc]

I think Conservapedia has been invaded by pranksters. But no matter what absurdities they plant, it's still hard to tell it apart from the real entries.

Read the entry on the Pacific-northwest arborial octopus.

Also, it's been pretty near impossible to open Conservapedia since its existence became widely known. They really need to move their server off that 386 box.

[Malachi151]

Perhaps, yes, in the sense of how well a soldier did his job. No, for invoking Godwin!

Well, the Boer war was supposedly the birth of the modern concentration camp....

[Mr Clingford]

Well, the Boer war was supposedly the birth of the modern concentration camp....That was my understanding until recently when someone said that the Spaniards, I think, had been doing something before then.

Also, perhaps BP was a hero like the Battle of Britain pilots, then!

[Beerina]

From their page on Wikipedia biases: There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[4] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

Well, I looked. The current article, little more than a stub, notes:

1. Both the US and Phillipines Congresses approved it

2. Does not mention an obviously biased statment like "the wrath of Father Capitalism", which, as I have seen on other Wiki pages, would quickly be fixed by editors striking it as vandalism, or at least as hopelessly POV.

So somebody at Wikipedia is listening. However, it's possible for changes to be made to lesser-tread articles that might go unnoticed for months or years. While that particular author might be biased, that it went unchanged merely means nobody reviewed and corrected it. This ain't exactly the "current happenings in Anna Nicole's life page".

[Beerina]

It's also clear that they don't understand Wikipedia is largely an experiment:

9. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

...

12.Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[7] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

Wikipedia is exploring what an open, freely-editable encyclopedia would turn out like. That Wikipedia ends up being newslike, with rapidly changing pages for things related to current events (Anna Nicole's page was up to hundreds of edits a day two weeks ago, probably down to "only" about 20 or so now) is an interesting development.

Another phenomena not predicted was that people would create pages on things of interest to them. See that the Phillipines thing he mentioned gets a few sentences, but you can find pages discussing every single Star Trek or Simpsons episode in gory detail. When shows like Lost or Heroes are on, people edit the page, updating it virtually live as the current episode is shown and more facts are revealed.

Complain if you want, but that's one of the things people are figuring out about Wikipedia. I do note that editors will remove pages about people who are not even remotely famous.

Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored.

You must realize that, what many Creationists believe are "facts against evolution" are not generally considered valid criticisms.

There are many pages that discuss these criticisms in depth.* You should perhaps persuade them first, then, once gaining general acceptance, it would be accepted by Wikipedia editors.

There are even some pro-Creationism/ID pages that discuss anti-evolution criticisms, and dismiss some criticisms of evolution as invalid. That shows some hope and honesty expressed by some Creationists.

[Mr Clingford]

I think Conservapedia has been invaded by pranksters. But no matter what absurdities they plant, it's still hard to tell it apart from the real entries.This makes a lot of sense to me!

[Retrograde]

I do, however, agree with their view of Socrates:

"Socrates was an ancient Greek (http://www.conservapedia.com/Greek) conservative philosopher, who lived between approximately 470 and 399 BC. He is best known for his method of argument, where you wear your opponent down with quibbling objections until they give up in disgust."

That's how I always felt about [i[The Republic[/i]: my Philistine interpretation is that a bunch of guys who are just out for a fun day at the fair run into this old windbag and spend the rest of the book saying, "Yes, Socrates, how can anyone argue with that", all the while cursing him under their breath because they're missing the races. I guess I wasn't born to be a philosopher.

[Malachi151]

Could be fun to go post some entries there, stuff like:

Darwin ate babies.

Secularism was spawned by the Devil.

Noah's Ark has been found.

Etc....

[hgc]

Read the entry on the Pacific-northwest arborial octopus.
First, I should learn to spell arboreal.

I just went to read that entry again. It seems the editors have a different take:

[Note by Admin: Although liberal blogs are sending people to this entry, none of them seem to realize that this entry appears to be a parody of environmentalists. For example, read the above sentence again: "Unless immediate action is taken to protect this species and its habitat, the Pacific Northwest tree octopus will be but a memory."--Aschlafly (http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Aschlafly) 15:06, 27 February 2007 (EST)] Let's start with a quibble: What something appears to be and what people realize are both subjective. It doesn't make sense to say someone fails to realize what something appears to be. How it appears to them is what they realize for themselves.

On the other hand, I do find it plausible that this really is an anti-environmentalist zinger. It just makes me madder than ever about the marriage of convenience between rapacious business interests and religious interests. One wants to, well, rape and pillage. The other has a blessed book that tells them that skydaddy gave them domain over the earth and its beasts - so to Hell with the tree octopus!

[Retrograde]

Some more gems, all found by random searches:

"Homeschooled i[my bold] n his youth, Lincoln became a successful railroad attorney in Illinois..." (I'd say self-educated, due to lack of alternatives, but i'm a lie-bural)

"Robespierre was later executed by the other members of the Club [the Jacobins]" And I thought black-balling was bad! Highly simplistic.

"The Old Deluder Act was passed in 1647 in Massachusetts. It established the first public schools in America (http://www.conservapedia.com/America) to teach children to read, so that Satan would not delude them by keeping the from reading the Bible (http://www.conservapedia.com/Bible). Ironically, children are not allowed to even bring a Bible to public school today, even though public schools were established for the express purpose of teaching them to read God's word." Really? Those court-approved after-hours bible-study programs I keep reading about must really be having a hard time.

"St. Augustine: An evangelist who spread Christianity in Britain. He lived from 354 to 430 AD." Uh, you seem to have confused Augustine of Hippo [the 4th century theologian and doctor of the church] and Augustine of Canterbury [6th century missionary to England]. No matter which one you mean - is that it?

"Substitute goods are commodities that are similar enough that an increase in one price of one good (e.g., chewing gum) causes consumers to buy a similar, less expensive good (e.g., a candy bar). Other examples of substitute goods are turkey and chicken, broccoli and spinach, and blueberries and raspberries." I'm still scratching my head over this one. Maybe a better example would help.

"Pilgrims" Pilgrims were people (mostly puritans) in the 1600's that traveled to the American Colonies because of persecution in England. These settlers started the very first settlement in the American colonies, Jamestown." OK, that's it. If the middle-school level of writing wasn't bad enough - nothing against middle-schoolers, we all gotta learn sometimes - is it asking too much to get basic facts right?

Wikipedia does have its own problems, and I wouldn't use it as anything other than a quick-and-basic look-up, but its community does at least enforce some standards.

[Malachi151]

Hmm... perhaps I should write a grant for studying the Conservopedia to do an analysis on it... (what I delightfully "Liberal" idea!)

[headscratcher4]

"Pilgrims" Pilgrims were people (mostly puritans) in the 1600's that traveled to the American Colonies because of persecution in England. These settlers started the very first settlement in the American colonies, Jamestown."


Not only that, I wasn't aware that Jamestown was a particularly Sepratist adventure...unlike Plymouth or Boston....am I wrong?

[Glen.Nogami]

I do, however, agree with their view of Socrates:

"Socrates was an ancient Greek (http://www.conservapedia.com/Greek) conservative philosopher, who lived between approximately 470 and 399 BC. He is best known for his method of argument, where you wear your opponent down with quibbling objections until they give up in disgust."

That's how I always felt about [i[The Republic[/i]: my Philistine interpretation is that a bunch of guys who are just out for a fun day at the fair run into this old windbag and spend the rest of the book saying, "Yes, Socrates, how can anyone argue with that", all the while cursing him under their breath because they're missing the races. I guess I wasn't born to be a philosopher.

Yeah. It's also possible that one party or the other was drunk. Either Socrates was, and is one of those guys who gets really loquacious, or the agreers were, and just kinda stumbled along going Yesh, Shocrates, thatsh 'ZACtly what it is!

[logical muse]

From their entry on kangaroos (http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo):

Origins

Like all modern animals, modern kangaroos originated in the Middle East and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.

After the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land -- as Australia was still for a time connected to the Middle East before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart -- or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.

[Retrograde]

My new favorite succinct entry is the one for Germany- this is the entire text of the article:

A country in central Europe that was blamed for both Wolrd Wars and claimed to be the dominate race of mankind.

[CapelDodger]

Not only that, I wasn't aware that Jamestown was a particularly Sepratist adventure...unlike Plymouth or Boston....am I wrong?
Jamestown was funded by adventure-capital.

[Glen.Nogami]

Already Conservapedia has become one of the largest user-controlled free encyclopedias on the internet.

:rolleyes:

[hgc]

Jamestown was funded by adventure-capital.
Uh, venture capital? So was the Plymouth colony. As a matter of fact, they thought they were headed to Virginia, but the backers conspired with the captain to land them further north instead.

[burnvictim77]

Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deception.

This I have to agree with. Why pretend that 1 CE isn't because of the traditional date of Christ's birth?

[Lonewulf]

This I have to agree with. Why pretend that 1 CE isn't because of the traditional date of Christ's birth?

Why use the term, "The year 2007 in the Year of Our Lord...", even if you don't consider him "your lord"?

To me, it seems more a preference issue. As far as I know, no one is forced to use CE or BCE.

[burnvictim77]

Why use the term, "The year 2007 in the Year of Our Lord...", even if you don't consider him "your lord"?

Why use a calander based around his birth?

ETA: Why have names of days named for Norse gods, and months named for Roman gods?

[Lonewulf]

Why use a calander based around his birth?

Tradition and simplicity. It's the way records were kept throughout much of history, and a radical change upsets the books, and makes it even harder to "convert" times from ancient history into modern history.

Plus, really, almost any starting point is going to be subjective. I don't think that there's any real scientific way you can decide a time starting point for the calendars.

[burnvictim77]

Tradition and simplicity. It's the way records were kept throughout much of history, and a radical change upsets the books, and makes it even harder to "convert" times from ancient history into modern history.

Plus, really, almost any starting point is going to be subjective. I don't think that there's any real scientific way you can decide a time starting point for the calendars.


There are other calendars in existence. It would simply be like going from english measure to metric. But what I'm asking you is actually: why bother to rename it? Those books you are upsetting still say BC/AD. No one speaks Latin anymore anyway.

[Lonewulf]

There are other calendars in existence. It would simply be like going from english measure to metric.

There's a reason to go to metric, though, it's not just "an alternative system"; it's based on the power of 10, and makes thing sooooooo much easier when dealing with science.

And almost all countries that I know of use America's calendar system; on the other hand, metric came about with different measurements in different countries, entirely subjective. You'd have to learn to convert from our English units to whatever the heck else the other country or group of people were using. Metric is an effort to universalize and make things easier and simpler for scientific research; changing the calendar just to be PC would probaby end up being a sole act (as other countries wouldn't go for it), so it has the opposite effect of universalization.

Really, it wouldn't be like switching to Metric at all.

...And, really, good luck getting America to switch to Metric in the first place. Sure, we're changing some minor things, but nothing on a macro scale.

But what I'm asking you is actually: why bother to rename it? Those books you are upsetting still say BC/AD. No one speaks Latin anymore anyway.

Why not, though? It's a simple letter conversion. And it's not like you're being forced to rename it. It's just personal preference. It's also no harder to read, really. BCE is just BC with an E added, and AD is now CE, keeping the two letters. It's really not that hard overall, so I consider it a minor trivial matter.

On the other hand, with problems between the English and Metric system, NASA has caused a few crashes. I don't think you can do that with BCE/CE.

[Darth Rotor]

Uh, venture capital? So was the Plymouth colony. As a matter of fact, they thought they were headed to Virginia, but the backers conspired with the captain to land them further north instead.

I think that technically, when the Pilgrims set out in 1620, the colony in that part of North America was referred to as "Virginia" as the only colony there was called "Virginia" and the bulk of people didn't, having lived in England and the Netherlands, have a grasp on the scope and scale of this new land they were headed to.

I can't recall where I read that, but it was in an article about the Mayflower compact.

DR

[burnvictim77]

There's a reason to go to metric, though, it's not just "an alternative system"; it's based on the power of 10, and makes thing sooooooo much easier when dealing with science.

And almost all countries that I know of use America's calendar system; on the other hand, metric came about with different measurements in different countries, entirely subjective. You'd have to learn to convert from our English units to whatever the heck else the other country or group of people were using. Metric is an effort to universalize and make things easier and simpler for scientific research; changing the calendar just to be PC would probaby end up being a sole act (as other countries wouldn't go for it), so it has the opposite effect of universalization.

Really, it wouldn't be like switching to Metric at all.

...And, really, good luck getting America to switch to Metric in the first place. Sure, we're changing some minor things, but nothing on a macro scale.



Why not, though? It's a simple letter conversion. And it's not like you're being forced to rename it. It's just personal preference. It's also no harder to read, really. BCE is just BC with an E added, and AD is now CE, keeping the two letters. It's really not that hard overall, so I consider it a minor trivial matter.

On the other hand, with problems between the English and Metric system, NASA has caused a few crashes. I don't think you can do that with BCE/CE.

I don't believe in Thor, yet I don't rename Thursday to Fifthday. That's all I'm saying. The BCE/CE thing is simply an attempt to buck the system without actually bucking it. Goofy and amusing while still hinging entirely on the birth date of a guy that people don't want to honor in Latin. Yeah, armchair activism! That's showing them Christians that we will be glad to use their calendar and pretend that we aren't!

[burnvictim77]

I think that technically, when the Pilgrims set out in 1620, the colony in that part of North America was referred to as "Virginia" as the only colony there was called "Virginia" and the bulk of people didn't, having lived in England and the Netherlands, have a grasp on the scope and scale of this new land they were headed to.

I can't recall where I read that, but it was in an article about the Mayflower compact.

DR

I think there is a conspiracy theory surrounding their landing so far north, that the Virginian Puritans did not want the Separatists in their colony and so paid off the crew to take them somewhere far away. But I think it is merely speculation, like most CTs.

[hgc]

I don't believe in Thor, yet I don't rename Thursday to Fifthday.
Please... Do NOT give the Christianists any new ideas. They already have a plenty ambitious agenda.

[burnvictim77]

Please... Do NOT give the Christianists any new ideas. They already have a plenty ambitious agenda.


Interesting, seeing as the atheists are the one's I've heard arguing for changes in names and mottos, as though hearing the word God or handling a piece of money with the word God on it forces on to believe in said deity. Much like the BCE/CE which sparked this conversation. Christians take from the pagans and rename, then the post-Christian atheists take from the Christians and rename, then the Martians and so on and so forth.

I'm sure the people of the future will stand around aghast when the find a copy of the diabolical Pledge of Allegiance of the 20th Century after the insertion of 'under God.' No, they won't find it strange that school children were encouraged to devote themselves to a piece of colorful cloth. They will only think it strange that Americans once believed in God.

[ImaginalDisc]

No, they won't find it strange that school children were encouraged to devote themselves to a piece of colorful cloth.

Why?

[burnvictim77]

Why?

I'm being facetious to illustrate a point.

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm being facetious to illustrate a point.

I'm so disappointed. I was hoping that you had received a visit from a time traveling rebel fighting against the tyranny of robots garbed in colorful cloth.

"I pledge allegiance to my titanium overlord's flag toga, and the crushing despotism for which it stands. . ."

[burnvictim77]

I'm so disappointed. I was hoping that you had received a visit from a time traveling rebel fighting against the tyranny of robots garbed in colorful cloth.

"I pledge allegiance to my titanium overlord's flag toga, and the crushing despotism for which it stands. . ."


Oh, yes. Well, I was visited. But they didn't stay long. They just drank all my beer and split after I passed out.

[hgc]

They will only think it strange that Americans once believed in God.
I long ago gave up the notion that theism will fade.

[hgc]

I think that technically, when the Pilgrims set out in 1620, the colony in that part of North America was referred to as "Virginia" as the only colony there was called "Virginia" and the bulk of people didn't, having lived in England and the Netherlands, have a grasp on the scope and scale of this new land they were headed to.

I can't recall where I read that, but it was in an article about the Mayflower compact.

DR
Sorry, no. "Virginia" did not stretch that far north, even then. They had every expectation of being landed a lot closer to Jamestown.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't believe in Thor, yet I don't rename Thursday to Fifthday. That's all I'm saying. The BCE/CE thing is simply an attempt to buck the system without actually bucking it. Goofy and amusing while still hinging entirely on the birth date of a guy that people don't want to honor in Latin. Yeah, armchair activism! That's showing them Christians that we will be glad to use their calendar and pretend that we aren't!

Then you are not quaker. The days of the week are

Firstday
Secondday
Thirdday
Fourthday
Fifthday
Sixthday
Seventhday.

[Glen.Nogami]

Then you are not quaker. The days of the week are

Firstday
Secondday
Thirdday
Fourthday
Fifthday
Sixthday
Seventhday.

Much better. Clear, too. Which day of the week is it? Why, the fifth. None of this mon- tues- wednes- thurs- business

[burnvictim77]

Much better. Clear, too. Which day of the week is it? Why, the fifth. None of this mon- tues- wednes- thurs- business

Revolution, I say!

[Cleon]

Then you are not quaker. The days of the week are

Firstday
Secondday
Thirdday
Fourthday
Fifthday
Sixthday
Seventhday.

Weird. Every Quaker I know, including the gf, says "Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday...." etc like the rest of us.

[Scott Haley]

Here's the Conservapedia entry on gravity:

Gravity
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Gravity is considered by scientists and evolutionists to be one of the fundamental forces of the universe. It is a theory which suggests that all masses are attracted to each other because of invisible particles called gravitons or invisible curves in space. The idea was first developed by Isaac Newton, and has been worked on by prominent scientists like Johannes Kepler and Albert Einstein.
[edit]
Gravity controversy

Some have criticized gravity, reminding us that it is only a theory, and that no scientist has ever seen a graviton or a space curve. Furthermore, experiments done by NASA prove that the Moon is receding (moving further away) from the Earth at a rate of 3.8cm per year, directly contradicting the theory that masses attract one another[1]. Indeed, astronomers can observe that all stars in the universe are moving away from one another. The considerable disagreement between scientists about the theory of gravity suggests that, like evolution, the theory will eventually be replaced with a model which acknowledges God as the source of all things, the Prime Mover, and the only real fundamental force in the universe.
[edit]
References

References

1. ↑ http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

[Glen.Nogami]

That's gotta be a troll. Is the footnote a link to the onion's Intelligent Falling article? :D

[burnvictim77]

Here's the Conservapedia entry on gravity:

Gravity
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Gravity is considered by scientists and evolutionists to be one of the fundamental forces of the universe. It is a theory which suggests that all masses are attracted to each other because of invisible particles called gravitons or invisible curves in space. The idea was first developed by Isaac Newton, and has been worked on by prominent scientists like Johannes Kepler and Albert Einstein.
[edit]
Gravity controversy

Some have criticized gravity, reminding us that it is only a theory, and that no scientist has ever seen a graviton or a space curve. Furthermore, experiments done by NASA prove that the Moon is receding (moving further away) from the Earth at a rate of 3.8cm per year, directly contradicting the theory that masses attract one another[1]. Indeed, astronomers can observe that all stars in the universe are moving away from one another. The considerable disagreement between scientists about the theory of gravity suggests that, like evolution, the theory will eventually be replaced with a model which acknowledges God as the source of all things, the Prime Mover, and the only real fundamental force in the universe.
[edit]
References

References

1. ↑ http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

I'm pretty sure I saw this episode of Moral Orel.

[burnvictim77]

I long ago gave up the notion that theism will fade.

Did everyone miss the point of my post???

[Rrose Selavy]

Wikipedia is a bit like the bible. It's supposed to be an authoritative source but it has so many authors, often contradictory , we just don't know what to believe!:confused:

[Glen.Nogami]

Evolution Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Evolution does in fact lower the entropy of the sum of the living DNA on this planet. The mechanism used by evolution to lower entropy is the collection and storage of information about trait survivability on strands of molecules called DNA. The theory of Evolution says that this information collects naturally through non-random selection from offspring variation.

I would think that these quacks would be a little embarrassing to even ID'ers and their ilk. That's a pretty thoroughly discredited argument, iIrc.

[Rrose Selavy]

Amazing how these guys are quick to cherry pick and jump on one dubious interpretation that to them violates one law yet ignore that their beliefs er..violate every law.

[Glen.Nogami]

It's not dubious at all, is the thing. It simply doesn't violate the second law. The sun and it's vast amount of energy make the earth a very open system, not a closed one. Terrible site.

[rex]

Most entries I checked in Conservapedia are still very short to non-existent:

==========
Richard Dawkins (http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins)

Richard Dawkins (March 26, 1941-) is a writer and atheist considered to be a great biologist by scientists.

He does not like Christianity, calling it a "mind-virus".[1] and is against the teaching of Creationism in schools.
==========
Sun (http://www.conservapedia.com/Sun)

The sun is a star, a giant ball of flaming gas. It provides the Earth with light and heat. In Christian theology, God created the sun on the first day of Creation. [1]

References

1. ↑ Genesis 1
==========
Religion (http://www.conservapedia.com/Religion)

Types of Religion

There is only one type of religion, Christianity. The others are frauds.

Sources of Religion

Christians used to look to the Bible for God's word, but now they have the Blog of the Gods (http://www.blogofthegods.com/), which relays His word directly in modern language people can understand. It is also less silly than the Bible.
==========
Christian (http://www.conservapedia.com/Christian)

A follower of Christianity.
==========
Jesus Christ (http://www.conservapedia.com/Jesus_Christ)

There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page.

[Dr Adequate]

Everything Conservatives Know About Spain (http://www.conservapedia.com/Spain)

Country located on the Iberian Penninsula. Borderd by the Alantic Ocean to the west and the Mediterranean on the east. Portuagal is located on the same penninsuala. Is the same country as was in the medieval times. And known for its famous explorers.

---

Everything Conservatives Know About Catholics (http://www.conservapedia.com/Catholics)

The members of the Catholic church.

---


Everything Conservatives Know About Peru (http://www.conservapedia.com/Spain)

Country in western South America.

---

Everything Conservatives Know About Iraq (http://www.conservapedia.com/Iraq)

A Middle-Eastern country, invaded in 2003 and currently occupied by a U.S.-led coalition.

---

With that sort of detailed insight, it's hard to see how anything could have gone wrong.

---

I detect the hand of a subtle prankster:

War Elephants (http://www.conservapedia.com/War_Elephants)

In The Ancient World

War elephants were important, although not widespread, weapons in ancient military history. Their main use was in charges, to trample the enemy and/or break their ranks, they were also used by the Diadochi to protect against cavalry attack. War elephants could be either male or female animals. Male elephants were generally larger and more physically powerful, but female elephants were generally considered to have a more violent disposition (particularly during their menstrual cycles) that made them well-suited to a battlefield role. The Carthaginian general Hannibal made devastating use of menstruating "Berserker Elephants" during the Second Punic War (218 - 202 BC).

In The Modern World

While the introduction of modern [[firearms], artillery, and tanks largely limited the elephant's usefulness on the battlefield, they are still employed in a variety of specialized combat roles in modern armies around the world. In 2003, Thailand contributed 260 specially trained elephants to Coalition Forces in the Iraq War for purposes of unexploded ordinance disposal and minefield clearing. Within two years, all of these animals were killed in theater. A memorial to these elephants, affectionately known as "Dumbo Team", was erected in Patong Beach, Thailand in 2006.

Crushing By Elephants

Crushing by elephant was for thousands of years a common method of execution used in parts of southeast Asia and India. Elephants employed in this manner were used to crush, dismember, or torture captives in public executions. It was not uncommon for the victims' families to be forced to wash the feet of the elephants after an execution.

The use of elephants to execute captives often attracted the horrified interest of European travellers, and was recorded in numerous contemporary journals and accounts of life in Asia. The practice was largely suppressed by the European empires that colonized the region in the 18th and 19th centuries, but recent reports confirm that Christian missionaries in Pakistan were crushed to death by elephants in this manner as recently as 1997.

Sources

http://www.dopa.go.th - Department of Provincial Administration, Ministry of Interior, Royal Thai Government

---

That link is well worth following

---

It's also interesting to have a look at their longest pages: a list can be found here (http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Longpages).

[pgwenthold]

"Pilgrims" Pilgrims were people (mostly puritans) in the 1600's that traveled to the American Colonies because of persecution in England. These settlers started the very first settlement in the American colonies, Jamestown." OK, that's it. If the middle-school level of writing wasn't bad enough - nothing against middle-schoolers, we all gotta learn sometimes - is it asking too much to get basic facts right?

Apparently whoever wrote this is younger than the Schoolhouse Rock generation.

"Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashan', over the horizon, what can it be?
The Pilgrams sailed the seas to find a place to call their own
On their ship, "Mayflower," they sought to find a better home
They finally landed at Plymouth Rock, and someone said 'We're there!'
This may not look like home but at this point, I don't care"

[ImaginalDisc]

It's also interesting to have a look at their longest pages: a list can be found here (http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Longpages).

Those are all goldmines. There's a whole set "World History lectures" that are amazing.

http://www.conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One
When did mankind first begin? There is no reliable evidence of man existing before 3500 B.C.

Pay not attention to the bones, flit arrowheads, campfires, or cave paintings.

We can also extrapolate backwards from modern populations to estimate that only about 300 million people existed in the world at the time of Christ, and extrapolating backwards further yields only one family in the year 3300 B.C.

And if we extrapolate futher, we get no ancestors at all! Love to see their data, though.

Old trees never predate this time either; the oldest sequoias, which never die of old age, are only 4000 years old.

Rebuttal A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_%28tree%29) and rebuttal B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_%28tree%29)

History books speculate at length about “prehistory”, which predates writing. But there is no reliable evidence to support this speculation, and not worth spending time on. There is no reason to think that man existed for thousands of years without ever expressing himself in written form. But in case you are asked, historians describe the period of time known as “prehistory” as the “Stone Age.”

"Here, learn this in case you ever have to talk to sane people. It is important for you to pretend to believe in science, and to ignore the fact that if I had any evidence to support my position, I would publish an article revolutionizing our understanding of history, rather than indoctrinating you in this fashion."

P.S. Ggantija (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ggantija), moron.

P.P.S. Knap oh Howar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knap_of_Howar), too. Of course, that's all based on evil carbon dating.

The rest of it focuses so much on Biblical quotations, it's staggering. The author, Andy Schlafly (http://www.eagleforumu.org/eagleforumu/), is a tutor for home schoolers. Sad. I found a You Tube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5RNAYlAxmo) where he talks about the HPV vaccine, but my sound's not working. Is it as terribly misinformed as his history lectures?

[UnrepentantSinner]

The sun is a star, a giant ball of flaming gas. It provides the Earth with light and heat. In Christian theology, God created the sun on the first day of Creation. [1]

References

1. ↑ Genesis 1

Those dummies can't even get their own religion correct. The Sun wasn't created until Gen 1:16 which occurs during the fourth day. You can't get much more pathetic than having an atheist correct your own knowledge of your own holy book.

[UnrepentantSinner]

And if we extrapolate futher, we get no ancestors at all! Love to see their data, though.

The problem with that extrapolation (and I'd love to see the math for it) is that it doesn't seem to take into account that the Flood killed everyone off except for 8 people right in the middle of the time they're referring to.

The more common backwards extrapolation I've seen takes current population levels and tries to arrive at 8 people after the Flood but this it's fatally flawed because, as many websites point out, there would only be a few thousand people on Earth during the time the pyramids were built.

[Dr Adequate]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Fox_news

Fox News was started in 1996 in response to the other cable news channels which all had obvious liberal biases. Because of this, Rupert Murdoch decided to start a real new channel which would tell the truth. The success of Fox news over every other news channel is because it is fair and balanced. [1] It has many people on it who work to spread truth such as Sean Hannity who is a great American. [2]. Fox News is best because instead of just telling you what to think, they only report the news unbiased and then allow the viewer to decide. [3]. In 2005 the White House selected Tony Snow from Fox News to be the new White House press secretary which was a great honor for Fox because it showed how well it was presenting the real truth instead of the fake liberal version. [4]

[Lonewulf]

Conservapedia has to be a parody. It has to be.

I cannot accept that people are this dumb.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Conservapedia has to be a parody. It has to be.

I cannot accept that people are this dumb.

Poe's Law.

[Cosmo]

Poe's Law.

Quoted to get my signature into this thread. :D

[Miss Anthrope]

Conservapedia has to be a parody. It has to be.

I cannot accept that people are this dumb.

Awww, sure ya can (http://www.timecube.com)!

[Lonewulf]

Awww, sure ya can (http://www.timecube.com)!

I'm of the opinion that insanity != stupidity.

Given that I don't understand a fornicating thing about the Time Cube, I'll go ahead and state that I don't know if the guy's a moron and insane, or brilliant and insane. Either way, I wouldn't want to have a discussion with him... unless it's parody.

[Glen.Nogami]

Their entry on "As You Like It" consists of the full text of the play.

Who-

Aw, screw it. I'm just going to ignore it.

[Dr Adequate]

Their page on Iraq is now much longer.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Iraq

Can you see why?

:dl:

[phildonnia]

On the Main Page: the very first, and presumably most scathing example of Wikipedia's bias:


On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian "C.E." instead of "A.D.", which Conservapedia uses.

[Madalch]

Their page on Iraq is now much longer.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Iraq
If someone added something funny to it, the conservatives took it right back out again- it's still the one-liner.

[rex]

If someone added something funny to it, the conservatives took it right back out again- it's still the one-liner.

Someone with the user name "Stella" had copied and pasted text from Wikipedia.

You can still view the old version of the page (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq&oldid=19337) in history.

[jesus_freak]

Wikipedia not reliable paper source
http://media.www.dailyvidette.com/media/storage/paper420/news/2006/05/05/News/Wikipedia.Not.Reliable.Paper.Source-1901560.shtml