Conservapedia

  • Page

    of 3 First / Last

    Previous
  • Deleted user 25 February 2007 10:44:32
    Yet more proof that Conservative America is batshit insane.

    My history of disliking Wikipedia is well-known, but this just takes it to a new level.

    Link

    From the first page:

    Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American.

    From the article about The Moon:

    The Moon orbits the Earth. Unlike most planets, Earth has only one moon and it has several striking characteristics that only be described as artistic in design:

    1. Throughout man's existence, the Moon has had the same size as the Sun when viewed from Earth. This creates a beautiful symmetry and permits phenomenal eclipses to occur. The odds of that symmetry occurring by chance are too small to be considered possible. That symmetry will not last forever.

    2. The Moon presents the same side to Earth at all times, even though the Moon revolves around the Earth. That requires the rotation of the Moon to be timed precisely to offset the separate effects of the revolution around Earth. This has an awesome artistic or design effect without any plausible physical reason.

    Skeptics sought to explain this remarkable phenomenon by saying that tidal forces on Earth caused a bulge on the Moon, thereby locking in the rotation of the Moon so that its same face always presents to the Earth. They asserted that the planet Mercury has a similar locked rotation due to gravitation forces from the sun, such that the same side of Mercury always faces the sun.

    But this explanation was ultimately proven wrong. Mercury does not always present the same face to the sun as claimed, and instead switches the side that it presents to the sun every full revolution. As to the Moon, the tidal forces on the Earth cannot account fully for its bulge or egg shape. The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design.

    3. The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth. This deficiency of iron on the Moon disproved the primary theory that the Moon must have originated by breaking off from the Earth. There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin for the Moon at this time.

    4. The Moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 6 inches per year. The Moon could never have been closer than about 150,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 6 inches per year, the Moon's present distance of about 250,000 miles implies a young age for the Moon of no more than one billion years. Under the non-creationist claim that the Moon somehow broke away from the Earth, the Moon's rate of recession must have been faster in the past, and thus the Moon would have been only 150,000 miles from the Earth far more recently than one billion years ago. This contradicts the claim of non-creationists that the Moon and Earth are somehow several billions of years old.

    5. 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.

    And, just for fun, a factual error:

    Dunkirk
    After the surrender of Belgium, French and British forces in Belgium retreated to Dunkirk, a town on the northern coast of France. Here they held off the Germans while more than 300,000 Allied troops waded out to British rescue-vessels in late May 1940. The tiny British air force formed aerial umbrella to hold off the German bombers.

    The successful operation saved the ENTIRE British army. If the Dunkirk rescue had failed, the British troops would certainly have been defeated or captured.

    Dunkirk evacuation started the day before Belgium surrendered.
  • Genji 25 Feb 2007 10:46:50 19,689 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Yeah, I saw this a while ago. I love the article about France.

    I also predict massive, massive edit wars and account banning in the present and future.
  • corimi 25 Feb 2007 10:55:22 1,311 posts
    Seen 4 years ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Heh, from 'Examples of Bias in Wikipedia'

    Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation", even there there are far more American than British users. Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[3]. Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

    So does anyone with lots of time on their hands want to spend a while becoming a mole to the point where they get access to the database for this? I'll happily write a script that'll change every US spelled word to UK spellings, just to really piss them off!
  • Introspectre 25 Feb 2007 10:59:30 3,274 posts
    Registered 8 years ago
    O_o

    American English FTL.
  • Aretak 25 Feb 2007 11:09:45 10,352 posts
    Seen 55 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Encyclopedia Dramatica FTW.
  • thefilthandthefury 25 Feb 2007 11:13:06 25,020 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I thought more people spoke English English?

    DISCLAIMER: I could be totally wrong
  • AlpTighen 25 Feb 2007 11:18:38 14 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    In the interests of accuracy, I'd like to point out that the correct American English spelling of the word "favour" is... "favour".

    "Favor" is a left-over from the US's brief infatuation (during the first world war) with Simplified Spelling. The only real lasting effects of that were removal of r-control U's and the replacement of soft S's with Z's (e.g. "recognize").
  • warlockuk 25 Feb 2007 11:22:39 19,164 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Heh, fucking nutters. I quite like this - the Gettysburg Address. With no mention of either of the surviving drafts of the speech containing the words "Under God" anywhere.

    I'm a grumpy bastard.

  • corimi 25 Feb 2007 11:25:04 1,311 posts
    Seen 4 years ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    AlpTighen wrote:
    In the interests of accuracy, I'd like to point out that the correct American English spelling of the word "favour" is... "favour".

    "Favor" is a left-over from the US's brief infatuation (during the first world war) with Simplified Spelling. The only real lasting effects of that were removal of r-control U's and the replacement of soft S's with Z's (e.g. "recognize").

    Really? So this line:
    Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.
    is even betterer. Personally, I'm not too bothered about who spells words in what manner as long as it's understandable and not totally ignorant, it's language development.

    Though I'll be a bit fucked off when I awake from my time capsule in 300 years and I have to communicate only in TXT SPK.
  • Hughes. 25 Feb 2007 11:26:37 2,812 posts
    Seen 4 weeks ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    If Americans ever complain to me about any spellings or pronunciations I always swiftly tell them if they don't like the language they misuse, get another one, and add that I hear Spanish is getting very popular over there. That's shuts 'em up pretty quick.
  • lucky_jim 25 Feb 2007 11:40:31 5,296 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Conservapedia is comedy gold. Wikipedia's entry for "Evolution" runs to some seven chapters with 54 footnotes and a number of references. Conservapedia has a couple of paragraphs of (mostly) nonsense backed up with, uhm, zero footnotes and zero references.

    I realise Wikipedia should be handled with care, but I can still safely say we have a winner!

    edit- typo

    Edited by lucky_jim at 11:41:04 25-02-2007
  • PearOfAnguish 25 Feb 2007 11:42:28 7,296 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    What an excellent site. They claim Wikipedia is biased, so they make their own encyclopedia that is, erm, also biased? But it's okay, because it's biased toward the conservative right.

    I don't think they've got enough editors to handle all the vandalism the site will receive.
    From the Bill Clinton entry:

    Bill Clinton managed to serve two terms without botching the prosecution of two wars, manipulating intelligence, engaging in a systematic program of torture, or mishandling the federal response to flooding of a major American city. Obviously, he is the devil incarnate. Clinton also attempted to use the American military to kill Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, an action which was properly seen as a mere attempt to distract the nation from the Monica Lewisnky scandal.

    And Jesus:

    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.

    Conservapedia is comedy gold. Wikipedia's entry for "Evolution" runs to some seven chapters with 54 footnotes and a number of references. Conservapedia has a couple of paragraphs of (mostly) nonsense backed up with, uhm, zero footnotes and zero references.

    It also claims that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, a common argument from creationists who either don't understand it, or have been given an oft-quoted version of the law that takes part of it out of context.

    Edited by PearOfAnguish at 11:46:04 25-02-2007
  • Deleted user 25 February 2007 12:10:07
    PearOfAnguish wrote:
    And Jesus:

    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.

    :D

    Comedy gold!
  • AlpTighen 25 Feb 2007 12:12:35 14 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    PearOfAnguish wrote:

    It also claims that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, a common argument from creationists who either don't understand it, or have been given an oft-quoted version of the law that takes part of it out of context.

    Edited by PearOfAnguish at 11:46:04 25-02-2007

    Aaaaargh. That one always makes me grit my teeth for two reasons.

    1) Obviously, you'd have to ignore the "in a closed system" part of the Entropy Law to be that stupid.

    2) I really hate the term "the second law of thermodynamics" as if they were all in a list or something.

    "Ah yes, conservation of momentum." *lights pipe* "Forty-seventh law of thermodynamics, don't you know."
  • Genji 25 Feb 2007 12:14:02 19,689 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    There's going to be some awesome vandalism on there. Possibly even funnier than the serious stuff.
  • Ecanem 25 Feb 2007 12:14:46 5,035 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    PearOfAnguish wrote:
    And Jesus:

    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.

    Excellent! =P
  • Retroid Moderator 25 Feb 2007 13:17:04 44,733 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Fuck. Me.

    They're insane. They're absolutely mad.

    They're as deluded as North Korea's people, only NK has a fucking good reason and it isn't that they're all batshit insane. I really am getting increasingly scared of certain parts of America, I really am. Far more scared of them than ANYONE in the middle east.
  • lucky_jim 25 Feb 2007 13:23:44 5,296 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    It gets better, I thought I'd look up what they have to say on "homosexuality" and pretty much as expected, it was all bible quotes and nonsense. One of their references was quoted as CreationWiki, the self-styled "Encyclopedia of Creation Science". I can't seem to find much science, for some reason.

    Nut-jobs quoting other nut-jobs as "evidence". Where will it all end?

    edit: tags

    Edited by lucky_jim at 13:25:02 25-02-2007

    edit again: I looked up "Evolution" on CreationWiki and the first sentence read: Evolutionism is the belief in the theory that life on Earth is simply the result of random, natural processes...

    There's so much wrong with that, that I don't even know where to begin. The wrongly-appended "-ism" perhaps, or the utterly misplaced word "random".

    Edited by lucky_jim at 13:33:11 25-02-2007
  • UncleLou Moderator 25 Feb 2007 13:29:54 35,556 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I checked a few unpolitical topics, and it's entirely mad.

    I know encyclopaedias that were published in the GDR in the 60ies/70ies, they are masterpieces of impartiality compared to this.
  • Deleted user 25 February 2007 13:34:56
    Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?

    O_o

    Yeah, it's not like Buddhism was founded over 5 centuries prior to Christianity, or anything.
  • cubbymoore 25 Feb 2007 13:37:00 36,496 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    And I think the jews displayed some sort of faith a bit further back, I can't find anything to back this up though on there. Maybe I just imagined it.
  • Deleted user 25 February 2007 13:37:36
    They were stealth jews.
  • PearOfAnguish 25 Feb 2007 13:47:49 7,296 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    The Jesus entry also quotes Josephus as historical evidence of everyone's favourite magical hippy, neatly ignoring the fact that even in the 18th century they knew it to be a Christian forgery.

    Everyone should sign up and start having some fun. Quote your edits here to preserve them in case they ever get their act together.

  • warlockuk 25 Feb 2007 13:51:16 19,164 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Gremmi wrote:
    Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?

    O_o

    Yeah, it's not like Buddhism was founded over 5 centuries prior to Christianity, or anything.
    I didn't know Buddhism required faith - it's a non-theistic thingamy. It's all philosophical isn't it?

    I'm a grumpy bastard.

  • Deleted user 25 February 2007 13:54:28
    warlockuk wrote:
    Gremmi wrote:
    Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?

    O_o

    Yeah, it's not like Buddhism was founded over 5 centuries prior to Christianity, or anything.
    I didn't know Buddhism required faith - it's a non-theistic thingamy. It's all philosophical isn't it?

    Buddhism is about faith in the teachings of Buddha and enlightenment. The concept is identical.
  • warlockuk 25 Feb 2007 13:56:44 19,164 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Fucking disgusting:
    From home page: A Conservapedia contributor helps defeat mandatory vaccination; Merck cancels its million-dollar lobbying effort. See Conservapedia contributor's televised debate here

    The video has the woman mandating it giving good reasons to implement it and saying people can opt-out at any time.

    Then doucheboy pipes up. Fucking cunt.

    I'm a grumpy bastard.

  • MrTomFTW Moderator 25 Feb 2007 14:06:13 38,187 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Aw, I can't figure out how to create an account. Maybe they've disabled it.

    Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
    Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011, 2012 and 2013.

  • PearOfAnguish 25 Feb 2007 14:07:22 7,296 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Yeah, looks as though they've disabled it.
    I'm not sure they understand the point of a Wiki.
  • Fozzie_bear 25 Feb 2007 14:10:40 15,530 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Maybe God told them to cancel sign-ups.

    Support the Mowgli Dirty Protest!

  • warlockuk 25 Feb 2007 14:15:11 19,164 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I looked up Apple. No entries. First text match: Eve

    Eve has her own entry:
    "Eve was the first woman on Earth. The Lord made her from one of Adam's ribs when he was asleep. She told Adam to eat the apple after the snake trikced her into it."

    An encyclopedia says that. The world's fucked.

    I'm a grumpy bastard.

  • Page

    of 3 First / Last

    Previous
Log in or register to reply