Conservapedia, aka the South Losing Grasp on Reality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-06-2011, 04:00 PM
RE: Conservapedia, aka the South Losing Grasp on Reality
Some of the articles aren't just bias or misinformation, they are downright LIES! Can these shit for brains fucktarts get away with that ?

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2011, 04:06 AM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2011 04:22 AM by ghostexorcist.)
RE: Conservapedia, aka the South Losing Grasp on Reality
(07-06-2011 07:06 AM)Cube Wrote:  Heresy = Scientific theory
Heretic = Crackpot

Heresy = Crackpots and their Science [my generalization of the claims]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Secularized_Language

This one pissed me off: "Abomination = homosexuals." I have a gay uncle. I may think the lifestyle is gross (I'm a guy), but someone should have the right to sleep with or marry whomever they want without religion or politics butting in. Equating gays with such a negative word is bigoted and closed-minded.

I just took a looksy at the Evolution article. The overall message is that the theory is unsupported by modern science, and anyone who adheres to it--even biologists with decades of study and experience--are fooling themselves. It doesn't even attempt to give any examples from the mountain of evidence supporting it. And, of course, they try to link it to Nazi Eugenics and social racism. The page used to mention the research of microbiologist Richard Lenski. Lenski performed a twenty year study of E Coli over the course of some 33,000 generations. He noted that the later generations developed the ability to process sugars in the environment that their ancestors did not, making this a clear case of observed evolution. Andy Schlafly believed Lenski misinterpreted the information, so he demanded the researcher send him the raw data from the 20 year experiment. Lenski was kind enough to reply that all of the relevant information was presented in his research paper. This was not enough, Schlafly actually wanted to have access to the original bacterial colonies, despite the fact that Schlafly as ZERO training in microbiology. Based on a then ongoing dialogue on a Conservapedia forum, Lenski learned that Schlafly had NOT EVEN READ THE PAPER to begin with! And what's worse, his minions were calling it a "hoax" just for the sake of argument! You can read about it here. The article on Lenski goes to great lengths to show just how “flawed” his research was. It also tries to defame it by showing that it was published in a journal headed by “a professional society of scientists with a strong bias towards atheism and evolutionism.” It also points out that Lenski’s work has been criticized by the famous creation scientists William Dembski and Michael Behe. Apparently the 100% of respectable scientists who accept Lenski’s work are trumped by these two jackasses. There is even an article called “Flaws in Richard Lenski Study.” It’s laughable to say the least.

Here are some funny videos about the site:

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWWyjOdJKas
* http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert...a-unicycle

And here is an interview that Colbert did with Andy Schlafly, the creator of Conservapedia. I didn't have the heart to watch it:

* http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert...y-schlafly

Here is an archive of letters between Schlafly and Lenski on Conservapedia. Schlafly is extremely rude, and Lenski puts him in his place. I'm surprised that they would keep this up on the site because Schlafly should have been in a mental coma after the last letter.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservaped...ski_dialog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2011, 11:24 AM
 
RE: Conservapedia, aka the South Losing Grasp on Reality
If you like laughing at Conservapedia, you might like RationalWiki's "What is Going on at Conservapedia?" which keeps track of their greatest hits:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservaped...servapedia
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservaped...n_at_CP%3F
(the rest of the site is good too!)
Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2011, 03:20 PM
RE: Conservapedia, aka the South Losing Grasp on Reality
(08-06-2011 11:24 AM)MarkGall Wrote:  If you like laughing at Conservapedia, you might like RationalWiki's "What is Going on at Conservapedia?" which keeps track of their greatest hits:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservaped...servapedia
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservaped...n_at_CP%3F
(the rest of the site is good too!)
That is some funny stuff.

There is an accompanying essay to the article about atheism and obesity called "Prominent atheists weighed on the scales and found wanting." Here is an example of the quality scholarship that pervades every sentence: "Next time a fat atheists gets uppity ask him, 'If you're so smart Mr. Atheist, then why are you so fat?'."

The essay makes it a point to attack Buddhism because certain sects tend to have the atheistic view that Buddha was not a god. See these captioned pictures, for example:

[Image: buddhamisidentification.png]

As an Asian Studies major, I can tell from the captions that the author of the essay has no idea what they are talking about. The chubby guy and the skinny statue of the Buddha are two completely different deities. The one on the left is Budhai, a Chinese and Japanese folk deity associated with children. He is considered by some to be an incarnation of the Maitreya Bodhisattva (a type of Buddha-in-training). The common misconception that statues of Budai are representations of the historical Buddha comes from his moniker the “Laughing Buddha.” Most westerners (I am one BTW) are unaware that the Buddhist Pantheon is comprised of many Buddhas. The fact that the author thought the skinny Buddha statue was a lie is hilarious. Even a cursory search on Google images will show that he is often depicted as being skinny or broad-shouldered and muscular. It may seem like I’m obsessing over such a small mistake, but I think this serves as a prime example of the “I don’t know anything about [insert subject], but I’m going to speak out against it anyway” mentality that Conservapedia editors have. This applies to 99% of their articles. By the way, the above pictures no longer grace the page because I made an account and convinced the author the information was incorrect. If only they could be convinced to shut down the site altogether.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2011, 10:12 AM
RE: Conservapedia, aka the South Losing Grasp on Reality
Has anyone seen their 'Best of the Public' article which, from the brief skimming I have done, should be entitled 'why red-neck anecdotal evidence is more reliable than science'?

Had to laugh at the 'examples' section of the page. First category is 'Intellectual Examples' and the first example is the Bible, it also list Conservapedia itself in the same category.

It really is delusion at its best Big Grin!

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2011, 10:44 AM
RE: Conservapedia, aka the South Losing Grasp on Reality
Conservapedia, really? Is this a TV crowd, or something?

Personally, as a reader; it is just offensive. It makes me... ah, wanna play some
Halo... you know... my Warthog, their headquarters; kinda relationship?

But hey, humor is only atheistic when theists don't laugh at themselves...

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2011, 05:59 AM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2011 06:01 AM by morondog.)
RE: Conservapedia, aka the South Losing Grasp on Reality
(17-11-2011 10:44 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Conservapedia, really? Is this a TV crowd, or something?

Personally, as a reader; it is just offensive. It makes me... ah, wanna play some
Halo... you know... my Warthog, their headquarters; kinda relationship?

But hey, humor is only atheistic when theists don't laugh at themselves...

I also find it offensive. I can't believe that anyone could spew forth the kind of vitriol that they have on *every single page*. Grrr.
Of course, simple solution is not to read it. I really wish... that insufferable smugness was a crime.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: