the conservapedia - so sad, it's (almost) funny

Ihateyoumike · February 08, 2009, 09:31:13 PM

Quote from: "url]http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution[/url]"]In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter. Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New Encyclopedia Britannica stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter. In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.

Well, I'm sold. This website stated the arguments so well, I don't know how I cannot follow the bible. I mean, the bible was right about how lions kill their prey, and science waited to prove it. The bible said snakes could hear, and until 1988 the Encyclopedia was wrong. Owned again! The real twist of the religious knife in my back of reason and knowledge, is that back in the 1800's, scientists didn't know about a certain unnamed matter regarding ant behavior. Idiots! Guess what, the bible got that one right too. PWNED!1!!

Okay, sarcasm aside, if you would like to have a good laugh (or cry) go check out http://www.conservapedia.com. If you're wondering, yes, it is wikipedia for fundie far-right-wing religious wackjobs.

I mean, it has to be full of truth when they have this picture on their main page,

right?

Will · February 08, 2009, 09:46:09 PM

That some people take it seriously makes me want to weep.

VanReal · February 08, 2009, 09:52:04 PM

Well, it is wikipedia....and nothing surprises me. Although you can go there to find a link to a real source I never click anything with wiki in it, just ugghh. This just makes it even worse.

I'm curious, what did the bible say regarding ant behavior? And why was it focusing on that instead of teaching us a little basic math?

curiosityandthecat · February 08, 2009, 09:59:02 PM

Quote from: "VanReal"Well, it is wikipedia....and nothing surprises me. Although you can go there to find a link to a real source I never click anything with wiki in it, just ugghh. This just makes it even worse.

I'm curious, what did the bible say regarding ant behavior? And why was it focusing on that instead of teaching us a little basic math?

It's not Wikipedia. It's a totally different, unaffiliated website specifically created because the developer (a history teacher) felt that the Wikipedia was too liberal and not trustworthy.

Just look at the Conservapedia's page on atheism. It's laughable. Imagine Fox News and the Wikipedia having a baby.

VanReal · February 08, 2009, 10:25:14 PM

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"It's not Wikipedia. It's a totally different, unaffiliated website specifically created because the developer (a history teacher) felt that the Wikipedia was too liberal and not trustworthy.

Just look at the Conservapedia's page on atheism. It's laughable. Imagine Fox News and the Wikipedia having a baby.

Oops, I misunderstood, guess I jumped the gun because it peeves me when people use wiki as scholarly sources. :crazy:

curiosityandthecat · February 08, 2009, 10:27:09 PM

Quote from: "VanReal"Oops, I misunderstood, guess I jumped the gun because it peeves me when people use wiki as scholarly sources. :crazy:

I believe the technical term for the author is "bat-shit crazy."

Will · February 09, 2009, 12:00:04 AM

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Imagine Fox News and the Wikipedia having a baby.

I've never heard a better argument for pro-choice.

SSY · February 09, 2009, 02:27:25 AM

This is actually distressing. How can people be so stupid? So willingly ignorant?

SSY · February 09, 2009, 02:43:04 AM

On reading their article about atheism, I can honestly say i have never read such a massive pile of crap in my whole life. The whole thing is full of lies, idiocy and misrepresentation. I can't say I have ever really been tempted to act on something like this, but this is severly testing my restraint.

In conclusion, what a load of shit.

Tom62 · February 09, 2009, 06:53:25 AM

That site is so amazingly stupid that only idiots can take it seriously. Look under Obama end see why he is a Muslim president

Quote"Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one."

Shit, that makes me a Muslim as well.

Ihateyoumike · February 09, 2009, 06:14:35 PM

Quote from: "Will"That some people take it seriously makes me want to weep.

Me too, Will. It would be amusing if their way of thinking wasn't harmful to society.

Quote from: "VanReal"I'm curious, what did the bible say regarding ant behavior? And why was it focusing on that instead of teaching us a little basic math?

You know, I didn't look at the sources for that paragraph, it was just so damned ridiculous I had to just comment on it. I think I'll go back and see where that one came from, because it had me laughing out loud yesterday.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Imagine Fox News and the Wikipedia having a baby.

Well said, curio. I'm a bit jealous that I didn't come up with that line. :crazy:

Ninteen45 · February 14, 2009, 10:33:28 PM

It is rare for me to vanilize a wiki page, but this isn't a wikipage.

pedricero matao · February 14, 2009, 11:26:05 PM

Just take a look at the article about Barack Obama.
Worst article. Ever.

As we say here, "ladran Sancho, luego cabalgamos" (= they bark, Sancho therefore we ride) (incorrectly regarded as a quotation from El Quijote), meaning that if they do all that stuff is because they feel their views are threatened.

These two are great!

QuoteThe Conservapedia Commandments

QuoteThe truth shall set you free.

And its motto, too "the trustworthy encyclopedia"

Doesn't it sound like there's someonte trying to sell something?

News:

the conservapedia - so sad, it's (almost) funny