More Conservapedia Gems

[kenandkids]

From the "deliberate ignorance page ( http://conservapedia.com/Deliberate_ignorance ):

abortionists refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have abortions

How exactly does one address that which is undisclosed?

refusing to acknowledge the inferior credentials of the critics of Richard Sternberg, whom they ostracize for having published an intelligent design article

Hasn't every credible scientist in the field criticised his article? All of them have "inferior credentials?"

materialists refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for migration and homing

Not being an expert in the squishy sciences myself, I'm pretty satisfied with what I've read on the development and mechanics of both of these...

evolutionists refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the whale and the other counterexamples to evolution.

This one is just funny because of how often this has been discussed on this [particular forum.

Believing that only one ideology could ever make mistakes; constantly demonizing that ideology while ignoring the faults of ones own (a particulary Liberal fault).

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Liberals who refuse to acknowledge the many fundamental truths in the Bible and even dismiss out-of-hand the many examples of Biblical scientific foreknowledge but refuse to read the Bible.

Yes... it certainly is a good thing that the bible taught us about science. Whatever would we do if we didn't know that the Earth was held up by four pillars, disease is the result of demons, spitting on a blind person's eye cures the blindness, etc..



I'll leave this with one last submission, that has to be read to be believed.

Common expressions of deliberate ignorance include:
"I find that hard to believe!" (Howard Dean, June 11, 2008, in response to a fact ignored by liberals[2])
"I'm not aware of that!" (without admitting a failure to look)
"I've never seen that in the New York Times!"
"That's not what it said in my (public school) textbook!"
"Let's talk about something else!"
"I'm not interested in that!"
"That offends me!" (used as an excuse not to consider facts or logic)
"You're persecuting me!" (when the "persecution" consists only of pointing out inconvenient facts or logic)
"That's not true in my experience," with the implication that it therefore cannot be true at all

 

[Laurens]

evolutionists refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the whale and the other counterexamples to evolution.

:lol: No. That should be 'creationists refuse to accept the plausible evolutionary path for the whale as documented in the fossil record.'

 

[Hedley]

I just show how bees and birds look in the conservapedia:
http://www.conservapedia/bee
http://www.conservapedia/bird (a couple of lines for creationist propaganda)

and in the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/bee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/bird

"It is so loooong da nazi lefty one, that I rather read the REAL AMERICAN " Redneck daddy XD

 

[impiku]

Conservapedia is no better than Encyclopedia Dramatica.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

I think it should be "creationists refuse to stick to reality" period.

Taking science when you need it and rejecting it and creating "Anti-God conspiracies" whenever something goes against your moronic belief system and pseudo science.. just pathetic.

I say nobody is to be taken for serious if they open a book and see:

"God hangeth the world upon nothing" as a scientific theory for gravity

"But let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." as an early proposal for binary code,

"Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise." as business psychology,

"Speak to the earth and it shall teach thee." as Geology :lol:

"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed." as an early injunction against genetic modification.

"and he made a molten sea, ten cubits from brim to brim, and his height was five cubit; and a line of thirty cubits did encompass him round about." as mathematics

etc

Well i say, unless they close the book and start reading new books about real science, they will never be able to understand..

Although on a second thought,

I gleaned more practical psychology and psychiatry from the Bible, than from all other books!

Sure, so many psychopaths and nutjobs described in there sure can teach us a lot about that.

But all in all.. they should really just leave the science to real scientists.. and get some help from psychiatrists to get them rid of their delusion.

I'd like to quote somebody who put it perfectly...

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.

 

[Welshidiot]

Conservapedia is no better than Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Well, you know best, I certainly won't argue with you.

 

[impiku]

Don't throw in the towel so easily.

 

[kenandkids]

On the topic of Poes.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:How_can_we_protect_Conservapedia_by_distinguishing_real_conservative_encyclopedia_articles_from_satires_written_by_liberals%3F

 

[Welshidiot]

On the topic of Poes.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:How_can_we_protect_Conservapedia_by_distinguishing_real_conservative_encyclopedia_articles_from_satires_written_by_liberals%3F

Jesus f****** Christ!! Someone please tell me this lot aren't allowed to vote or operate heavy machinery.

Does this debate topic imply that there is no difference between conservative positions and liberal satire? There are no liberal satires in conservapedia because the editors correct them.

If these guys ever wanna play "find the lady", I wanna be the dealer.

 

[Aught3]

abortionists refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have abortions

Since abortions are medically and psychologically safer than carrying a baby to term, this one should really be about the anti-abortionists refusal to address the harm caused by pregnancy.

 

[Hedley]

Kenandkids and I noticed how poor are the contents of conservapedia in ALL articles. I could show other examples, like how conservapedia fails to mention where newspapers appeared for first time (at the end of the XVII century) and starts explaining a 2009 crisis???

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

From the OP -

UnAmerican Content
I feel that this should be edited:

"atheists refuse to acknowledge a priori philosophical proofs of the existence of God, and specifically the Christian god, ..."

It seems to indicate that there really are other gods than the American God of The Bible. I find this unacceptable even in this 'negative' context, where the existence of God is being denied by the wretched atheists. I suggest removing "and specifically the Christian god"

--------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with Conservapedia that is both hysterically epic yet saddening lulz is Poe's Law.
You CAN'T TELL.
Shit, half of those pages what I'm seeing is active trolling laced in with fanaticism to humor idiots into taking it as legitimate. >.>

 

[nemesiss]

Conservapedia is no better than Encyclopedia Dramatica.

actually, ED is better the conservapedia cause it's doesn't claim it's being truthfull and it has such wonderfull jems as history on youtube craziest fundie'; venomfang, nephie and shockofgod which ARE ACCURATE AND CORRECT!!!!

also:

9.Wikipedia uses anti-religious examples for its entry on "argumentum ad populum" (Latin for claiming that something is true if it is popular). Conspicuously absent from Wikipedia's examples are atheistic arguments based on popular opinion, such as misleading people into thinking the theory of evolution must be true if others accept it.

 

[DepricatedZero]

On the topic of Poes.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:How_can_we_protect_Conservapedia_by_distinguishing_real_conservative_encyclopedia_articles_from_satires_written_by_liberals%3F

Jesus f****** Christ!! Someone please tell me this lot aren't allowed to vote or operate heavy machinery.

Does this debate topic imply that there is no difference between conservative positions and liberal satire? There are no liberal satires in conservapedia because the editors correct them.

If these guys ever wanna play "find the lady", I wanna be the dealer.

Depressing as it is, I contract for the US Govt. and, as part of my job, work on government employee PCs. Not going to reveal more than that it's related to HLS, lawyers, police, etc. What I can reveal is that a surprising and sad number of them have links to Conservapedia on their desktops.

It's terrifying, at times.