Conservapedia - An encyclopedia you can trust

Jesus leaves the ninety-and-nine anklyodons to go after the one.

Serious question spurred by a silly thread: is there a common explanation that explains the prehistoric-to-classical era drawings of humans with dinosaur-like creatures?

do you mean cave paintings?

http://i36.tinypic.com/a0lc2r.jpg

I will take any excuse to post this picture. The dinosaur just seems so content in the loving arms of the Lord. (Or else he is lulling Jesus in before making his attack.)

PSALM 23 of the Dinosaur Bible:

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to rend flesh in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of savagery for his name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me of mine enemies: thou anointest my hide with oil; my fangs runneth red.
Surely wailing and screams shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will munch on the servants of the LORD for ever.

I think I'm gonna make that my fb pic xp

do you mean cave paintings?

Well ... I have seen a few. The two that are clearest in my memory are a pot or vase with a brontosaurus-like creature from Mesopotamian and a statue of a small t-rex-like creature from the Inca empire. I believe I saw both in National Geographic.

I found the statue:

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/twanakusm.jpg

I want one.

My hypothesis is: humans have imaginations.

that's a burro

They were dragons, not dinosaurs. Dragons didn't go extinct till the 18th C.

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to rend flesh in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of savagery for his name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me of mine enemies: thou anointest my hide with oil; my fangs runneth red.
Surely wailing and screams shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will munch on the servants of the LORD for ever.

this is fucking A+ work btw

Dinosaur bible is like my favorite thing of all time today

new mountain goats record needs rerecording to take dinosaur bible into account

Okay. Apparently this stuff was a hoax:

There are reports of engraved stones from the area going back as early as the sixteenth century; however, the particular stones in question were "discovered" in the 1960s, when one Dr Cabrera brought them to public notice after he had bought thousands of the engraved stones from a farmer called Basilo Uschuya.
Arrested for selling antiquities, Uschuya confessed to faking the stones. On the one hand, it may be argued that if he had maintained that they were genuine, he'd have gone to prison. On the other hand, he must have done something to persuade the police that the artifacts were not genuine: it would be interesting to know what. Nor would fear of arrest explain why he should give an interview to a newspaper (Mundial, No. 6, January 17) in which he and his wife tell how they faked the stones using comic books, school books, and magazines as sources for their pictures, and aged them by leaving them in a chicken coop.

The stones have no archaeological provenance at all. They are supposed to have been found in a cave, but the location of the cave remains a secret. Offers by archaeologists to be taken there blindfolded have been rejected.

It is not possible to date the stones directly; nor is it possible to date them by studying the site where they were supposedly found, because, as noted, this is a secret. It is, however, possible to put a date on the clay figurines which have been produced along with the stones. Erich von Daniken sent one to the University of Zurich for dating and they reported that the figurine was modern. His colleague Johannes Fiebag sent two other samples to the University of Weimar who reported that the samples were “relatively young” and still contained water.

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Ica_stones

This means it's only a matter of time until Dan Akroyd bottles luxury vodka into replicas of them.

lol

The stones have no archaeological provenance at all. They are supposed to have been found in a cave, but the location of the cave remains a secret.

Why? That skepticwiki article has no cites whatsoever.

The stones have no archaeological provenance at all. They are supposed to have been found in a cave, but the location of the cave remains a secret.

new rolling stones backstory

Bwaha.

Anyway it wasnt a cave, it was a cavern.

Wait wrong dinosaurs.

thank you Abbott for the new name!

this conservapedia thing seems SKETCHY if you ask me

an investigation into the mystery of the LORD'S drunken mania:

Exodus 4:24-26: "And it came to pass on
the way, at the encampment, that the LORD met him and sought to
kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the fore-
skin of her son and cast it at Moses' feet, and said, 'Surely you
are a husband of blood to me!' So He let him go. Then she said,
'You are a husband of blood'--because of the circumcision."

PRELIMINARY ISSUES
Several questions come to mind when one reads these verses.
1. This passage seems to be an intrusion into the flow of the
chapter. It is abrupt as well as cryptic and difficult. Though these
verses form a unit, the question remains, What is the purpose of
this pericope?
2. The passage is marked by a lack of clear antecedents for
some of its pronouns or named objects for some of its verbs. Fur-
ther, many translations have inserted the name "Moses" in verse
25 where the Hebrew has only "his." Who did what to whom?
3. More significantly, the passage prompts the question,
Why? What possibly could have prompted the rage of Yahweh that
would have caused Him to want to kill Moses? This seems partic-
ularly inappropriate, since the initial "misunderstanding" be-
tween God and Moses had been settled (Exod. 4:1-17).
4. Why does the passage center on what for modern readers
are the distasteful and embarrassing subjects of circumcision,
blood, and foreskins?
5. What was behind Zipporah's action? How did she know
what to do? Why did Moses not act? After she cut off the foreskin of her son, whom did she touch with it, what did she touch with it, and why did she need to touch anything with it?
6. What is the meaning of Zipporah's words, "You are a
husband of blood to me," and to whom are they addressed?
7. What is the point of this passage?

Possible explanation: THE BIBLE IS A SHAM

Oh my god. Some of these questions could be answered if these people knew some scholarship about the Bible. EVEN RELIGIOUS/THEOLOGICAL SCHOLARSHIP.

(For instance, an entire set of Talmudic laws are derived from this passage in the last part of the first chapter of Mesechet Kedushim.)

oh my god, Andy Schlafly sounds like a muppet

http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/12/conservatives-as-self-parodies/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Since the above isn't available outside the U.S. :

http://www.indecisionforever.com/2009/12/09/colbert-interviews-conservapedia-founder-andy-schlafly/

god damn. if he wasn't so completely feckless, he'd be one the worst people ever.

both links: fail :(

Stephen PWNED Schafly the other night, and it was a good demonstration of everything wrong with neocons. And yes he did look/act like a muppet.

not really, since it made schlafly appear at least sane. most of colbert's jabs could be aimed at wikipedia just as easily.

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/essays/36/

article linked on the main page...

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/images/uploads/2008files/NorthAmerica.JPG

I love how, despite living there himself, he speaks of "Africa" as this homogenus blob of disease and death as if the whole continent is the same.... o_0

conservatives can eat my dick after its been dipped in garlic and cocoa butter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxQp0oa0G98

Muppet.

Yeah, that Africa article is the infamous K1m DuT01t, who has been the subject of endless mockery by non-conservatives over the years. e.g.

I do like how it smoothly transitions from merely kooky to completely insane. Also,

At one time, crocodiles accounted for more deaths in sub-Saharan Africa than gunfire

I'm not sure that this is the boldest of statements.

So is there anything in particular behind Conservapedia's front-page focus on an apparently minor case of a medical researcher being punished for falsifying some research? Or is it just that all scientists are crooked and bad?

it's that scientists who think the speed of light is constant are part of the liberal conspiracy to discredit the Bible

oh ya, that thing.

It truly warms my cockles to see that they (Conservapedia, that is, not Godless scientists) have started doing editorial cartoons. Generally so WTF that I can't work out what they're about.

omg... they're too bad even for the batshit thread.

Classic CP spin on the front page: "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she does not see herself remaining the country's top diplomat for a full eight years" becomes "Hillary Clinton announces she'll resign as Secretary of State if Obama is reelected for a second term".

http://i50.tinypic.com/10onyu8.jpg

Comic sans, nice!

arrrgh it's not a phobia at all, then!

wow if you move just a little further away from your monitor it looks like he's being attacked by a squadron of talking dicks

pretty otm, actually

With each passing day it appears more likely that Conservapedia will be mentioned in the January 31, 2010 2pm Eastern Standard time interview between YouTube Christian apologists Shockofgod, NephilimFree, and Dmann4christ and Christian apologist Ray Comfort.VIDEO You can listen to the program live HERE Will the Conservapedia atheism and evolution articles be mentioned during the interview? If you watch the video directly above, that is certainly appearing to be more likely, but time will tell. In the meantime, please stay tuned for future developments!

^^^I read that three times and I still don't understand it. But I am a stupid liberal/product of a state education.