Conservapedia - An encyclopedia you can trust

Reading the Conservapedia entry on Wikipedia is one thing.

Reading the Wikipedia entry on Conservapedia is wau lulz

wau lulz @

On June 9, 2008, New Scientist published an article describing Richard Lenski's 20-year E. coli experiment, which observed that bacteria evolve the ability to metabolize citrate – a rare and complex mutation. Schlafly contacted Lenski to request the data. Lenski explained that the relevant data was in the paper and that Schlafly fundamentally misunderstood it. Schlafly wrote again and requested the raw data. Lenski replied again that the relevant data was already in the paper, that the "raw data" were living bacterial samples, which he would willingly share with qualified researchers at properly equipped biology labs, and that he felt insulted by letters and comments on Conservapedia, which he saw as brusque and offensive, including claims of outright deceit. The exchange, recorded on a Conservapedia page called "Lenski dialog", was widely reported on news-aggregating sites and weblogs. Carl Zimmer wrote that it was readily apparent that "Schlafly had not bothered to read [Lenski's paper] closely", and PZ Myers criticized Schlafly for demanding data despite not having a plan to use it nor the expertise to analyze it.

the full dialog is still online: Conservapedia - An encyclopedia you can trust

(oops, that's a link to a post in this very thread that contains a link to the Lenski Dialog page)

I see that Schlafly is a homeschool tutor himself. Now, that is frightening.

I like to think of him as the science experiment gone wrong.

bbbbbut he's a B.S.E!

"Wikipedia does not poll the views of its editors and administrators. They make no effort to retain balance. It ends up having all the neutrality of a lynch mob."

stay classy Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly

bbbbbut he's a B.S.E!

Sadly, I initially read this as 'butt sex experiment.' I fear I am not ashamed.

"bovine spongiform encepalopathy" also applies

xxxxxxxp people who still claim atheism is a belief are so fucking deluded/disingenuous

Well it kind of is in the "I believe in nothing" sense, I guess.

More 'I don't believe in anything' than 'I believe in nothing' though.

"No, Donny, these are nihilists; there's nothing to be afraid of."

An atheist believes that there is no god.
An agnostic claims not to have beliefs.

that's not true. non-belief is not a belief. agnostics generally believe that some things are unknowable, which is a belief.

a-theism as in no theism

weak vs strong atheism, innit.

lets have this argument again, good call

OUR BEAUTIFUL CONSERVAPEDIA THREAD LOOK WHAT YOUVE DONE

lets have this argument again, good call

max IOU 1 lol

THEY STARTED IT

5. Homeschoolers form fewer cliques and gangs than public schoolers

just hang out with your mother all day instead.

For college, Obama initially attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, California, before transferring to Columbia University in New York, New York and graduating without honors with a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in political science.

This is my favorite part.

Although evolutionists deny that men and dinosaurs coexisted, they are unable to provide proof of such a hypothesis. It is probable that the 'behemoth' was what we now call a dinosaur.

calling that a hypothesis is truly hilarious.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2007/jesus_dinosaur.jpg

"flesh of christ"

hahah.

BUT HE PROBABLY DID!

it really reads like "omnipotent yellow flesh of christ"

^ dibs for Blossoming Noise album title

you see when they say He rode into the city on a donkey they mean he rode in on a velociraptor

Reading the Conservapedia entry on Wikipedia is one thing.

Reading the Wikipedia entry on Conservapedia is wau lulz

― Ashee Bolanalli (Mackro Mackro), Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:30 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

how 2 parse

Another bit of kerfuffle going on the last few days, apparently... (link is to blog with overview of what happened)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Assassin%27s_Creed

...and enforce radical Islam and other liberal ideals on the people who play it.

Despite their differences the main character and his allies could have just knocked the innocent man down or stun him and continue their mission. This shows liberal bias and inclination to unnecessary violence. lulz for the ages

xpost

Don't you know that radical Islam is famous for it's toleration of homosexuality, women's rights, freedom of expression and other ideals liberals hope for.

Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) was the founder of psychoanalysis, an atheist and pseudoscientist. Despite the scientific rejection of most if not all of his theory, Freud remains powerfully influential among amoral and atheist scientists.

"Freud did more than perhaps any other man to insidiously conflate atheism with science, religion with mysticism, more than LaPlace, Darwin, or even Marx... While groundbreaking, his theories set back psychoanalysis for more than half a century.[1]

[1]Gregory Zilboorg, Freud and Religion: a Restatement of an Old Controversy, 118. Statement written in the 1950s; Freud's psychoanalysis continues to be applied to the detriment of patients.

:D:D:D

To say that the adulteress story is an interpolation is one thing, but this guy insists that it's a "liberal hoax"!

Ed, you've put the best face on a hoax. But it's still a hoax, and a liberal one at that.--Aschlafly

liberal hoaxes are the worst kind of hoax imo

Does Mr. Schlafly enjoy the esteem of his fellow Christian-conservatives?

These people are so illiterate that they don't know their own conservative traditions. They don't do any favors for true conservatism. It makes one want to become a REAL conservative just to teach these junk food morons what conservatism really is.

On the one hand, you imply - in bullying fashion - that your politics are superior. How can they be superior when you are incapable of reading a college-level political science book?

I enjoy reading literate conservatives, even if I don't agree with them.

For example, we have two statements about Freud - one is literate and fair, one is not. I assume they come from the same place.

Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) was the founder of psychoanalysis, an atheist and pseudoscientist. Despite the scientific rejection of most if not all of his theory, Freud remains powerfully influential among amoral and atheist scientists.

If you want to convince people you are correct, calling adherents or admirers of Freud "amoral" and "atheist" is not the way to do it.

"Freud did more than perhaps any other man to insidiously conflate atheism with science, religion with mysticism, more than LaPlace, Darwin, or even Marx... While groundbreaking, his theories set back psychoanalysis for more than half a century.

While I may or may not agree with this, it is at least thought-provoking.

A "ghetto blaster" is slang for a large and powerful stereo radio-DVD player.

dvds!? :|

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/transformers/images/thumb/f/fe/G1_Blaster_toy.jpg/250px-G1_Blaster_toy.jpg

If you want to convince people you are correct, calling adherents or admirers of Freud "amoral" and "atheist" is not the way to do it.

Aren't a lot of Conservapedia's users Andrew Schafly's students? I don't think winning over people who aren't already conservative is really the purpose of the site.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_insights

that didn't work but i really wanna see it!