Reaper Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Hey! Has anyone here ever heard of a site called Conservapedia? Basically, its a wiki that is intended to be an encyclopedia, and claims to portray things from the conservative side of the political spectrum. Just discovered it 2 days ago. You can view it right here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page The site is so hysterical, and biased. But, I am having a hard time establishing whether or not it is only a parody or if it does indeed try to be a legitimate encyclopedia (I'm sure that some people do actually take it seriously...) Here's what uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia, has to say about it: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I think they're vaguely trying to be a real encyclopedia. And failing miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 it says "bandwidth exceeded" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 This is what Bascule turned up on it. Seems like they all have too much time on their hands. http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics Most viewed pages 1. Homosexuality [1,987,988] 2. Main Page [1,962,096] 3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis [518,518] 4. Homosexuality and Parasites [469,842] 5. Gay Bowel Syndrome [439,969] 6. Homosexuality and Promiscuity [422,751] 7. Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence [374,603] 8. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea [332,325] 9. Homosexuality and Anal Cancer [295,038] 10. Homosexuality and Mental Health [294,467] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Ha. I've known about this almost since they first started. Originally it was supposed to be a homeschooling resource for those who only wanted to expose their children to a very specific version of reality, and to correct supposed biases in Wikipedia against Creationism and America. (The various hypocrisies at work in their mission statement are too many to mention individually.) Not too surprisingly, it seems primarily to now be a centralized resource for self-hating gays. Neat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhDP Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Most viewed pages 1. Homosexuality [1,987,988] 2. Main Page [1,962,096] 3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis [518,518] 4. Homosexuality and Parasites [469,842] 5. Gay Bowel Syndrome [439,969] 6. Homosexuality and Promiscuity [422,751] 7. Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence [374,603] 8. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea [332,325] 9. Homosexuality and Anal Cancer [295,038] 10. Homosexuality and Mental Health [294,467] Of course, homosexuality is the most important "issue" in the world today. And their article on evolution is hilarious. They seem to think like Colbert; "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Would be interesting to know how/why they managed to get more hits on homosexuality than on the main page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Yeah... you know, because "wikipedia" being editable by anyone in the world... CLEARLY has a liberal bias. EDIT: Looks like Phil beat me to the same point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Although the defenders of the theory of evolution contend there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution, there are many who are against the theory of evolution and state there are many problems with the theory of evolution. For example, an article by CBS News begins with the observation that, "Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved."[4] There you go, guys. If enough idiots believe, it makes it true. (isn't this sentence just awkward in itself?) They end the article with a bit about how Stalin was influenced by the works of Darwin... implying, of course, that evolutionists are ungodly, commies. And take a look at this article: http://www.conservapedia.com/Falsifiability_of_evolution How can they claim that evolution is unfalsifiable, and yet accept creationism, which relies on it's unfalsifiablity to be understood. People are so aggravating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyhfht Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Be fair, you guys. I like this conservative version because it gives some things a good (excluding their bible-biased articles) different perspective. Wikipedia is, after all, an extremely liberally-biased encyclopedia. It's a fresh change to see a conservative biased one. Although I should make it clear. Conservapedia is a less...intelligent encyclopedia. Its page on falsifiability compared to that of wikipedia is kind of sad. However, it's probably good for introductions on things people aren't familiar with. Since it's much simpler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 How can they claim that evolution is unfalsifiable, and yet accept creationism, which relies on it's unfalsifiablity to be understood. People are so aggravating.As the ship of Creationism founders upon the rocks of rational thought, the desperate crew looks for any line to cling to that will justify getting on board in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Wikipedia is, after all, an extremely liberally-biased encyclopedia. How so? The examples Conservapedia uses to support that view are all ridiculous (They allow British spelling! They treat evolution as established fact! They claim the Democratic Party has historical influences of some kind!), so I'm curious to hear why you think it's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven8s Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Phi For AllAs the ship of Creationism founders upon the rocks of rational thought, the desperate crew looks for any line to cling to that will justify getting on board in the first place. And that goes for atheist and theist alike in that we are all creationists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 And that goes for atheist and theist alike in that we are all creationists. I have no idea what you're talking about, but based on keywords alone this looks like a familiar road to thread-closing. Stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I like this conservative version because it gives some things a good (excluding their bible-biased articles) different perspective. Wikipedia is, after all, an extremely liberally-biased encyclopedia. It's a fresh change to see a conservative biased one. Although I should make it clear. Conservapedia is a less...intelligent encyclopedia. Its page on falsifiability compared to that of wikipedia is kind of sad. However, it's probably good for introductions on things people aren't familiar with. Since it's much simpler. I disagree with your comments above COMPLETELY. Conservapedia is a total intellectual abomination which blatantly lies to people and twists facts to suit some closed minded purpose and support prejudiced ideologies. It's like saying that the dictionary and encyclopedia are liberally biased and people need a christian dictionary and a conservative encyclopedia. How stupid can we get? We seem to continue pushing the edges of that proverbial envelope. NPR did a story on the site last March, which is where my distaste began: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8286084 Click the "Listen Here" link on that page to hear the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven8s Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 SisyphusI have no idea what you're talking about, but based on keywords alone this looks like a familiar road to thread-closing. Stop. Stop what? I made my point. Don’t blame me Phi brought it up...............deal with it. ‘Key words’? Perhaps you shouldn’t be so sensitive, prejudice? It’s a word, get over it. Until one recognizes their own prejudice nothing will change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 What point? You just made a statement that without substantial explanation and equivocation is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven8s Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 YDOAPSWhat point? You just made a statement that without substantial explanation and equivocation is absurd. I didn’t have to make a statement with substantial explanation as I think the original statement speaks for itself. Perhaps you should reread it, and then we can discuss it. If necessary get a dictionary. Maybe Phi wasn’t attempting to be poetic, but then again, I think so. And, I made no such absurd statement. What are we creating, anyone of us, not just theists? Reread what was said, rationally please. Iow’s set aside your own prejudice, preferences. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/health/14heart.html?ref=research http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080118092439.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I think the point is that your previous post makes no sense without expansion and explanation. I don't see how those links are relevant, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDarwin Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 How can they claim that evolution is unfalsifiable, and yet accept creationism, which relies on it's unfalsifiablity to be understood. People are so aggravating. Right before saying that evolution has been falsified. Of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Right before saying that evolution has been falsified. Of course. you, know... I didn't even realize that. haha. Respect has been further lowered, if that was possible. Has conservatism really been corrupted this much? Didn't it used to refer to economics rather than social issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven8s Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Cap’n RefsmmatI think the point is that your previous post makes no sense without expansion and explanation. I don't see how those links are relevant, either. Of course they are relevant, they used the word create. They use the word create because something was created, and in one case specifically that something was a heart that did not exist before, nor did the knowledge. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the word, and if so where did that discomfort arise, and is it necessary in the evolutionary process of mankind? Does the word give you pause and if so why? Is that a good thing or bad? We are creators, get used to it. It is not a curse word as atheist would have us believe, nor is it taboo, hijacked so to speak as theist would have us believe. Well, the hijacking has been done on both sides, imv. It is a marvelous word. I consider it mankind’s inheritance. And I believe that the evidence of that statement is made manifest in all that mankind has achieved, that is good. It can also be a frightening word when reality ‘sinks in’ the waters so to speak, which is the mind. I frankly think atheists are as much afraid of the word as theists, and yet they both use it each and every single day. Phi For AllAs the ship of Creationism founders upon the rocks of rational thought, the desperate crew looks for any line to cling to that will justify getting on board in the first place. I could say, ‘as the ship of Creationism sinks in upon the foundation of rational though, the desperate crew looks for any line to cling to that will justify getting on board in the first place’. It is pretty potent to hold such power. The very God an atheist has judged has become himself, when he/she understands they are creators. more on creationism http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/24/040524fa_fact http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-22-1021049676_x.htm Both incidents occurred in secular institutions. The first example as reported world wide and by the New Yorker was addressed and remedies brought about. The second incident has been swept under the rug. Outrage against the priests, nary a whisper about the teachers. Capital punishment still exists in the USA public school system, and obviously other things we don’t want to know about. The public school system is a secular institution. It is owned by both atheists and theists. We fight to get prayer out, or get it back in, but do we really care about the children? Is the educational system of today like the Gods/religions of yesterday, untouchable? Maybe evolution has been falsified, if we haven’t gotten very far, well stymied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Ah, so you're using "creationist" in a completely different sense. One that still doesn't make any sense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 So, I was correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 And that goes for atheist and theist alike in that we are all creationists.Most religions impact science very little. Gods remains unobservable so science really can't apply a process for experimentation. Little of what religion claims is of interest to science because it's not predictable, testable and repeatable. Science is content to shrug and wait skeptically for evidence. But Creationism attempts to refute what science knows with certainty approaching fact, like the age of the earth and how creatures evolve over long periods of time. Creationists claim that science is wrong because God can make things seem older than they really are. They claim that the earth was created in six 24-hour day cycles despite the fact that Hebrew uses other interpretations for their word for day. They claim the earth is much younger than science predicts. And the only proof they ever offer is a book written centuries ago by men. Creationism is not a religion. It is an attempt to repudiate science and create a false controversy with the goal of bringing Christian teachings into the public schools. It's latest disguise, Intelligent Design, has been thoroughly debunked and ruled as improper in some states. I fail to see where "that goes for atheist and theist alike in that we are all creationists" is a valid statement. I have no idea where it came from and can think of no context where it might make the slightest sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now