• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Worse than Wikipedia

Diamond

Illuminator
D
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
4,729
Wikipedia could be a lot worse. Much, much worse.

Conservapedia: for ignorant people who like to stay that way(TM)

It's endlessly hilarious - a true intellectual trainwreck on the net. I'd be surprised if someone doesn't start a Conservapedia Supporters Club or something. T-shirt sales should be phenomenal.
 
If you really want a laugh, click on their science pages. Specifically those dealing with evolution.
 
Won't load for me.

I suspect Colbert Report connections, from the description of it.

Is it serious?
 
Its been hit as bloggers discover its fascinations. It is up, but just slow.

Entropy:

Entropy is a measure of disorder in a system, first postulated by Lazare Carnot in 1803.

Creationist scientist Henry Morris argues that the law of Entropy, also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, disproves evolution: "...the Second law, however, that wipes out the theory of evolution. There is a universal process of change, and it is a directional change, but it is not an upward change."[1]
Click to expand...

It's an endless roll downhill :D
 
Full article:

Eukaryotic cell
From Conservapedia


A cell with organelles.[1]

References

1. ↑ Wile, Dr. Jay L. Exploring Creation With General Science. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000
Click to expand...
 
Diamond said:
:dl:
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not seeing the joke here. How is their definition different from Merriam-Webster's, "native land : FATHERLAND"? Your "homeland" is the place where you're from if you're an emigrant. That's just plain English.

I also didn't see anything objectionable in their overview of Evolution. Especially since it finishes up with:
...Scientists point to the massive scientific support for the Theory of Evolution. Supporters of contrary and irrational belief systems, such as Creationism and Intelligent Design have so far failed to gain any scientific support for their theories, and therefore resort to misrepresenting scientific arguments in order to further their own agendas.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty balanced to me.

And in spite of the mention on their home page that, "A Conservapedia contributor helps defeat mandatory vaccination; Merck cancels its million-dollar lobbying effort", which makes them sound like they're conspiracy theorists, I found this to be balanced and accurate.

What is inaccurate or agenda-laden about their entry for "entropy"? According to Merriam-Webster, yeah, "entropy" is the measure of disorder in a system".

Ditto for their entry for "eukaryotic cell"? Where's the inaccuracy? According to Merriam-Webster, yeah, a eukaryotic cell is one with organelles.

Don't jump to conclusions, or rush to fingerpoint, about any woo agendas just because they use the C-word on their home page.
 
Goshawk said:
Sorry, I'm not seeing the joke here. How is their definition different from Merriam-Webster's, "native land : FATHERLAND"? Your "homeland" is the place where you're from if you're an emigrant. That's just plain English.

I also didn't see anything objectionable in their overview of Evolution. Especially since it finishes up with:


Sounds pretty balanced to me.

And in spite of the mention on their home page that, "A Conservapedia contributor helps defeat mandatory vaccination; Merck cancels its million-dollar lobbying effort", which makes them sound like they're conspiracy theorists, I found this to be balanced and accurate.

What is inaccurate or agenda-laden about their entry for "entropy"?

Ditto for their entry for "eukaryotic cell"? Where's the inaccuracy? According to Merriam-Webster, yeah, a eukaryotic cell is one with organelles.

Don't jump to conclusions, or rush to fingerpoint, about any woo agendas just because they use the C-word on their home page.
Click to expand...

If I have to explain it to you, it takes away all the hilarity.
 
Isn't the idea of a freely editable conservative encyclopedia a bit of an oxymoron? :confused:
 
Goshawk said:
I also didn't see anything objectionable in their overview of Evolution.
Click to expand...
Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design the process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Critics of the theory of evolution claim that it is impossible for one species to evolve into a different species, although the timeframe needed to test such a claim by experiment is too large.
Click to expand...
Typos aside, this paragraph is highly objectionable: selective breeding is not natural selection, nor is it evolution. I think Darwin covered that rather thoroughly (it's the first or second chapter, for Ed's sake!). "Survival of the fittest" is not a term that biologists who study evolution use, for a number of reasons, the chief being that most people misunderstand what it means anyway.
 
Goshawk said:
I also didn't see anything objectionable in their overview of Evolution.
Click to expand...
I guess you didn't look at the page's history.

Here is what it looked like earlier today.

How long before it gets reverted, d'you think?

ETA: I hope those links work. When I tried to check them after posting, the site seemed to have locked up completely.
 
Last edited:
I using the "random" button to find various things. Some are obvious parodies (like for Plato), others are just, well... goofy.

I just found "The Law of Multiple Proportions" From Conservapedia


"If elements combine in a different proportion, they produce a different compound.[1] "

I have not had a chemistry class for (cough, cough) 30 years, but I know that is wrong.

Someone got to their http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Law_of_Mass_Conversation (yes, that is how it is spelled) and edited to say "Matter cannot be created (except by the Almighty during the Genesis creation event[1]) ( when the Lord spake matter into existence, thus we have the Law of Mass Conversation) or destroyed (except by the Almighty at the End of Days[2]), it can only change form.[3] "

And earlier I found their bit on "Pilgrims":
"Pilgrims were people (mostly puritans) in the 1600's that traveled to the American Colonies because of persecution in England. These settlers started the very first settlement in the American colonies, Jamestown."

Forget that there were failed settlements befor Jamestown, which was NOT settled by Puritans... but the fact is that "pilgrim" is a term used to describe other people (like those who seek out images of the Virgin Mary in grilled cheese sandwiches).
 
Mercutio said:
Won't load for me.

I suspect Colbert Report connections, from the description of it.

Is it serious?
Click to expand...

origianly yes. Started by a talk orogins kook. Managed to recruit a certian brand of right wingers for a couple of months. Got noticed by liberal blogers. Has been mildly humourusly vandalised to a great extent in the last week.
 
:covereyes


China
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The ancient civilization in the same place as the modern country. Civilization in China began in 2200 BC and continues to the present day.

For more information on China, see World History Lecture Three.


Gun powderWhen the Chinese discovered gun powder they had no intention of using it as a weapon. When lit the gun powder in a bamboo stick made a colorful explosion. This loud explosion was perfect to chase away evil spirits and to celebrate weddings, victories in battles, and religious ceremonies.


Chinese silkThe discovery of silk from the silkworm occurred around 2700 BC. According to Chinese tradition the bride of Emperor Huang Ti, a 14-year-old girl called Hsi Ling Shi, discovered silk worms. Sericulture, the cultivation of the silkworm, spread through China making silk a highly valued commodity.


The Great Wall of China

the Great was of Cina was designed to keep enemies out and protect their country. It was built during the Qin dynasty, 221-206B.C. In 246B.C. the emperor Ch'in Shih Huang ti came to power. He was responsible for starting the construction of the Great Wall. It was perhaps the greaterst and largest thing ever created by man.
Click to expand...

This just atrocious, something a 6th grader would write. I'm even ignoring the spelling errors.
I'm not mean but I would be forced to give a 6th grader a C for this level of garbage. Although I'm not a teacher I remember I seeing MUCH better in 6th grade.

For the sake of humanity please tell me conservadiea is some guy's idea of sick joke? :covereyes
 
Last edited:
Solus said:
:covereyes




This just atrocious, something a 6th grader would write. I'm even ignoring the spelling errors.
I'm not mean but I would be forced to give a 6th grader a C for this level of garbage. Although I'm not a teacher I remember I seeing MUCH better in 6th grade.

For the sake of humanity please tell me conservadiea is some guy's idea of sick joke? :covereyes
Click to expand...

Nope... it is the work of one Andrew Schlafly, a lawyer and son of Phyllis Schlafly: see http://www.cinam.net/son3-3-cp.html . It is even mentioned on the blog of his slightly less nutty brother, Roger:
http://www.spinstop.com/buzz/2007-02.htm#2007-02-02+11:51:24+25

Also in the entry I pointed out on the Stealth Bomber it was edited by user Aschlafly himself. You will note that the reference I use is from the US Air Force.

For fun and games you should check the Schlafly brothers' bizarre posting history on http://groups.google.com . They are both on talk.origins, and Roger posted lots of anti-vax stuff in misc.kids.health (you have to search their names, because they changed emails often --- for good reason, to avoid spam-bots). But I did find some representative ones for Andy, and some for Roger.

It seems that most of the entries were written by religiously homeschooled students who were typing in parts from their textbooks. Which is why they are often short, with bad spelling and grammar, and very often very very wrong. More stuff (including information on Andrew Schlafly, Esq) here:
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/02/conservapedia.html
 
Last edited:
Hydrogen Cyanide said:
No... but I have just found a big whopper! It is:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Stealth_bomber ... it shows a picture of the B-2 (designed in the 1980s... built by Northrop) and then calls it an "F-117', which is the stealth figher, a completely different aircraft!

stupid stupid stupid
Click to expand...

Well to give them credit, they do mention it underneath the picture...

HOWEVER,

They state that the F-117 is being replaced by the F-22 when (according to its entry over on globalsecurity.org,) it is actually replacing the F-15 in the air superiority role.

Also they state that the Air Force is retiring the plane over the next two years, when (according to the detailed entry concerning the craft over on globalsecurity.org) they are actually undergoing some rather extensive modifications at this time, and that the USAF is not even thinking of retiring them until at least 2018...
 
Hydrogen Cyanide said:
Nope... it is the work of one Andrew Schlafly, a lawyer and son of Phyllis Schlafly:
Click to expand...

Oh boy... Great finds HC. I hear miomma Schlafly on the radio sometimes and she's a kook. Looks like the nuts don't fall too far from the tree.

carlvs said:
Also they state that the Air Force is retiring the plane over the next two years, when (according to the detailed entry concerning the craft over on globalsecurity.org) they are actually undergoing some rather extensive modifications at this time, and that the USAF is not even thinking of retiring them until at least 2018...
Click to expand...

A slight derail. Isn't it interesting that the F-117 is slated for retirement in 2018, while the B-52 is looking at being operational until 2040.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom