• 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.

Conservapedia

Lonewulf said:
There's a reason to go to metric, though, it's not just "an alternative system"; it's based on the power of 10, and makes thing sooooooo much easier when dealing with science.

And almost all countries that I know of use America's calendar system; on the other hand, metric came about with different measurements in different countries, entirely subjective. You'd have to learn to convert from our English units to whatever the heck else the other country or group of people were using. Metric is an effort to universalize and make things easier and simpler for scientific research; changing the calendar just to be PC would probaby end up being a sole act (as other countries wouldn't go for it), so it has the opposite effect of universalization.

Really, it wouldn't be like switching to Metric at all.

...And, really, good luck getting America to switch to Metric in the first place. Sure, we're changing some minor things, but nothing on a macro scale.



Why not, though? It's a simple letter conversion. And it's not like you're being forced to rename it. It's just personal preference. It's also no harder to read, really. BCE is just BC with an E added, and AD is now CE, keeping the two letters. It's really not that hard overall, so I consider it a minor trivial matter.

On the other hand, with problems between the English and Metric system, NASA has caused a few crashes. I don't think you can do that with BCE/CE.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in Thor, yet I don't rename Thursday to Fifthday. That's all I'm saying. The BCE/CE thing is simply an attempt to buck the system without actually bucking it. Goofy and amusing while still hinging entirely on the birth date of a guy that people don't want to honor in Latin. Yeah, armchair activism! That's showing them Christians that we will be glad to use their calendar and pretend that we aren't!
 
Darth Rotor said:
I think that technically, when the Pilgrims set out in 1620, the colony in that part of North America was referred to as "Virginia" as the only colony there was called "Virginia" and the bulk of people didn't, having lived in England and the Netherlands, have a grasp on the scope and scale of this new land they were headed to.

I can't recall where I read that, but it was in an article about the Mayflower compact.

DR
Click to expand...

I think there is a conspiracy theory surrounding their landing so far north, that the Virginian Puritans did not want the Separatists in their colony and so paid off the crew to take them somewhere far away. But I think it is merely speculation, like most CTs.
 
hgc said:
Please... Do NOT give the Christianists any new ideas. They already have a plenty ambitious agenda.
Click to expand...


Interesting, seeing as the atheists are the one's I've heard arguing for changes in names and mottos, as though hearing the word God or handling a piece of money with the word God on it forces on to believe in said deity. Much like the BCE/CE which sparked this conversation. Christians take from the pagans and rename, then the post-Christian atheists take from the Christians and rename, then the Martians and so on and so forth.

I'm sure the people of the future will stand around aghast when the find a copy of the diabolical Pledge of Allegiance of the 20th Century after the insertion of 'under God.' No, they won't find it strange that school children were encouraged to devote themselves to a piece of colorful cloth. They will only think it strange that Americans once believed in God.
 
burnvictim77 said:
I'm being facetious to illustrate a point.
Click to expand...

I'm so disappointed. I was hoping that you had received a visit from a time traveling rebel fighting against the tyranny of robots garbed in colorful cloth.

"I pledge allegiance to my titanium overlord's flag toga, and the crushing despotism for which it stands. . ."
 
ImaginalDisc said:
I'm so disappointed. I was hoping that you had received a visit from a time traveling rebel fighting against the tyranny of robots garbed in colorful cloth.

"I pledge allegiance to my titanium overlord's flag toga, and the crushing despotism for which it stands. . ."
Click to expand...


Oh, yes. Well, I was visited. But they didn't stay long. They just drank all my beer and split after I passed out.
 
Darth Rotor said:
I think that technically, when the Pilgrims set out in 1620, the colony in that part of North America was referred to as "Virginia" as the only colony there was called "Virginia" and the bulk of people didn't, having lived in England and the Netherlands, have a grasp on the scope and scale of this new land they were headed to.

I can't recall where I read that, but it was in an article about the Mayflower compact.

DR
Click to expand...
Sorry, no. "Virginia" did not stretch that far north, even then. They had every expectation of being landed a lot closer to Jamestown.
 
burnvictim77 said:
I don't believe in Thor, yet I don't rename Thursday to Fifthday. That's all I'm saying. The BCE/CE thing is simply an attempt to buck the system without actually bucking it. Goofy and amusing while still hinging entirely on the birth date of a guy that people don't want to honor in Latin. Yeah, armchair activism! That's showing them Christians that we will be glad to use their calendar and pretend that we aren't!
Click to expand...

Then you are not quaker. The days of the week are

Firstday
Secondday
Thirdday
Fourthday
Fifthday
Sixthday
Seventhday.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Then you are not quaker. The days of the week are

Firstday
Secondday
Thirdday
Fourthday
Fifthday
Sixthday
Seventhday.
Click to expand...

Much better. Clear, too. Which day of the week is it? Why, the fifth. None of this mon- tues- wednes- thurs- business
 
Gravity

Here's the Conservapedia entry on gravity:

Gravity
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Gravity is considered by scientists and evolutionists to be one of the fundamental forces of the universe. It is a theory which suggests that all masses are attracted to each other because of invisible particles called gravitons or invisible curves in space. The idea was first developed by Isaac Newton, and has been worked on by prominent scientists like Johannes Kepler and Albert Einstein.
[edit]
Gravity controversy

Some have criticized gravity, reminding us that it is only a theory, and that no scientist has ever seen a graviton or a space curve. Furthermore, experiments done by NASA prove that the Moon is receding (moving further away) from the Earth at a rate of 3.8cm per year, directly contradicting the theory that masses attract one another[1]. Indeed, astronomers can observe that all stars in the universe are moving away from one another. The considerable disagreement between scientists about the theory of gravity suggests that, like evolution, the theory will eventually be replaced with a model which acknowledges God as the source of all things, the Prime Mover, and the only real fundamental force in the universe.
[edit]
References

References

1. ↑ http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html
 
That's gotta be a troll. Is the footnote a link to the onion's Intelligent Falling article? :D
 
Scott Haley said:
Here's the Conservapedia entry on gravity:

Gravity
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Gravity is considered by scientists and evolutionists to be one of the fundamental forces of the universe. It is a theory which suggests that all masses are attracted to each other because of invisible particles called gravitons or invisible curves in space. The idea was first developed by Isaac Newton, and has been worked on by prominent scientists like Johannes Kepler and Albert Einstein.
[edit]
Gravity controversy

Some have criticized gravity, reminding us that it is only a theory, and that no scientist has ever seen a graviton or a space curve. Furthermore, experiments done by NASA prove that the Moon is receding (moving further away) from the Earth at a rate of 3.8cm per year, directly contradicting the theory that masses attract one another[1]. Indeed, astronomers can observe that all stars in the universe are moving away from one another. The considerable disagreement between scientists about the theory of gravity suggests that, like evolution, the theory will eventually be replaced with a model which acknowledges God as the source of all things, the Prime Mover, and the only real fundamental force in the universe.
[edit]
References

References

1. ↑ http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I saw this episode of Moral Orel.
 
Wikipedia is a bit like the bible. It's supposed to be an authoritative source but it has so many authors, often contradictory , we just don't know what to believe!:confused:
 
Evolution Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Evolution does in fact lower the entropy of the sum of the living DNA on this planet. The mechanism used by evolution to lower entropy is the collection and storage of information about trait survivability on strands of molecules called DNA. The theory of Evolution says that this information collects naturally through non-random selection from offspring variation.
Click to expand...

I would think that these quacks would be a little embarrassing to even ID'ers and their ilk. That's a pretty thoroughly discredited argument, iIrc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom