Conservapedia vs. Einstein

NeverAmI said:
Oh, it is legitimate.

My christian co-worker believes the world is less than 2,000 years old and that carbon dating is completely invalid.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to single you out here, NAI; only using your post as a jump off to quickly address a trend that I've been noticing around the forums.

In the future, I think it would be prudent if people got into the habit of specifying exactly what type of Christian they're talking about (fundamentalist, in this case, I'm guessing). I'm just getting tired of the word "Christian" being tossed around as the catch-all term for antiquated or crazy or (gasp!) conservative.

And that goes for anyone who's in the habit of equating "Christian" with homophobic, socially conservative, anti-evolution, anti-science, pro-life, soldier funeral picketing etc, etc. I understand that in the U.S, you guys have the special brand of nuts that tend to be the most populous and vocal, but there is also a larger majority of Christians that belong to other denominations that are not at all dim in their reasoning, beliefs and practices. When you say "Christian," you refer to all Christians and its not fair to lump everyone in with the same group, especially when there are those who really do make a point to differentiate themselves. Unless, of course, you want to perpetuate a false stereotype of an entire group of people (many entirely undeserving) by misusing a term.

But anyway, that's just my quick input. Carry on.
 
Last edited:
TheDaringHatTrick said:
I'm not trying to single you out here, NAI; only using your post as a jump off to quickly address a trend that I've been noticing around the forums.

In the future, I think it would be prudent if people got into the habit of specifying exactly what type of Christian they're talking about (fundamentalist, in this case, I'm guessing). I'm just getting tired of the word "Christian" being tossed around as the catch-all term for antiquated or crazy or (gasp!) conservative.

And that goes for anyone who's in the habit of equating "Christian" with homophobic, socially conservative, anti-evolution, anti-science, pro-life, soldier funeral picketing etc, etc. I understand that in the U.S, you guys have the special brand of nuts that tend to be the most populous and vocal, but there is also a larger majority of Christians that belong to other denominations that are not at all dim in their reasoning, beliefs and practices. When you say "Christian," you refer to all Christians and its not fair to lump everyone in with the same group, especially when there are those who really do make a point to differentiate themselves. Unless, of course, you want to perpetuate a false stereotype of an entire group of people (many entirely undeserving) by misusing a term.

But anyway, that's just my quick input. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Non denominational. He uses the bible as his evidence hence why I said Christian.
 
NeverAmI said:
Agreed, although it is possible to believe in micro evolution, in that small mutations can happen without changing from one species into a new one. People that say that don't really seem to take the scope of time involved into account. Then again, a lot of those people don't believe in the same time-frame evolution does.

My ISTJ friend and I were debating evolution/religion (Bad idea) and he asked me why we don't have ape babies. I was like "Are you really asking me that?"

Theoretically it would take just as much time to devolve back to that state (assuming evolution was true) even though we don't devolve that way, it is a one way road.

He didn't seem to grasp the concept that we are so damn biologically similar to other species.

Another guy said "Well look at our intelligence, and what we have accomplished."

My only response was "I don't really see that much intelligence in humanity. I see an awful lot of stupidity though."
Click to expand...

What is macroevolution but a series of microevolutions?

Talking to those people will get you nowhere.
 
Oh, it's real, but it has been targeted by many vandal trolls since, making it even funnier. One very dedicated troll even managed to manipulate his way to the position of right hand man of the Conservapedia's founder.

A particularly dedicated troll known as 'Bugler' (who later admitted to being Rational Wiki user 'Fretfulporpentine') managed to, over the course of about a year, ascend to the position of Andrew Schlafly's de facto second-in-command, and was so effective that he managed to maintain this position for quite some time. He was only 'discovered' when he publicly admitted his true allegiance on his userpage, blanking several of the more psychotic articles and banning pretty much everyone. Mentioning him by name on the site is now grounds for immediate permabanning.
Click to expand...
and then again

Around when his semi-successful trolling stint was over, TK was supreme ruler alongside Andy, and had arguably outdone Bugler.
Click to expand...
There's even a counterpart wiki: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia
 
Last edited:
Peppermint said:
Oh, it's real, but it has been targeted by many vandal troll since, making it even funnier. One very dedicated troll even managed to manipulate his way to the position of right hand man of the Conservapedia's founder.

and then again

There's even a counterpart wiki: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia
Click to expand...


This.

I'm almost certain that Conservapedia is actually one of the best troll sites on the 'net. Seeing stuff like the article in the OP makes me think the whole thing is a joke that's just plausible enough to be taken as seriously believed material.

If not, then...well... :m041:
 
Some of the counter-examples are actual problems. Some are make-believe. The idea that GR is a liberal theory is a bit of a joke since there are plenty of conservatives who accept it. Ignoring the religious ones. At the risk of being obsessive:

1 & 2 are problems that haven't been explained yet.
3 I've never heard of but suspect this is made up.
4 is not a problem.
5 depends on the observer's frame.
6 is not necessarily a problem but requires additional explanation through the inflationary theory or something else.
7 has to do with quantum gravity and is beyond the scope of GR
8 (see 7)
10 gravitons are too weak to find and no attempts have been made. Maybe they're thinking of gravitational waves.
11 makes no sense.
12 is just wrong.
13 has nothing to do with gravity. The temperature is 3K because of the cosmic microwave background. Since GR fits well with the Big Bang theory, there's no disagreement.
14 they've never heard of quantum field theory I guess.
15 wormholes are allowed but have never been observed so the point is moot.
16 they've never heard of black hole entropy I guess which is proportional to the surface area of the event horizon
17 this is wrong. I've read the latest paper on this. There's no disagreement. It was published 5 years ago, so yeah, the data hasn't been released for 5 years. Must be a big cover-up.
18 they must have forgotten that the Global Position System requires corrections from general relativity in order to pin-point positions, but otherwise, yeah, completely useless. And the atom bomb has nothing to do with relativity. They didn't even use E=mc^2 to build it.
19 This makes no sense. The laws of physics are the same in all directions, that's why an object behaves the same way no matter what direction it's going.
20 Light does have non-zero momentum. Its REST MASS is zero, but it has a mass when it's not at rest.
21 GR does not violate conservation of energy or momentum. You can prove it. The twins paradox has to do with which twin undergoes acceleration.
22 The Ehrenfest paradox was resolved decades ago.
23 is wrong. GR explains the twins paradox perfectly. One twin experiences no acceleration, the other one does by leaving earth and then turning around and coming back. The one that accelerates is the one that doesn't age.
24 That relativity does change the speed clocks run has been tested on airplanes and in particle accelerators. We don't need to make assumptions about the Earth's equatorial bulge. We can actually measure it and do.
25 The Higgs field is not aether. Light does not use it as a medium.
26 makes no mathematical sense, what do they mean time has no inverse?
27 Yes, that's true. That's why we choose not the believe in the aether ;).
 
One more.

A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.[1]
Click to expand...

Liberal_Brain.jpg


http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal
 
laofmoonster said:
Poe's Law:
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
Click to expand...

It seems rather earnest to be a joke. Except for the few biblical mentions it's not funny at all. It reads a lot like it was written by some wannabe amateur scientist who thinks he holds the keys to the universe and that the way to prove it is to show that there are a bunch of mistakes in the prevailing theory. Unfortunately, for him, in the case GR better and smarter people have already been there and done that. Besides that, I have relatives who would believe it.
 
Last edited:
Just remember, the only reasons these idiots are so vocal is that they know they are a dieing breed and a hated minority. One day there will be so few of them that it'll be like they don't exist at all :).
 
DoveAlexa said:
Just remember, the only reasons these idiots are so vocal is that they know they are a dieing breed and a hated minority. One day there will be so few of them that it'll be like they don't exist at all :).
Click to expand...

Political movements come and go, but stupidity is constant.
 
Yea, I don't think we need to worry about any shortage of idiocy any time soon.
 
People never fail to amaze me. And I love these liberal-propaganda-conspiracy-theories

And btw, this site is hilarious-- "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"?? Check out the page on Harry Potter: http://conservapedia.com/Harry_Potter Read for the subtle hilarity.

I think I just found a new black-hole of internet time-wasting :D

***and also the page on obama: http://conservapedia.com/Obama
 
Last edited:
Logic went down teh potty

[YOUTUBE]_GWMZF_qTqM[/YOUTUBE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top