PDA

View Full Version : Conservapedia - "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"



megimoo
10-07-2009, 03:16 AM
Conservapedia - "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"

"Conservapedia has had over 105,000,000 page views and over 665,000 page edits. The truth shall set you free."

www.conservapedia.com

FreeAmerican
10-07-2009, 10:05 AM
HA HAA! I loved this one.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Michael_Moore

wilbur
10-07-2009, 09:07 PM
Heh.... Conservapedia.... for every paragraph on that site you read - your IQ drops several points.

Gems from their article on evolution:


"The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution."

"In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidence, the great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. "

"Evolutionary theory played a prominent role in regards to atheistic communism."

"The theory of evolution has had a negative effect on the field of medical science."


Their slogan should be "The encyclopedia that tells you what you want to hear".

megimoo
10-08-2009, 12:51 AM
Heh.... Conservapedia.... for every paragraph on that site you read - your IQ drops several points.

Gems from their article on evolution:


Their slogan should be "The encyclopedia that tells you what you want to hear".
You perhaps would prefer LIbropedia .
Your slogan should be "The encyclopedia that Filters out the Truth !"

http://www.conservapedia.com/Michael_Moore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore

Rockntractor
10-08-2009, 01:25 AM
You perhaps would prefer LIbropedia .
Your slogan should be "The encyclopedia that Filters out the Truth !"

http://www.conservapedia.com/Michael_Moore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore

Any posts of Wilbur's that is only a sentence or two is a good post!

megimoo
10-08-2009, 02:09 AM
Any posts of Wilbur's that is only a sentence or two is a good post!
It's the only live Limey/Liberal/Gay/Atheistic/Pro_Darwin 'chew toy' we have about.Take a bite out of it then Ask it about the 'Big Bang'?

ExLiberal
10-08-2009, 08:17 AM
HA HAA! I loved this one.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Michael_Moore

LOL... I love conservapedia. They may not always tell the truth but they're pretty hilarious. I love the pictures they use for liberals lol. And hey, at least they're HONEST about their bias. Unlike the subtle spinning on wikipedia. Gooo unabashed ultra-conservatives!

megimoo
10-08-2009, 08:46 AM
LOL... I love conservapedia. They may not always tell the truth but they're pretty hilarious. I love the pictures they use for liberals lol. And hey, at least they're HONEST about their bias. Unlike the subtle spinning on wikipedia. Gooo unabashed ultra-conservatives!
Nothing 'Ultraconservative' about it .Simply the truth and nothing but the truth .Obviously something you are no doubt unfamiliar with being from la_la land ?

ExLiberal
10-08-2009, 09:15 AM
Nothing 'Ultraconservative' about it .Simply the truth and nothing but the truth .Obviously something you are no doubt unfamiliar with being from la_la land ?

Oh come on, you're going to tell me that CONSERVapedia has no conservative bias? It's called "conservapedia" for a reason. They could've called it "truthapedia" but they didn't. They PURPOSEFULLY made it an unabashedly conservative website hence the name, and while I do happen to currently and unfortunately reside in la-la land (Los Angeles), I'm not an idiot and know conservative spin when I see it, which anyone should. I AM a conservative, which is why I like conservapedia, but I'm not going to play dumb and pretend like it isn't completely and purposely biased (IT doesn't even pretend that).

House
10-08-2009, 01:47 PM
Nothing 'Ultraconservative' about it .Simply the truth and nothing but the truth .Obviously something you are no doubt unfamiliar with being from la_la land ?

Conservapedia staff are completely open about the fact that Conservapedia is not NPOV, it's written by Conservatives for Conservatives, it makes no claims that it's without bias and openly admits conservative bias. You should read some of the articles, find a random conservative cause and look it up - you'll find they show you all the positive things about the subject and leave out any negative things, for example this http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project despite the King James Version and any other translation really having clear instructions to not change it to fit your worldview.

New International Version Deuteronomy 4:2
2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

King James Version 4:2
2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

and

New International Version Revelation 22:18-19
18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

King James Version Revelation 22:18-19
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

There are absolutely zero mention of this fact on the Conservapedia page, now of course you could say this is just another translation, but according to Andrew Schafly in the interviews I've viewed this is a complete reinterpretation of the Bible because he thinks 'liberal vandals' added stories to the Bible in the first millennia, so he intends to remove all that and therefore breaking the rule that Jesus clearly set.

Now look at a random page that contains information on a left wing cause or subject, ie Michael Moore, it is ALL negative - That is not NPOV, that is not neutral nor does it give an accurate image of any person ever, it's just blind propaganda and it makes anyone that's not a Conservative laugh at the site and laugh at the editors of the site for being what they perceive as stupid, especially because they see the editors as hypocrites, claiming Wikipedia is biased and then being biased themselves, much more strongly so than Wikipedia.

Gingersnap
10-08-2009, 02:42 PM
It's biased in favor of conservative views, no doubt. At least they don't pretend otherwise.

megimoo
10-08-2009, 04:00 PM
Oh come on, you're going to tell me that CONSERVapedia has no conservative bias? It's called "conservapedia" for a reason. They could've called it "truthapedia" but they didn't. They PURPOSEFULLY made it an unabashedly conservative website hence the name, and while I do happen to currently and unfortunately reside in la-la land (Los Angeles), I'm not an idiot and know conservative spin when I see it, which anyone should. I AM a conservative, which is why I like conservapedia, but I'm not going to play dumb and pretend like it isn't completely and purposely biased (IT doesn't even pretend that).
From your tone I don't quite get the "I am a Conservative "out of you .You are still awash in your delusions of Liberalism !

As I recall your 'former' liberal colleagues at Wiki were famous for editing the outputs of their search engines for content .
They have filter algorithms to re-vector a search string to a previously sanitized predigested outputs.

All searches concerning Obama's birth certificate have been scrubbed clean and the pointers redirected .They will not allow certain Conservative edits . The Page for this site has been redefined,re edited and blocked several times in the past .The Wiki editors are heavily bias liberals and allow others to corrupt our pages with impunity .They also ignore any of our complaints about it .

Goggle is another example of Liberal infestation !Their search string parsing has been heavily weighted in a Progressive/liberal direction.It has become virtually impossible to access accurate information concerning some liberal political figures.The only sites that have accurate uncorrupted Historical,Economic and Political data are Nexus Lexis and charge a large fee to use their search engines !

The Bio's of the White House inner circle have been sanitized and some past indiscretions have been removed or isolated. Wiki has become completely unreliable in Historical aspects as well as Political .A number of high ranking Democrat Political figures have had Wiki remove embarrassing entry's from their achieves Kerry and Kennedy both have had extensive re_edits to 'Scrub Clean' their pages of any indiscretions !

wilbur
10-09-2009, 12:10 AM
This is your brain:

http://peakrunningperformance.com/webpages/images/stories/brain.jpg






This is your brain on Conservapedia:


They have filter algorithms to re-vector a search string to a previously sanitized predigested outputs.

All searches concerning Obama's birth certificate have been scrubbed clean and the pointers redirected .They will not allow certain Conservative edits . The Page for this site has been redefined,re edited and blocked several times in the past .The Wiki editors are heavily bias liberals and allow others to corrupt our pages with impunity .They also ignore any of our complaints about it .


http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u73/Fried_egg__sunny_side_up.jpg

Rockntractor
10-09-2009, 12:15 AM
This is your brain:

http://peakrunningperformance.com/webpages/images/stories/brain.jpg






This is your brain on Conservapedia:



http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u73/Fried_egg__sunny_side_up.jpg

Thats a start Wilbur but it's kind of old. There is a thread that might be of interest to you in the DU forum!
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=20229

ExLiberal
10-09-2009, 12:19 AM
Well, it is pretty entrancing.

wilbur
10-09-2009, 12:21 AM
Thats a start Wilbur but it's kind of old. There is a thread that might be of interest to you in the DU forum!
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=20229

No, can't say that it is...

ExLiberal
10-09-2009, 12:23 AM
I can't believe conservapedia doesn't have an article on liberapedia! How do you start a page?

wilbur
10-09-2009, 12:33 AM
I can't believe conservapedia doesn't have an article on liberapedia! How do you start a page?

Perhaps they don't have a sense of humor regarding satire aimed at their own site?

Rockntractor
10-09-2009, 12:44 AM
I can't believe conservapedia doesn't have an article on liberapedia! How do you start a page?

Top left hand corner.

ExLiberal
10-09-2009, 12:50 AM
Thanks!

Rockntractor
10-09-2009, 12:56 AM
Thanks!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:How_To_Create_a_Conservapedia_Account

After you sign up go to The Conservapedia Commandments

Zathras
03-15-2010, 03:16 PM
This is your brain:

http://peakrunningperformance.com/webpages/images/stories/brain.jpg

This is your brain after one of my posts:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u73/Fried_egg__sunny_side_up.jpg

Fixed for accuracy.

FlaGator
03-15-2010, 03:40 PM
Heh.... Conservapedia.... for every paragraph on that site you read - your IQ drops several points.

Gems from their article on evolution:


Their slogan should be "The encyclopedia that tells you what you want to hear".

The fossil record does not support fully the theory of evolution. The glaring lack of transitional fossils is one problem and it leads to the issue with not being able to validate macro evolution. Until that is done and it is accepted by all biologists then you have nothing more than an unproven theory that accounts for only some of the facts not all of them.

The truth will set you free wilbur.

wilbur
03-15-2010, 08:21 PM
Wow, how'd this old thread get resurrected? And oh brother.....


The fossil record does not support fully the theory of evolution. The glaring lack of transitional fossils is one problem

Blatantly false. We are awash with transitionals. I submit that no amount of transitionals will be enough for you, or any creationist.



and it leads to the issue with not being able to validate macro evolution.


Macro evolution has been demonstrated in the lab.



Until that is done and it is accepted by all biologists


And those demonstrations are accepted (and as unanimously as is humanly possible) by biologists.



then you have nothing more than an unproven theory that accounts for only some of the facts not all of them.


Then I guess by your standards, the theory is "proven" - though that's technically not correct to say about any scientific theory. Rookie mistake on your part.



The truth will set you free wilbur.

Your denialism appears to be spreading... might wanna get that checked out. :)

AmPat
03-15-2010, 08:31 PM
If it doesn't support wilbur's view of atheism and/or evolutionary hogwash, it isn't legitimate.

Rockntractor
03-15-2010, 08:37 PM
Wilbur it isn't legitimate either!

NJCardFan
03-16-2010, 04:10 AM
http://www.conservapedia.com/images/thumb/f/fb/Liberal_Brain.jpg/450px-Liberal_Brain.jpg
http://thewhiteguy.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/brain_capitalist_550.gif