Saturday, February 24, 2007
Monument to Ignorance
There has been much mirth had in the anti-acephalus community of late about Conservapedia, the "conservative" version of Wikipedia intended to correct the bias resulting from actual thinking. To be fair to thinking conservatives everywhere, Conservapedia should be renamed Lunaticfringeapedia. Case in point and Exhibit A for that proposition is the news that Andrew Schlafly is the founder of Conservapedia. Proof that the nut doesn't fall far from the tree, Andy, the son of Phyllis, was once a more-or-less regular on the talk.origins usenet group. One of his more spectacular delusions was about Devil's Tower. Here, lightly edited, are Andy's views on the subject, taken from three posts of his (one, two, three) from back in 2001:
Some people think that Conservapedia is having bandwidth problems because of all the traffic rubbernecking the wreck. I think it just runs slow in honor of its founder.Devils Tower is a mile-high, pure rock mountain in Wyoming with no other mountains nearby. It's flat at the top, and a sheer drop on all sides.
Easy to describe, impossible to explain -- unless the area was once a mile deep in water. Some speculate it was a volcano, and that it's unique columns formed from a cooling process. Water best explains the cooling and erosion, which were (1) enormous and (2) seem to be greater in its middle than at its top. A river still runs nearby.
Locked in their "us v. them" approach, evolutionists seem to instinctively oppose the past existence of enormous floods. How can they oppose the notion of a flood eroding and cooling Devils Tower?
The erosion is plainly from currents, not rainfall. The rapid cooling of the columns is more easily explained by a flood as well.
A massive flood likely carried away all the volcanic remnants and eroded the rock.
Many evolutionists oppose the possibility of an enormous flood at all costs, simply because their adversaries support one.
___________________________
Comments:
<< Home
Maybe he's just pissed off because he doesn't have his own entry in Wikipedia.
# posted by 
: 3:56 PM
: 3:56 PM
I second the motion for "Lunaticfringeapedia.".
They claim that wikipedia is biased, in their entry "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia."
However, all the bias I see is coming straight from Conservapedia.
Here is an example of bias taken from their own site:
"Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America."
This obviously shows bias with statements like "we favor Christianity and America." If you favor swomething you admit that you have a preconcieved bias towards it.
Another huge example of the lunatic fringe bias:
"You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of 'political correctness'."
Concise answers free of political correctness? So they admit they are free of correctness?
The lunatic fringe goon squad tends to consistently place their misguided ideology over reality, remaining willfully blind to the fact that its ill-conceived from the start.
Of course, Conservapedia is hardly the only evidence that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Another giveaway is right-wing attack blogger Michelle Malkin, whose work has been repeatedly criticized for its cavalier attitude toward facts.
All this is bad news for the conservative movement, which will only become more marginal if it continues to embrace its lunatic fringe.
This does however bode well for the progressives who stand to gain the most from conservative's self-destruction.
While the lunatics are busy imploding we can get busy taking over running the country.
Post a Comment
They claim that wikipedia is biased, in their entry "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia."
However, all the bias I see is coming straight from Conservapedia.
Here is an example of bias taken from their own site:
"Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America."
This obviously shows bias with statements like "we favor Christianity and America." If you favor swomething you admit that you have a preconcieved bias towards it.
Another huge example of the lunatic fringe bias:
"You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of 'political correctness'."
Concise answers free of political correctness? So they admit they are free of correctness?
The lunatic fringe goon squad tends to consistently place their misguided ideology over reality, remaining willfully blind to the fact that its ill-conceived from the start.
Of course, Conservapedia is hardly the only evidence that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Another giveaway is right-wing attack blogger Michelle Malkin, whose work has been repeatedly criticized for its cavalier attitude toward facts.
All this is bad news for the conservative movement, which will only become more marginal if it continues to embrace its lunatic fringe.
This does however bode well for the progressives who stand to gain the most from conservative's self-destruction.
While the lunatics are busy imploding we can get busy taking over running the country.
# posted by : 1:20 PM
: 1:20 PM << Home
