Conservapedia declares victory over EvC Forum

Lol.Here is what real science looks like. Poster session from the ASM 2012 General Meeting (sans attendees): But I doubt they will ever understand that.

Wow. Impressive.

I didn't really understand what this was. So I googled a bit and came up with an idea. Please correct me if you have a chance:This was the All Scientists Meeting for the Long Term Ecological Research Network.This meeting is basically a bunch of people getting together and sharing the information they have gathered on specific subjects.
Or, more specifically, it's a bunch of scientists getting together and sharing their objective, evidenced findings (and the resulting rational speculations) on specific ecological research.Everybody sees the work, everybody looks over and checks the work, ideas are exchanged, mistakes (if any) are corrected and new, objective evidence (data) is entertained.I got the feeling of some sort of competition, though? Is that just the anxiety of having your work judged by your peers? Or is this setup meant to actually "win" something as well?Close?Here's a basic example of a "poster": Climatic Controls on Stream Flow in the McMurdo Dry ValleysI really did try to find a "simple" one...

Nope. It was from the American Society of Microbiology 2012 General Meeting.ASM Journal PlatformIt is a rather large meeting with 10,000+ attending the keynote addresses. I believe it is the largest meeting for scientific research in microbiology in the US. The picture is for one of the poster sessions, of which there are usually 3 (if memory serves). There are also oral presentations throughout each day. There is definitely competition, especially between labs studying the same bug. There are also awards given out for the best posters, orals, etc.

This stuff is still there. Not the same stuff, but the same sort of stuff. It's still there on the front page of what claims to be an encyclopedia.--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---This "encyclopedia" is still explaining on its front page why Obama is going to lose and whatsisname is going to win. It is currently November 26^th, and they still have on their main page articles and links explaining why the loser is going to beat out the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein!!! Obama, who won despite having a funny name and being black.Now, let me get this straight, so that no-one misinterprets me. An extremely biased website such as Conservapedia (they admit their bias in their name) might well have hoped that Romney might win. They may have believed that Romney might win. But they still, now, on November 26^th, have on their main page articles and links explaining how Romney will win. And then they pass themselves off as an encyclopedia --- a compendium of actual knowledge.P.S: Romney lost.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What did you expect? Their post-apocalyptic bunkers don't have internet feeds, so how are they going to update the front page?

Conservapedia defines "uncertainty principle" as "an underlying chaos (uncertainty) at the atomic level in the physical world after the Fall of man, which renders a perpetual motion machine and life beyond 120 years impossible". This is of special interest because it was written, no, what's the word? ...disgorged ... by the great Andrew Schlafly himself. He's awesome, like gazing on Niagara Falls if it had ignorance instead of water.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Do you ever get the feeling that you read that website more than they do?

Mr. Schafly seems to have made a career of trying to prove that even a great education need not be a bar to idiocy. It's shooting fish in a barrel easy to find examples of silliness solely by authored by Andy.