Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 0/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   www.conservapedia.com - What do you think?
alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 4367 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 121 of 167 (388495)
03-06-2007 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by riVeRraT
03-06-2007 8:25 AM


Re: Moon Bulges
If there was no moon, would we still have tides?
Solar tides. The moon causes lunar tides.

six(sic)six

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by riVeRraT, posted 03-06-2007 8:25 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by riVeRraT, posted 03-06-2007 11:06 AM alacrity fitzhugh has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 494 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 122 of 167 (388522)
03-06-2007 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by alacrity fitzhugh
03-06-2007 8:33 AM


Re: Moon Bulges
Solar tides. The moon causes lunar tides.
Yes, I remeber that after I posted, then I lost connection, so I couldn't correct myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 03-06-2007 8:33 AM alacrity fitzhugh has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5950 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 123 of 167 (388605)
03-06-2007 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Omnivorous
03-05-2007 6:58 PM


Re: Wiki bias
Heh. I think I remember having one of those... Of course, that was back in the day when we had things like real "books" (remember those?), with actual paper pages and all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Omnivorous, posted 03-05-2007 6:58 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 167 (388607)
03-06-2007 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Quetzal
03-05-2007 6:37 PM


Re: Wiki bias
Oops, sorry, Quetzal, I forgot to respond to this.
Yes, the Chronicle is online, but you need a subscription to read it (which I don't -- the department where I teach gets the paper edition).
Sorry.
Anyway (and now I am going to be mixing up different sources, I'm afraid), some people feel that Wikipedia is at least as good a source as any encyclopedia, and others are dead against it.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Quetzal, posted 03-05-2007 6:37 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Utopia
Junior Member (Idle past 5215 days)
Posts: 26
From: Boston, MA.
Joined: 09-19-2006


Message 125 of 167 (388714)
03-07-2007 12:14 PM


Their "objective" take on the ACLU
http://www.conservapedia.com/ACLU
The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was run for its first 30 years by a non-Christian socialist named Roger Baldwin, who helped found it in 1920 in response to the Espionage Act and Sedition Act. Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal." [1]
In a rare example of an ACLU chapter siding with a Christian student, the ACLU of Michigan defended a Christian student seeking to have a Biblical passage on the student's yearbook page.[2]
More typical of ACLU litigation was when attorneys on its side demanded over $2 million in legal fees and expenses in order to prohibit an elected school board from introducing public school students to concepts or books concerning Intelligent design. At the end of this case the trial judge simply copied more than 90% of the ACLU's brief for his ruling.[3] The judge then entered a judgment for $2,067,226.00 against the school board members for the legal fees and expenses of the ACLU's side. The judge also prohibited any mention of Intelligent design by teachers in the public school. The judge's order also prevented any appeal of his opinion in the case.
Have they no shame? LOL
Greg P.

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-07-2007 12:24 PM Utopia has not replied
 Message 130 by Chiroptera, posted 03-07-2007 1:15 PM Utopia has not replied
 Message 139 by subbie, posted 03-07-2007 8:25 PM Utopia has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 167 (388718)
03-07-2007 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Utopia
03-07-2007 12:14 PM


Re: Their "objective" take on the ACLU
I had no idea that Baldwin wrote in all caps when he wanted to emphasize something. Conservapedia is such a professional endeavor.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Utopia, posted 03-07-2007 12:14 PM Utopia has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 127 of 167 (388727)
03-07-2007 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Quetzal
03-03-2007 9:08 PM


Re: Christian Cult of Ignorance
That sounds pretty good to me too.
Its unfortunate that there are so many people for whom checking the evidence isn't so appealing. Perhaps its an affront to their belief -do not test the lord thy God? Or they simply have no interest in searching beyond the explanations that sit right before them because their lives are busy and interesting and they don't have the time to go thinking about erosion or dendochronology or whatever.
I think that it should be made clear that there really shouldn't be any harm in checking - and that exploring your beliefs should strengthen those beliefs worth holding on to.
I wonder how you go about doing that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Quetzal, posted 03-03-2007 9:08 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 128 of 167 (388730)
03-07-2007 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Jaderis
03-04-2007 2:08 AM


Re: Woeful inadequacy and outright distortions
I'm really not sure about the one about native (south) Americans. Do you think its genuine? I guess it could be. Eeeuch!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Jaderis, posted 03-04-2007 2:08 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 129 of 167 (388733)
03-07-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Phat
03-04-2007 7:57 AM


Re: Christian Cult of Ignorance
You sound like you are saying that liberals are less dogmatic perhaps (sorry if thats a misreading). I don't know if you can make such blanket statements fairly. Maybe you can? Personally I think it divides along different lines - those who don't have enquiring minds are just going to get stuck with whatever beliefs they were born in to. Those who do have enquiring minds are subdivided into two categories: those who aren't readily able to admit they are wrong and those that are. There are people of both kinds who are religious and people of both kinds who are athiest. There are people of both kinds who are politically conservative and politically liberal.
How does that sound?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Phat, posted 03-04-2007 7:57 AM Phat has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 167 (388734)
03-07-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Utopia
03-07-2007 12:14 PM


Re: Their "objective" take on the ACLU
Have you been reading the discussions concerning these pages? They are often more interesting than the articles themselves.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Utopia, posted 03-07-2007 12:14 PM Utopia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-07-2007 1:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 131 of 167 (388735)
03-07-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Straggler
03-04-2007 9:06 AM


Re: Christian Cult of Ignorance
I don't feel uncomfortable telling you where I'm from - Gants Hill on the East end of the Central line... well, near enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2007 9:06 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2007 4:25 PM Tusko has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 132 of 167 (388737)
03-07-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Hyroglyphx
03-04-2007 7:53 PM


Re: Wiki bias
I agree - you shouldn't compulsively believe everything you read on Wikipedia, especially if you are reading about a potentially controversial topic. I think that's why the discussion page is often very worth checking.
I think the whole notion of conservapedia is contradictory and mistaken - that you can have an unbiased counterbalance to wikipedia (assume for a moment that wikipedia is biased towards liberal view uniformly) that is itself brazenly the mouthpiece for biased views.
Two wrongs don't make a right - or something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-04-2007 7:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 167 (388738)
03-07-2007 1:30 PM


Statistics
From Statistics:
90% of all statistics are made up. For example, only 10% of Americans accept evolution as it is taught in public school.
Hee hee hee. I wonder if this was intentional?

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by ringo, posted 03-07-2007 1:41 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 134 of 167 (388739)
03-07-2007 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Omnivorous
03-04-2007 10:40 PM


All this division and ignorance and bitterness: that's what makes me want to go and have a warm drink and lie down.
I agree that its very amusing that you can't tell the parody from the chaff - an entirely unintended side-effect of the project I imagine... unless its a brilliant parody all round.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Omnivorous, posted 03-04-2007 10:40 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Omnivorous, posted 03-07-2007 11:44 PM Tusko has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 167 (388740)
03-07-2007 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Chiroptera
03-07-2007 1:15 PM


Re: Their "objective" take on the ACLU
I love this passage from the ACLU discussion:
Joshua, your 20 cases is out of how many? 20,000? That would be 0.1%. That is very rare indeed. Let's be factual about this. The ACLU brings at least 100 cases against prayer, the Ten Commandments, statutes, Boy Scouts, Intelligent Design, etc., for every case brought on the other side. Be honest about the ratios here.
Yes, let's be factual. First, 0.1% of all their cases are in defense of Christians. Then there are 100 other cases for every one defense of Christians. Which means it's up to 1%, in the same paragraph. All while pleading that the other guy be reasonable and honest about The Facts.
Good gravy. The mind just boggles.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Chiroptera, posted 03-07-2007 1:15 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024