Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: WMCoolmon on June 16, 2008, 04:20:43 am
-
http://www.conservapedia.com
Because linking Evolution with Hitler, Intelligent Design with scientific objectivity, Women with subservience and slavery, Abortion with multi-billion dollar business, Atheism with "negative effects on individuals and society at large", and homosexuality with murder is "trustworthy"[1].
I wouldn't be near as annoyed if they didn't spend so much time bashing Wikipedia on their site for being biased/corrupt/it's too hard to summarize 24 pages of negativity. Guess the internet just isn't big enough for anyone else's opinion.
[1] Conservapedia. (2008). "Main Page". May 22 version.
And if anybody objects, I'm just following Conservapedia's summary style with my post
-
I've seen that site before and gave up in disgust. Wikipedia has it's problems, certainly, but it's not even close to as prejudiced and biased as the conservapedia.
-
but it's not even close to as prejudiced and biased as the conservapedia.
That, my friend, would be an insult to the prejudiced and biased site community.
-
:lol: I guess they'll just have to try harder ;)
The thing is, there are sites that are prejudiced and biased for the 'lulz' or purely to promote a reaction, and there are sites like conservapedia, which actually think what they are posting is the 'real' truth, which is damn scary.
It's like reading Anne Coulters' blog...
Edit: For example, take a look at their definition of 'Atheist', they get it wrong, it's not denial of the existence of God, it's denial of the existence of any deity, but the phrase has been twisted around to make it personal.
-
The thing is, there are sites that are prejudiced and biased for the 'lulz' or purely to promote a reaction, and there are sites like conservapedia, which actually think what they are posting is the 'real' truth, which is damn scary.
Wait, conservapedia isn't for the lulz?
-
Well, I laugh at it, but the people editing it seem to think it is real, and that's kind of depressing.
-
*points and laughs at the section on evolution*
...oh wait, they're serious. :(
-
See, I'm not really sure how this is actually conservative in any real sense of the word. Seems pretty radical to me... :P
-
*points and laughs at the section on evolution*
If you think that's a laugh, look at the section on Galileo Galilei! :lol:
-
*points and laughs at the section on evolution*
If you think that's a laugh, look at the section on Galileo Galilei! :lol:
Dear God.... They've inverted the story....
-
http://www.conservapedia.com/Pornography (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pornography)
It fails so hard it wins.
-
Has anyone seen Uncyclopedia (http://uncyclopedia.org) yet?
-
http://www.conservapedia.com/Pornography (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pornography)
It fails so hard it wins.
Pornography is the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity used for the intents of stimulating sexual arousal. It usually consists of images depicting the satisfaction of the sort of "unnatural lust" which leads to damnation. (Jude 1:6-7 ) It destroys the mind as gambling does and, even worse, pornography leads to terrible crimes against women and children by pornography addicts.[1]
[1]Scott Peterson, for example, was hooked on pornography when he brutally murdered his pregnant wife.
:lol:
One case = causal link. :p
-
*snicker*
I feel sorry for these people I'm sure they mean good, though... :doubt:
-
True, but good intentions mean accepting that there are several sides to the argument, not simply stating 'anyone who isn't like us is wrong, and here's a link to somewhere else on the same Website where I say 'anyone who isn't like us is wrong', therefore it must be true, because I have a citation.'
-
Hmm, I'm gonna guess that at least 40% of that follows Poe's Law...
-
they should call it fundiepedia
-
:lol:
One case = causal link. :p
I don't remember Scott Peterson being hooked on porn. And wasn't he acquitted?
-
I still think Encyclopedia Dramatica are Uncyclopedia are the most accurate and trustworthy. Just like The Onion is the best among CNN and Fox.
I think the boys over at ED may have actually raided Conservapedia a couple of times.
-
:lol:
One case = causal link. :p
I don't remember Scott Peterson being hooked on porn. And wasn't he acquitted?
The fact he added a couple of porn channels to his package days after his wife disappeared was used as evidence that he knew she wasn't coming back. He was actually convicted (unless wikipedia is spreading liberal lies again. :p)
-
Yes, i've seen that. in my humble opinion it's ****ing bull****
Try this, it's better www.uncyclopedia.org (http://www.uncyclopedia.org)
-
Uncyclopedia is inaccurate and funny and it knows it; that's what it aims for.
Conservapedia is inaccurate and funny and it knows it; however, that's not what it aims for.
-
****ing hell. http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Views_on_Atheists
:lol: They're more afraid of us than Jews, Blacks, Muslims and Gays.
I feel badass. :lol:
-
Oh noes, I only stand a 54% chance of being allowed to marry a Conservapedia supporter.
That's a bit too high for comfort.
-
The rules on editing is hilarious.
-
"Targeting of young people by atheists on the internet" lol
-
This actually reminds me... once my family dragged me to a mega church way out in the foothills here in Colorado (the further you get from downtown Denver and Boulder you get, the more fundie people become out here)
The sermon was about the "Atheist Conspiracy" it seems all the Atheists and Agnostics in the entire world are plotting to destroy the Church of Christ Our LordTM :lol:
-
Doesn't say much for God if they succeed...
-
Doesn't say much for God if they succeed...
:lol:
-
This site shouldn't be called Conservapedia, it should be called Bullsh**ipedia. :lol:
That site should be purged. :P
-
:lol:
One case = causal link. :p
I don't remember Scott Peterson being hooked on porn. And wasn't he acquitted?
The fact he added a couple of porn channels to his package days after his wife disappeared was used as evidence that he knew she wasn't coming back. He was actually convicted (unless wikipedia is spreading liberal lies again. :p)
Circular reasoning FT... hmm...
And I must say how amazing it is that this board is almost completely Liberal, or at least the conservatives hiding in fear.
Anyway, this "conservapedia" makes me laugh. Even harder when I realize it's serious.
EDIT:
:lol:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Liberal_Brain.jpg
EDIT2:
LOL!!
Man are more masculine (manly), and women are more feminine.
EDIT3:
rofl...
Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism.
-
That sounds extremely non committal considering the website.
-
/me sees this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia).
Ah yes, I knew I read about Conservapedia somewhere before... :doubt:
-
http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Karate_Kid
:wtf:
-
http://www.conservapedia.com/Detroit
Detroit is the largest city in the state of Michigan, and the 11th most populous city in the United States. Founded by French explorer Antoine Cadillac on July 24, 1701 as Fort Pontchartrain du Détroit, the city reached a peak population of about 1.85 million in 1950, but has now declined to less than half that.
The first permanent structure built in Detroit was a Catholic church.
In 1979, former Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein received a key to the city.
Detroit is known for being the center of the American auto industry, as well as the home of many long-suffering football fans.
:wtf:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Groundhog_Day
Groundhog Day is a Bill Murray movie about a man trapped in a time warp. He has to live February 2nd over and over.
Murray portrays an arrogant, self-centered weatherman who gets a new lease on life when he's assigned a new (and very pretty) producer.
:nervous:
-
http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Karate_Kid
:wtf:
...the Hell? :wtf:
The first paragraph of the Part II section sounds like an advertisement. :wtf:
-
:lol: That site wins.
-
Huge section of extraterrestrial life, two lines on "father" or "mother"
-
I'm kinda confused as to whether that site is a really huge and successful elaborate joke, or are they actually serious about it...
Either way it produces much lulz. :lol:
-
I'm kinda confused as to whether that site is a really huge and successful elaborate joke, or are they actually serious about it...
Either way it produces much lulz. :lol:
It was supposed to be an American's Wikipedia, I think. :nervous:
-
Can I sue these guys for defamation of character? I generally refer to myself as "conservative," and I'd prefer not to be associated in any way with this lot. Wow... :lol:
-
And they call us conspiracy theorists :rolleyes:
-
Oh noes, I only stand a 54% chance of being allowed to marry a Conservapedia supporter.
That's a bit too high for comfort.
Worth pointing out that 27.2% of the same demographic said they wouldn't want their child marrying a black person.
-
Oh noes, I only stand a 54% chance of being allowed to marry a Conservapedia supporter.
That's a bit too high for comfort.
Worth pointing out that 27.2% of the same demographic said they wouldn't want their child marrying a black person.
Ouch
-
Must've been in the South. (stereotype I know)
-
I'm kinda confused as to whether that site is a really huge and successful elaborate joke, or are they actually serious about it...
Either way it produces much lulz. :lol:
It was supposed to be an American Catholic's Wikipedia, I think. :nervous:
Fixed.
And look at their alcohol article:
(I can't get it now, the site is down)
-
Their article on divorce, especially no-fault divorce, is hilarious.
Their article on the Gardisil vaccine not so much so. Truly terrifying would be more apt.
The best part about these sorts of people is they point to Muslim fundamentalism as the force that is destroying Western society. The irony is delicious.
-
I just found the ultimate article on this site: http://www.conservapedia.com/Professor_values
It has everything: "Professors' common value system typically includes atheism,[3] censorship, socialism, unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge (for example, the dogmatic promotion of the theory of evolution),[4] liberаl beliefs,[5] liberal grading, liberal bias,[6] anti-patriotism, lack of productivity, bullying or discouraging conservative students (for example, homeschoolers),[7][8] and promotion of sexual immorality."
Well ****, I guess that's it for university education folks. Pack it in, back into Church with the lot of us.
EDIT:
And for those that haven't, read their commandments. This one, in particular, is marvelous:
"When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE."
*dies*
-
Alcohol is often an easy but false solution in case of sadness, desperation or depression. This easily leads to chronic alcoholism and self destruction. A much better solution in case of need is the Church, which doesn't judge but is always willing to help one to find joy and meaning in life.
-
Alcohol: the cause of and the solution to all of life's problems.
-
Their article on divorce, especially no-fault divorce, is hilarious.
It's something that's way too common in America's society these days. It causes an awful lot of pain for the children of the parents. Often the children rarely ever get to see/visit one of the parents. The parents usually say "Don't worry, we're still friends" though loads of talking goes on behind each other's backs. Leads to the parents dating other people because they "don't want to be alone", which may lead to a second marriage and a step-mom or step-dad who only seems to be there to give the children hell 24/7. Can cause depression.
Let me guess, the contributor has a step-parent. :D
The stuff on Hollywood Values is ****ing hilarious. :D
Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions:
* Mark Wahlberg upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of Planet of the Apes, Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: "I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association." Wahlberg's character in Planet of the Apes uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.
:lol: Well call me a hypocrite but I too probably would change my position on gun ownership faced with an army of apes attempting to force mankind into slavery too. :p
-
*points and laughs at the section on evolution*
If you think that's a laugh, look at the section on Galileo Galilei! :lol:
What's wrong with it? :wtf: I skimmed trough it and it looks OK.
-
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha - Haaaaa Haaaaa Haaaaaa. read more. like this - http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution (http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution)
-
*points and laughs at the section on evolution*
If you think that's a laugh, look at the section on Galileo Galilei! :lol:
What's wrong with it? :wtf: I skimmed trough it and it looks OK.
You mean besides the fact that they make it look like the church condemmed him because they misheard his views on heliocentrism and that the church "knew" that heliocentrism was the better of both theories despite then condemming him?
-
And I must say how amazing it is that this board is almost completely Liberal, or at least the conservatives hiding in fear.
Nah, see, we're actually conservative, those people are radical right wing. It's an important difference that far too few people actually understand. :p
-
Is anyone willing to compare something accurate from a good source with something inaccurate on Conservapedia? :nervous:
-
Is anyone willing to compare something accurate from a good source with something inaccurate on Conservapedia? :nervous:
Read a Conservapedia article.
Read the Wikipedia article by the same name.
There you go.
-
/me has already compared the Wikipedia article on The Karate Kid with the Conservapedia's equivalent.
...Conservapedia is better off being one of Wikipedia's mirror sites, like what Answers.com is. :ick:
-
Is anyone willing to compare something accurate from a good source with something inaccurate on Conservapedia? :nervous:
From Conservapedia:
Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to liberalism, particularly as manifested in the French Revolution.
From Conservapedia:
About every 20-60 years a conservative has been elected president of the United States. Examples include:
* George Washington
From Conservapedia:
George Washington (February 22, 1732 - December 14, 1799) was born to Augustin and Mary Washington[1] and was the unanimously elected 1st President of the United States of America and the Commander-in-Chief in the Revolutionary War.[2]
Funny how George Washington was affiliated with a political movement that wasn't formed until after his death.
-
:eek:
That's one major factual inaccuracy...
-
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha - Haaaaa Haaaaa Haaaaaa. read more. like this - http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution (http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution)
There is little scientific consensus on how macroevolution is said to have happened, as can be seen in the following quotes:
Followed by some really dodgy quotes (Including one from a famous French proponent of Lamarckism! :rolleyes: ). What makes me laugh is that with that exception they are all arguing about the minor details of the way evolution works yet this is presented as an argument that there is a huge debate about the whole theory.
Now put a Catholic, A Protestant, A Muslim and a Jew in the same room, ask them to talk about God. See! They don't agree. God must not exist! :rolleyes:
-
Ouch... :lol:
Hey look at this
Obama has declared himself to be a Christian and downplays his Islamic background by claiming that his Kenyan Muslim father was a "confirmed atheist" before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics or non-religious.[4]
I really wanna show this site to my family, but I have a sneaking suspicion my father would agree with it.
-
See, I really disagree with that style of argument. Instead of taking Obama's word that his father was a polygamist who deserted him and his mother at the age of two, they instead try to make a retarded argument based on generalized statistics. Even if you assume the statistics are 100% accurate, there's no correlation between the two other than his father is Kenyan. How many Kenyans leave the country and go live in the United States?
How many Kenyans are the father of a leading Democratic primary candidate? Less than 1%, I'd wager.
Does that mean that Obama's father isn't his father? It's even more unlikely that a random Kenyan would be Obama's father than a random Kenyan being an atheist.
Does that mean Obama doesn't exist? It's even less likely that a random person in America would be a Democratic presidential candidate.
-
Maybe he wasn't even Kenyan to begin with. He could just run real, real fast.
-
http://www.conservapedia.com/CE
:lol:
While in principle I actually agree with the Christians about using AD instead of CE (It's been AD for long enough that I really couldn't care less about changing it) that article is laughable. :D
-
:lol:
The 1972 Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary has no entry for "Common Era."
So, wait, a Dictionary that was made the year I was born, 3.5 decades ago, doesn't hold a reference to the term? Must be fake then...
-
From the article on Feminism
Specifically, modern feminists tend to:
* believe that there are no inherent differences between men and women and that all inequality is the result of men oppressing women[4]
* believe that "it takes a village to raise a child" and deny the exclusive role played by parents in raising children.[5]
* view traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal
* prefer role-reversal like men baking cookies for women[6]
* seek to abolish all-male private clubs
* insist that childrearing activities be shared equally by men and women in every respect
* support affirmative action for women
* detest women who are happy in traditional roles, such as housewife,[7] and especially dislike those who defend such roles
* prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do[8][9]
* seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines
* flat-out refuse to take the husband's last name when marrying[10]
:lol:
Seriously, this site must be a parody! :D
-
Hmmmm... Why does my 'Bad Divorce' alarm ring when I read that list?
-
To be fair that is a helluva good description of one of my ex-girlfriends opinions.
-
/me reads the Conservapedia article about CE.
They CANNOT be serious. :wtf:
-
Honestly I was kinda confused by the whole BCE/CE as well, seeing as how we name the months of the year after gods, the days of the week after gods, and so on. I guess Christianity is still a commonly practiced religion makes it different.
The website is of course hilarious about the issue however.
-
coed submarines
That sounds hot. :lol:
-
coed submarines
That sounds hot. :lol:
My first thought was a college dorm.
-
IIRC it's been done already. Of course, she was an engineer, which aboard a sub means a nuke engineer. These people are absolutely no fun when anywere near a reactor. :P
-
Honestly I was kinda confused by the whole BCE/CE as well, seeing as how we name the months of the year after gods, the days of the week after gods, and so on. I guess Christianity is still a commonly practiced religion makes it different.
Uh? What do you mean?
-
*points and laughs at the section on evolution*
If you think that's a laugh, look at the section on Galileo Galilei! :lol:
What's wrong with it? :wtf: I skimmed trough it and it looks OK.
You mean besides the fact that they make it look like the church condemmed him because they misheard his views on heliocentrism and that the church "knew" that heliocentrism was the better of both theories despite then condemming him?
And how do you know what the truth is for a fact?
Galileo lived hunderds of years before you were born. All we got to go on are theories made by historians, which are based on written records. And we all know you got conflicting writing on practicely anything these days and people who wrote them were not 100% objective either. The same holds true for earlier writing of men. I bet you'd find plenty of historians who have different theories - one that is accepted the most by the people and historians becomes the official version. Doesn't mean it's correct.
I'd take everything on conservapedia with a grain of salt. But then again I'd take everything from wikipedia, or any other source also with a grain of salt.
Also keep in mind that even in fairy tales or lies, there is a grain of truth somewhere. However what the truth is - I have no idea. That's why I won't go yelling at either version.
-
Oh. God. Someone end this before it starts.
-
end what? :wtf:
-
A bad thing about that 'pedia is the forced association of Atheism with mass murder by citing Stalin...
-
And how do you know what the truth is for a fact?
Galileo lived hunderds of years before you were born. All we got to go on are theories made by historians, which are based on written records. And we all know you got conflicting writing on practicely anything these days and people who wrote them were not 100% objective either. The same holds true for earlier writing of men. I bet you'd find plenty of historians who have different theories - one that is accepted the most by the people and historians becomes the official version. Doesn't mean it's correct.
I'd take everything on conservapedia with a grain of salt. But then again I'd take everything from wikipedia, or any other source also with a grain of salt.
Also keep in mind that even in fairy tales or lies, there is a grain of truth somewhere. However what the truth is - I have no idea. That's why I won't go yelling at either version.
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b319/Mistah_Kurtz/1199500753012.jpg)
-
end what? :wtf:
TrashMan will argue his point, completely ignoring anything else, twisting your words...
-
For about 3-4 posts if that before he gets himself monkeyed again. :p
He should already be hearing the sound of cracking ice from that last post.
-
Heh, as long as he's stating his own case, and not attacking other people, he's entitled to his opinion imho.
That said...
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b319/Mistah_Kurtz/1199500753012.jpg)
-
HA!
Since nothing I said is false and you can't find words to twist (yet) my opposition has fallen back to good ol' Ad Homminem.
I guess one could argue this for another 100 posts if one REALLY wanted too, but there's nothing I really want to add to my first statement. It's is correct and conceptually complete.
I don't know what really happened. You don't know what really happened. We got several version of what might have happened.
Believe in whatever version you want...you got to pick one anyway, so it doesn't matter to me at all.
-
And big raspberries to you too :p
Edit : Of course, if everyone could decide which arguments they'd won, no-one would ever lose ;)
-
Of course, if everyone could decide which arguments they'd won, no-one would ever lose ;)
Except for people who are willing to accept their mistakes.
-
Accepting is one thing, learning from them is a whole other ;)
-
Since nothing I said is false and you can't find words to twist (yet)
end what? :wtf:
TrashMan will argue his point, completely ignoring anything else, twisting your words...
He's already doing it.
-
Everyone knows that site is a big joke, no one takes it seriously
-
:wtf:
-
Everyone knows that site is a big joke, no one takes it seriously
Big joke as in "man your woman's a fat ***** - thus your taste in women is a joke" or "haha, great joke man"?
-
Big joke as in "man your woman's a fat ***** - thus your taste in women is a joke" or "haha, great joke man"?
The second one. There are few things I find there which are really funny. I prefer sites like The White House (http://www.whitehouse.org) and Uncyclopedia (http://uncyclopedia.org).
-
From the article on Feminism
Specifically, modern feminists tend to:
* prefer role-reversal like men baking cookies for women[6]
Coed submarines, fine. Sharing the pregnancy for a trimester and a half, fine. But I draw the line at cookie-baking. No man should be forced to endure the torturous, dehumanizing humility of baking cookies for his wife.
No man.
-
http://www.conservapedia.com/Relativity#Political_aspects_of_relativity
They tried to politicize relativity.... I want to say that this is a reminder of the adage, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should," but it's dubious to imply the capacity for success was there.
-
Coed submarines, fine. Sharing the pregnancy for a trimester and a half, fine. But I draw the line at cookie-baking. No man should be forced to endure the torturous, dehumanizing humility of baking cookies for his wife.
No man.
Sadly, I've never actually allowed my lady to make cookies for either of us, because the truth is I am a much better cook at just about anything that isn't microwaveable. :P
-
http://www.conservapedia.com/Relativity#Political_aspects_of_relativity
They tried to politicize relativity.... I want to say that this is a reminder of the adage, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should," but it's dubious to imply the capacity for success was there.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Metaphor
Okay, that's not why they did it. Apparently they have heard of the word. :p
-
And how do you know what the truth is for a fact?
Galileo lived hunderds of years before you were born. All we got to go on are theories made by historians, which are based on written records. And we all know you got conflicting writing on practicely anything these days and people who wrote them were not 100% objective either. The same holds true for earlier writing of men. I bet you'd find plenty of historians who have different theories - one that is accepted the most by the people and historians becomes the official version. Doesn't mean it's correct.
I'd take everything on conservapedia with a grain of salt. But then again I'd take everything from wikipedia, or any other source also with a grain of salt.
Also keep in mind that even in fairy tales or lies, there is a grain of truth somewhere. However what the truth is - I have no idea. That's why I won't go yelling at either version.
Ok guys, I'm sorry, I really did try to skip over this but I just HAVE to point out the obvious.
TrashMan, the reason we know how the whole Gallileo escapade went down is because the Vatican trains some of the best record-keepers in the world, and we actually still have written records dating back to that time period in the Vatican's possession as well as in the written records of Gallileo's contemporaries. Very little of the whole affair is theopyr (in fact, almost none of it). The written works are biased by their authors and are not an exact historical record, but by comparing accounts from many different sources we can arrive at a very close approximation of what actually happened - which is nothing like what the Conservapedia article has to say on the subject.
So argue all you like, but the historical records do still exist and they aren't "just theory."
-
Noooooooooooooo......
<Slow motion dive>
-
RUN!!!!
-
http://www.conservapedia.com/Pi#Does_the_Bible_attempt_to_define_pi.3F
ROTFLMAO
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheistic_Logic
*dies of laughter*
-
Wow. Apparently there is much biblical evidence pointing to the existence of God. Who knew?
-
http://www.conservapedia.com/Causes_of_Atheism
Damn! And here was me thinking it was just due to rationality. :p
I find it especially funny that they claim State churches are one of the reasons given their fierce opposition to separation of church and state. :p
-
:rolleyes:
This stuff is sad, I mean... ...
...*sigh*
It saddens me that this is what mainstream Christianity has become! Is this site a joke? Bad relations with father is a cause of Atheism?
:blah:
-
Maybe they mean bad relations with THE father?
-
It saddens me that this is what mainstream Christianity has become! Is this site a joke? Bad relations with father is a cause of Atheism?
Don't delude yourself; this isn't "mainstream" by any sense. Just about everyone I know who labels themselves "Christian" would find this to be as uproariously stupid as I do.
-
Don't get me wrong, I don't know if this is mainstream (politically) but I know its doctrine matches mainstream doctrine (and I do delude myself from mainstream doctrine.) So I ask again is this a joke?
-
Cause you know, all we ever need to believe anything is biblical evidence
-
Cause you know, all we ever need to believe anything is biblical evidence
except for pi
-
If they don't believe in Realitivity... what physics do they believe in?
-
God did it.
It saddens me that this is what mainstream Christianity has become! Is this site a joke? Bad relations with father is a cause of Atheism?
It's not a joke. It's a serious site.
However from what I've understood you do get the occasional article added by someone who is taking the piss. But the fact that they can't spot and remove those articles quickly shows once again that basically you can't tell the difference between fundamentalism and satire pretending to be it.
Don't delude yourself; this isn't "mainstream" by any sense. Just about everyone I know who labels themselves "Christian" would find this to be as uproariously stupid as I do.
A lot of them would. But don't kid yourself about the numbers involved in this site. It's not a small number at all. 23,000 pages don't write themselves you know!
-
However, even if the claim is correct, rounding pi to 3 is not "incorrect," an "error" or "wrong" and is perfectly acceptable in some circumstances.
*Joins Kara in laughter-induced death*
-
This is just too hilarious to be true. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheistic_Style)
11. overreliance on hearsay, a perception (often wrong) of what most people think, and a dependance on often outdated texts.
:lol:
-
This is just too hilarious to be true. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheistic_Style)
11. overreliance on hearsay, a perception (often wrong) of what most people think, and a dependance on often outdated texts.
:lol:
That is pretty good. :lol:
-
A lot of them would. But don't kid yourself about the numbers involved in this site. It's not a small number at all. 23,000 pages don't write themselves you know!
Oh, trust me, I know that there are many, many people out there who believe in this drivel, and every time I stop and realize this, it scares me half to death. However, what this sort proclaims in the name of "Christianity" doesn't represent the real deal any more than Derek Smart listing the tenets of good game design. Seriously, if someone out there is treating something like Genesis as a literal, scientifically-accurate work, in the words of the Internet, they're doing it wrong.
-
Oh, trust me, I know that there are many, many people out there who believe in this drivel, and every time I stop and realize this, it scares me half to death. However, what this sort proclaims in the name of "Christianity" doesn't represent the real deal any more than Derek Smart listing the tenets of good game design. Seriously, if someone out there is treating something like Genesis as a literal, scientifically-accurate work, in the words of the Internet, they're doing it wrong.
Yeah but my point is that these people do call themselves Christians. And I'm sad to say that they are the majority (at least in the USA). Pretty much everything I've seen puts the number of Young Earth Creationists far in the lead of Old Earth Creationists. You can't just dismiss these people as fringe idiots. More than 50% of American Christians believe that the Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. They seem to have either somehow decided that's correct even though they all know the word dinosaur.
So until you can prove that there are more Christians who find this site laughable than not I'm not buying it. Cause mainstream Christianity in America has already shown a laughable ability to disregard even pretty obvious logical flaws.
-
Okay, Christianity has enough people defending it that I really don't like adding myself to the stack in any capacity, but...
More than 50% of American Christians believe that the Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.
...do you have a source for that statistic, or is it pure supposition?
-
According to this site, a cause of Atheism is a "learned time". Coincidence?
And: More than 50% of American Christians believe that the Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.
I am interested to know A) what polling institute made that statement, and B) what method of polling they used. Because that statement is laughably ridiculous, and it is quite easy to skew a people's majority belief with incorrectly done polling. IMHO it's reasonable to conjecture (with my current knowledge) that that statement is false.
-
More than 50% of American Christians believe that the Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. They seem to have either somehow decided that's correct even though they all know the word dinosaur.
Three words.
Positive Response Bias
-
http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_quotient
http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias
Not much of a bias article.
-
Groups having a low liberal quotient would include a trade association of small business owners, an association of Christian athletes, and worshipers at church on an ordinary Sunday, with the exception of black protestant congregations [3].
That just infuriates me. These people are attempting to suggest that every church, from a stereotypical Southern Baptist setup to a modern Catholic church, have equal opinions.
-
Alright, you've killed it. You can stop kicking now :p
-
This one? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-07-evolution-poll-results_N.htm?csp=34
-
Groups having a low liberal quotient would include a trade association of small business owners, an association of Christian athletes, and worshipers at church on an ordinary Sunday, with the exception of black protestant congregations [3].
Does the liberal quotient get higher on a Superbowl Sunday?
But I find it funny how they try to provide 'conservative' groups. It's like they want to be generalized...
-
This one? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-07-evolution-poll-results_N.htm?csp=34
Thanks Wanderer, I was actually basing mine on older polls I remember reading. Although that one does give people the chance to weasel out of it by claiming that the fifth day was millions of years ago. It does however prove that the majority of Christians are willing to completely disregard fossil evidence.
I'll have to see if I can dig up the one on age of the Earth but since that was printed in a paper it's harder to find.
-
TrashMan, the reason we know how the whole Gallileo escapade went down is because the Vatican trains some of the best record-keepers in the world, and we actually still have written records dating back to that time period in the Vatican's possession as well as in the written records of Gallileo's contemporaries. Very little of the whole affair is theopyr (in fact, almost none of it). The written works are biased by their authors and are not an exact historical record, but by comparing accounts from many different sources we can arrive at a very close approximation of what actually happened - which is nothing like what the Conservapedia article has to say on the subject.
So argue all you like, but the historical records do still exist and they aren't "just theory."
And there are historical records also pointing the opposite. Or did you think that people weren't biased or didn't describe the same event differently even on those days? That there weren't opposite forces and epople working against eachother even then?
For an example, just take a look at how different magazines describe a really simple event, like...let's say Bush visiting another country.
So you got multiple version of some historical event, depending on which old documetns you read (and from what source).
Ultimatively, one version becomes official, weather because most historians agreed or simply because the public accepted that verison the best - that still doesn't mean that version is correct.
So, which documents is biased depends on who you ask. Conservapedia definately has biased material on it, but that doesn't mean everything written there is false. Neither does that mean everything you read on wikipedia is correct. There is no "automaticely guily by association" in my book. I judge every article by it's own merit and don't dismiss it just cause I don't like the source.
So you can repeat a kazzilion times to me that "this is what happened!" but we both know you don't really know for sure. Neither do I, but will belivee in whatever version I judge the most trustworthy. You do the same and we will both be happy.
-
one big contrast i find between wikipedia and conservapedia seems to be article length. wikipedia articles are longer and have more details than the conservapedia equivalent.
From the article on Feminism
Specifically, modern feminists tend to:
* prefer role-reversal like men baking cookies for women[6]
Coed submarines, fine. Sharing the pregnancy for a trimester and a half, fine. But I draw the line at cookie-baking. No man should be forced to endure the torturous, dehumanizing humility of baking cookies for his wife.
No man.
when i bake 4 dozen cookies every batch comes out perfect :D
when a woman bakes cookies the first batch is on fire, the second isnt even done, the 3rd dozen usually gets eaten before it makes the cookie sheet, there is no 4th dozen
This one? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-07-evolution-poll-results_N.htm?csp=34
Thanks Wanderer, I was actually basing mine on older polls I remember reading. Although that one does give people the chance to weasel out of it by claiming that the fifth day was millions of years ago. It does however prove that the majority of Christians are willing to completely disregard fossil evidence.
I'll have to see if I can dig up the one on age of the Earth but since that was printed in a paper it's harder to find.
both my mother and my brother believe that the dinosaur fossils were put there by god to confuse scientists. drives me nuts.
-
And there are historical records also pointing the opposite. Or did you think that people weren't biased or didn't describe the same event differently even on those days? That there weren't opposite forces and epople working against eachother even then?
For an example, just take a look at how different magazines describe a really simple event, like...let's say Bush visiting another country.
So you got multiple version of some historical event, depending on which old documetns you read (and from what source).
Ultimatively, one version becomes official, weather because most historians agreed or simply because the public accepted that verison the best - that still doesn't mean that version is correct.
So, which documents is biased depends on who you ask. Conservapedia definately has biased material on it, but that doesn't mean everything written there is false. Neither does that mean everything you read on wikipedia is correct. There is no "automaticely guily by association" in my book. I judge every article by it's own merit and don't dismiss it just cause I don't like the source.
So you can repeat a kazzilion times to me that "this is what happened!" but we both know you don't really know for sure. Neither do I, but will belivee in whatever version I judge the most trustworthy. You do the same and we will both be happy.
That loud whoosing sound is my point flying straight over your head.
The primary records come from both the VATICAN (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church) who were the ones primarily opposed to Gaileo's work AND have the most to gain from twisting facts to make them look good and also from Galileo's contemporaries (e.g. other scientists and philosophers who worked with and in parallel to him). Both fundamentally opposed sides come up with essentially the same account.
When two fundamentally opposing sides can agree on a series of events, it is extremely likely that they are the closest available approximation of the truth versus an article written on a poorly compiled site on the modern Internet.
Does that spell it out for you?
In other words, the most trustworthy side of the story is going to be that mutually agreed upon by the Vatican and the collection of historical records available which tell the same story versus the half-baked article that some nitwit made up and got completely wrong.
You can try to backpedal your way out of this one all you like but the fact of the matter is that the historical evidence - from all, even conflicting, sources - is pretty clear and Conservapedia is making **** up. In other words, your attempt to point out that history is subjective (which I entirely agree with as a general principle) is null and void on this particular subject.
-
Someone please hack that site ASAP.
-
Trashman, not every thread is about you and your nonsense.
MP-Ryan took the time to explain to you that the records which point out that the Vatican was wrong actually come from the Vatican and yet you still persist in trying to claim that because you can never know history you can never be certain it's correct ignoring his entire point.
You were warned that I didn't appreciate your attempts to thread hijack to your nonsense yet still you persist. For this reason you're monkeyed again. See you again in a week.
-
I have a request...
Can someone write a reletively short and "impartial" description of Conservapedia?
(the reason is that I want to expand the Italian Wiki's page about it, created by me)
-
Conservapedia is a Wikipedia style online encyclopedia, written from an American Conservative viewpoint. The encyclopedia focuses on religious and political topics, and is edited by predominantly American Catholic Conservatives.
-
Well, the main difference with it is that it cannot be edited by 'anyone' like a Wiki can, you have to be registered to do so, so, in that respect it is more like a 'fan Wiki', like the Freespace Wiki, than a real Open Encyclopaedia.
For example, if were to do an article comparing the SCP with other Space-games in the Wiki, we would, no doubt, be biased in our summary.
-
Can anyone register? I don't see if it's a 'fan wiki' if you just have to fill out a form and have an e-mail account to edit it. That's a standard way of getting rid of spambot edits. (In fact I think that was the reason that the FreespaceWiki began to disallow anonymous access)
-
Anyone can register, but 'vandalism' results in banning, much like it would on the Freespace Wiki. Though I will add that we are a lot more tolerant of different opinions about Freespace than they are about Conservatism :)
-
I see your usable posts has gone down :)
-
do you make an effort to post in every new thread? :p
Seriously, stop spamming.
-
It's not like you don't.
-
His post was on topic. Yours wasn't.
*points out that tinfoil is standing awfully close to the hole in the ice Trashman just disappeared through*
-
Who are you referring to? I assume tinfoil.
-
Yep.
-
Rational Wiki (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page) exists to make fun of Conservapedia
EDIT:
It appears to be strongly biased in the other direction in some cases.
-
Conservapedia is a Wikipedia style online encyclopedia, written from an American Conservative viewpoint. The encyclopedia focuses on religious and political topics, and is edited by predominantly American Catholic Protestant Conservatives.
Fixed.
-
countless religions, one scientific method. discuss.
*runs away really really fast*
-
The thing I love about people who argue "it must be the Catholics' fault!" is that Catholicism is significantly more moderate than a lot of Protestant sects, but there are a lot more Catholics then Protestants, so it must be the Catholics' fault.
Well, frankly put, that's a load of crap, because American politics has been dominated by Protestants since the beginning. Like Judiasm, they are few in numbers but large in influence and loud in their speaking.
-
Exactly. There's a rather prevalent history of anti-Catholicism in this country, even going back as recently as the election of John F. Kennedy (who was essentially forced to reassure voters that he would not run the country as a puppet of the Vatican). And nothing in any of the pages I browsed through looked anything remotely like the teachings I've been exposed to as a lifelong Catholic. That's pure evangelical fundamentalism right there.
-
The following article is about the term alien as most commonly used. For the term applying to hypothesized other forms of life in the universe see: Extraterrestrial life
An alien is a person who is a member of another family, race, or nation than the people among whom he or she lives.
I guess I hang out too much on Sci-fi boards then. :p
Extent of the Creation
The presence of extraterrestrial microbes on one or more of the other planets in our solar system (most likely Mars) does excite some fear in Christian quarters. But not all Christians harbor such fear, and even young earth creationists are quite confident that they could explain such a finding. For example, if the hydroplate theory is correct and a slurry of mud from the Great Flood traveled to Mars and poured itself out upon it, then such a slurry would almost certainly contain microbes.
:lol:
I wonder if they're going to try the same explanation if life is ever found around another star. :D
-
Really fast mud?
-
Well at least they don't get everything wrong.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Pascal%27s_wager
Worth remembering next time someone is foolish enough to try to use it in a religion debate here. I'm actually quite surprised they got it right considering how often it does turn up here.
-
Well at least they don't get everything wrong.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Pascal%27s_wager
Worth remembering next time someone is foolish enough to try to use it in a religion debate here. I'm actually quite surprised they got it right considering how often it does turn up here.
A good gesture, but doesn't quite cancel out the faster-than-light space mud. :doubt:
-
Even if they are ID airheads... why couldn't God just come up with a few microbes on Mars? If God could only create life on Earth he wouldn't be a very impressive God, would he.
Why the space mud?
-
Cause everyone loves space mud.
How could anyone come up with something like that? Oh wait, I know.
(http://i26.tinypic.com/10elpok.jpg)
-
Ever since this thread started I've been getting a bunch of Christian Singles ads, dammit.
-
So have I. It's better than the jerk businessman ad though... kinda.
-
Certainly more visually appealing. :P
-
WARNING!! (http://www.conservapedia.com/Alien_(movie)#Warning)
-
Oh no! Underwear!
http://www.conservapedia.com/Dragon_Ball_Z
:wtf:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Miranda_v._Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (June 13th, 1966), was a landmark decision by the Warren Court requiring the police to warn suspects of their rights before conducting custodial interrogations. These warnings, known as the "Miranda warnings," include:
the right to remain silent
the right to have an attorney present
the right to have an attorney appointed if desired
the right to know that anything said can and will be used against the accused
Conservatives objected strenuously to this decision, which freed many criminals who had not received these warnings. Some historians have recently cited Miranda for a "complete collapse in society."[Citation Needed]
A majority of the Rehnquist Court was on record with the opinion that the U.S. Constitution does not require a reading of the Miranda warning. But in Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000), a 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist upheld the Miranda warnings by saying that "the warnings have become part of our national culture." Justice Antonin Scalia railed against this decision in dissent, but the Miranda warnings remain mandatory to this day.
-
Do any of you have problems with "Site not Found"? I get it most of the time I click one of your links.
-
Do any of you have problems with "Site not Found"? I get it most of the time I click one of your links.
In this case, I'm not so sure I'd call that a problem.
-
One of the Conservapedia links in the thread, thank you very much.
-
One of the Conservapedia links in the thread, thank you very much.
I think he got that, Again, don't know if that's a problem so much as a solution if applied across the entire Internet =)
-
http://www.conservapedia.com/Miranda_v._Arizona
This makes me want to shoot somebody.
-
Cause telling people what they're rights are before they get arrested is just wrong.
-
I usually don't say this, but this site could say "Male = penis, female = vagina" and it would make me mad.
-
As strange as that page is, I find the motives of constructing the site even more interesting. Claim that Wikipedia is biased wrongly and not written from American point of view are the most interesting parts. But I find the motives behind Rational Pedia questionable, for me at least the existance of Rational Pedia means that there is a significant amount of people who believe Conservapedia is right, otherwise anyone clinging to it would be considered cuckoo.
Could it be so that the general US population has finally understood that when it is said "the whole world" it actually means the whole world, and should not be used as a dramatic addition in speeches?
Mika
-
Here we go, this is fun!
http://www.conservapedia.com/Lenski_dialog
First letter
June 13, 2008
Dear Professor Lenski,
Skepticism has been expressed on Conservapedia about your claims, and the significance of your claims, that E. Coli bacteria had an evolutionary beneficial mutation in your study. Specifically, we wonder about the data supporting your claim that one of your colonies of E. Coli developed the ability to absorb citrate, something not found in wild E. Coli, at around 31,500 generations. In addition, there is skepticism that 3 new and useful proteins appeared in the colony around generation 20,000. A recent article about your claims appears in New Scientist here: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science state that "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." Also, your work was apparently funded by taxpayers, providing further reason for making the data publicly available.
Please post the data supporting your remarkable claims so that we can review it, and note where in the data you find justification for your conclusions.
I will post your reply, or lack of reply, on www.conservapedia.com . Thank you.
Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D. Conservapedia
First Reply
Dear Mr. Schlafly:
I suggest you might want to read our paper itself, which is available for download at most university libraries and is also posted as publication #180 on my website. Here's a brief summary that addresses your three points.
1) "... your claims, that E. Coli bacteria had an evolutionary beneficial mutation in your study." We (my group and scientific collaborators) have already published several papers that document beneficial mutations in our long-term experiment. These papers provide exact details on the identity of the mutations, as well as genetic constructions where we have produced genotypes that differ by single mutations, then compete them, demonstrating that the mutations confer an advantage under the environmental conditions of the experiment. See papers # 122, 140, 155, 166, and 178 referenced on my website. In the latest paper, you will see that we make no claim to having identified the genetic basis of the mutations observed in this study. However, we have found a number of mutant clones that have heritable differences in behavior (growth on citrate), and which confer a clear advantage in the environment where they evolved, which contains citrate. Our future work will seek to identify the responsible mutations.
2. "Specifically, we wonder about the data supporting your claim that one of your colonies of E. Coli developed the ability to absorb citrate, something not found in wild E. Coli, at around 31,500 generations." You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper. We also establish in our paper, through various phenotypic and genetic markers, that the Cit+ mutant was indeed a descendant of the original strain used in our experiments.
3. "In addition, there is skepticism that 3 new and useful proteins appeared in the colony around generation 20,000." We make no such claim anywhere in our paper, nor do I think it is correct. Proteins do not "appear out of the blue", in any case. We do show that what we call a "potentiated" genotype had evolved by generation 20,000 that had a greater propensity to produce Cit+ mutants. We also show that the dynamics of appearance of Cit+ mutants in the potentiated genotypes are highly suggestive of the requirement for two additional mutations to yield the resulting Cit+ trait. Moreover, we found that Cit+ mutants, when they first appeared, were often rather weak at using citrate. At least the main Cit+ line that we studied underwent an additional mutation (or mutations) that refined that ability and led to a large improvement in growth on citrate. All these issues and the supporting methods and data are covered in our paper.
Sincerely,
Richard Lenski
Second letter
Dear Prof. Lenski,
This is my second request for your data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
Your work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interest in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.
If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request access to the data that was made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and to the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper and referenced in your first reply to me. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."
Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key underlying data available for independent review. Your response, or lack thereof, will be posted due to the public interest in this issue. Thank you.
Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.
www.conservapedia.com
cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications
Second reply
Dear Mr. Schlafly:
I tried to be polite, civil and respectful in my reply to your first email, despite its rude tone and uninformed content. Given the continued rudeness of your second email, and the willfully ignorant and slanderous content on your website, my second response will be less polite. I expect you to post my response in its entirety; if not, I will make sure that is made publicly available through other channels.
I offer this lengthy reply because I am an educator as well as a scientist. It is my sincere hope that some readers might learn something from this exchange, even if you do not.
First, it seems that reading might not be your strongest suit given your initial letter, which showed that you had not read our paper, and given subsequent conversations with your followers, in which you wrote that you still had not bothered to read our paper. You wrote: “I did skim Lenski’s paper …” If you have not even read the original paper, how do you have any basis of understanding from which to question, much less criticize, the data that are presented therein?
Second, your capacity to misinterpret and/or misrepresent facts is plain in the third request in your first letter, where you said: “In addition, there is skepticism that 3 new and useful proteins appeared in the colony around generation 20,000.” That statement was followed by a link to a news article from NewScientist that briefly reported on our work. I assumed you had simply misunderstood that article, because there is not even a mention of proteins anywhere in the news article. As I replied, “We make no such claim anywhere in our paper, nor do I think it is correct. Proteins do not ‘appear out of the blue’, in any case.” So where did your confused assertion come from? It appears to have come from one of your earlier discussions, in which an acoltye (Able806, who to his credit at least seems to have attempted to read our paper) wrote:
“I think it might be best to clarify some of Richard's work. He started his E.Coli project in 1988 and has been running the project for 20 years now; his protocols are available to the general public. The New Scientist article is not very technical but the paper at PNAS is. The change was based on one of his colonies developing the ability to absorb citrate, something not found in wild E.Coli. This occurred around 31,500 generations and is based on the development of 3 proteins in the E.Coli genome. What his future work will be is to look at what caused the development of these 3 proteins around generation 20,000 of that particular colony. ...”
As further evidence of your inability to keep even a few simple facts straight, you later wrote the following: “It [my reply] did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some evolutionists have insisted.” But no competent biologist would, after reading our paper with any care, insist (or even suggest) that “3 new and useful proteins appeared in the colony around generation 20,000” or any similar nonsense. It is only in your letter, and in your acolyte’s confused interpretation of our paper, that I have ever seen such a claim. Am I or the reporter for NewScientist somehow responsible for the confusion that reflects your own laziness and apparent inability to distinguish between a scientific paper, a news article, and a confused summary posted by an acolyte on your own website?
Third, it is apparent to me, and many others who have followed this exchange and your on-line discussions of how to proceed, that you are not acting in good faith in requests for data. From the posted discussion on your web site, it is obvious that you lack any expertise in the relevant fields. Several of your acolytes have pointed this out to you, and that your motives are unclear or questionable at best, but you and your cronies dismissed their concerns as rants and even expelled some of them from posting on your website. [Ed.: citation omitted due to spam filter] Several also pointed out that I had very quickly and straightforwardly responded that the methods and data supporting the evolution of the citrate-utilization capacity are already provided in our paper. One poster in your discussions, Aaronp, wrote:
“I read Lenski's paper, and as a trained microbiologist, I thought that it was both thorough and well done. His claims are backed by good data, namely that which was presented in the figures. I went through each of the figures after Aschlafly said that they were uninformative. Actually, they are basic figures that show the population explosion of the bacterial cultures after the Cit+ mutation occurred. These figures show that the cultures increased in size and mass at a given timepoint, being able to do so because they had evolved a mechanism to utilize a new nutrient, without the assistance of helper plasmids. ... Lenksi’s paper, while not the most definite I’ve seen, is still a very well-researched paper that supports its claims nicely.”
(As far as I saw, Aaronp is the only poster who asserted any expertise in microbiology.) As further evidence of the absence of good-faith discussion about our research, in the discussion thread that began even before you sent your first email to me, I counted the words “fraud” or “fraudulent” being used more than 10 times, including one acolyte, TonyT, who says bluntly that I am “clearly a fraudulent hack.” In the discussion thread that also includes comments after my first reply, the number of times those same words are used has increased to 20, with the word “hoax” also now entering the discussion. A few posters wisely counseled against such slander but that did not deter you. I must say, it is surprising that someone with a law degree would make, and allow on his website, so many nasty comments that implicitly and even explicitly impugn my integrity, and by extension that of my collaborators, without any grounds whatsoever and reflecting only your dogmatic adherence to certain beliefs.
Finally, let me now turn to our data. As I said before, the relevant methods and data about the evolution of the citrate-using bacteria are in our paper. In three places in our paper, we did say “data not shown”, which is common in scientific papers owing to limitations in page length, especially for secondary or minor points. None of the places where we made such references concern the existence of the citrate-using bacteria; they concern only certain secondary properties of those bacteria. We will gladly post those additional data on my website.
It is my impression that you seem to think we have only paper and electronic records of having seen some unusual E. coli. If we made serious errors or misrepresentations, you would surely like to find them in those records. If we did not, then – as some of your acolytes have suggested – you might assert that our records are themselves untrustworthy because, well, because you said so, I guess. But perhaps because you did not bother even to read our paper, or perhaps because you aren’t very bright, you seem not to understand that we have the actual, living bacteria that exhibit the properties reported in our paper, including both the ancestral strain used to start this long-term experiment and its evolved citrate-using descendants. In other words, it’s not that we claim to have glimpsed “a unicorn in the garden” – we have a whole population of them living in my lab! [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unicorn_in_the_Garden] And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allusion]
One of your acolytes, Dr. Richard Paley, actually grasped this point. He does not appear to understand the practice and limitations of science, but at least he realizes that we have the bacteria, and that they provide “the real data that we [that’s you and your gang] need”. Here’s what this Dr. Paley had to say:
“I think there’s a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria ‘evolved’ novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of ‘potentiated genotypes’, from which the traits could be ‘reevolved’ using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren’t ‘potentiated’ by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these ‘potentiated genotypes’ originated through blind chance or intelligence. But with the physical specimens in the hands of Darwinists, who claim they will get around to the sequencing at some unspecifed future time, how can we trust that this data will be forthcoming and forthright? Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved E. coli colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia, even if it won’t be put to immediate examination by Mr. Schlafly. This is simply about keeping tax-payer-funded scientists honest.”
So, will we share the bacteria? Of course we will, with competent scientists. Now, if I was really mean, I might only share the ancestral strain, and let the scientists undertake the 20 years of our experiment. Or if I was only a little bit mean, maybe I’d also send the potentiated bacteria, and let the recipients then repeat the several years of incredibly pain-staking work that my superb doctoral student, Zachary Blount, performed to test some 40 trillion (40,000,000,000,000) cells, which generated 19 additional citrate-using mutants. But I’m a nice guy, at least when treated with some common courtesy, so if a competent scientist asks for them, I would even send a sample of the evolved E. coli that now grows vigorously on citrate. A competent microbiologist, perhaps requiring the assistance of a competent molecular geneticist, would readily confirm the following properties reported in our paper: (i) The ancestral strain does not grow in DM0 (zero glucose, but containing citrate), the recipe for which can be found on my web site, except leaving the glucose out of the standard recipe as stated in our paper. (ii) The evolved citrate-using strain, by contrast, grows well in that exact same medium. (iii) To confirm that the evolved strain is not some contaminating species but is, in fact, derived from the ancestral strain in our study, one could check a number of traits and genes that identify the ancestor as E. coli, and the evolved strains as a descendant thereof, as reported in our paper. (iv) One could also sequence the pykF and nadR genes in the ancestor and evolved citrate-using strains. One would find that the evolved bacteria have mutations in each of these genes. These mutations precisely match those that we reported in our previous work, and they identify the evolved citrate-using mutants as having evolved in the population designated Ara-3 of the long-term evolution experiment, as opposed to any of the other 11 populations in that experiment. And one could go on and on from there to confirm the findings in our paper, and perhaps obtain additional data of the sort that we are currently pursuing.
Before I could send anyone any bacterial strains, in order to comply with good scientific practices I would require evidence of the requesting scientist’s credentials including: (i) affiliation with an appropriate unit in some university or research center with appropriate facilities for storing (-80ºC freezer), handling (incubators, etc.), and disposing of bacteria (autoclave); and (ii) some evidence, such as peer-reviewed publications, that indicate that the receiving scientist knows how to work with bacteria, so that I and my university can be sure we are sending biological materials to someone that knows how to handle them. By the way, our strains are not derived from one of the pathogenic varieties of E. coli that are a frequent cause of food-borne illnesses. However, even non-pathogenic strains may cause problems for those who are immune-compromised or otherwise more vulnerable to infection. Also, my university requires that a Material Transfer Agreement be executed before we can ship any strains. That agreement would not constrain a receiving scientist from publishing his or her results. However, if an incompetent or fraudulent hack (note that I make no reference to any person, as this is strictly a hypothetical scenario, one that I doubt would occur) were to make false or misleading claims about our strains, then I’m confident that some highly qualified scientists would join the fray, examine the strains, and sort out who was right and who was wrong. That’s the way science works.
I would also generally ask what the requesting scientist intends to do with our strains. Why? It helps me to gauge the requester’s expertise. I might be able to point out useful references, for example. Moreover, as I’ve said, we are continuing our work with these strains, on multiple fronts, as explained in considerable detail in the Discussion section of our paper. I would not be happy to see our work “scooped” by another team – especially for the sake of the outstanding students and postdocs in my group who are hard at work on these fronts. However, that request to allow us to proceed, without risk of being scooped on work in which we have made a substantial investment of time and effort, would be just that: a request. In other words, we would respect PNAS policy to share those strains with any competent scientist who complied with my university’s requirements for the MTA and any other relevant legal restrictions. If any such request requires substantial time or resources (we have thousands of samples from this and many other experiments), then of course I would expect the recipient to bear those costs.
So there you have it. I know that I’ve been a bit less polite in this response than in my previous one, but I’m still behaving far more politely than you deserve given your rude, willfully ignorant, and slanderous behavior. And I’ve spent far more time responding than you deserve. However, as I said at the outset, I take education seriously, and I know some of your acolytes still have the ability and desire to think, as do many others who will read this exchange.
Sincerely,
Richard Lenski
P.S. Did you know that your own bowels harbor something like a billion (1,000,000,000) E. coli at this very moment? So remember to wash your hands after going to the toilet, as I hope your mother taught you. Simple calculations imply that there are something like 10^20 = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 E. coli alive on our planet at any moment. Even if they divide just once per day, and given a typical mutation rate of 10^-9 or 10^-10 per base-pair per generation, then pretty much every possible double mutation would occur every day or so. That’s a lot of opportunity for evolution.
P.P.S. I hope that some readers might get a chuckle out of this story. The same Sunday (15 June 2008) that you and some of your acolytes were posting and promoting scurrilous attacks on me and our research (wasn’t that a bit disrespectful of the Sabbath?), I was in a church attending a wedding. And do you know what Old Testament lesson was read? It was Genesis 1:27-28, in which God created Man and Woman. It’s a very simple and lovely story, and I did not ask any questions, storm out, or demand the evidence that it happened as written at a time when science did not yet exist. I was there in the realm of spirituality and mutual respect, not confusing a house of religion for a science class or laboratory. And it was a beautiful wedding, too.
P.P.P.S. You may be unable to understand, or unwilling to accept, that evolution occurs. And yet, life evolves! [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove] From the content on your website, it is clear that you, like many others, view God as the Creator of the Universe. I respect that view. I find it baffling, however, that someone can worship God as the all-mighty Creator while, at the same time, denying even the possibility (not to mention the overwhelming evidence) that God’s Creation involved evolution. It is as though a person thinks that God must have the same limitations when it comes to creation as a person who is unable to understand, or even attempt to understand, the world in which we live. Isn’t that view insulting to God?
P.P.P.P.S. I noticed that you say that one of your favorite articles on your website is the one on “Deceit.” That article begins as follows: “Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another. Christianity and Judaism teach that deceit is wrong. For example, the Old Testament says, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.’” You really should think more carefully about what that commandment means before you go around bearing false witness against others.
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog"
-
Wow... I like this guy.
Admittedly much of the citrate eating bacteria thing is a bit over my head, but fascinating none the less.
-
Post. Too. Long :hopping:
interesting though :)
-
Wow... I like this guy.
Admittedly much of the citrate eating bacteria thing is a bit over my head, but fascinating none the less.
It's a fantastic letter. Total professorial ownage might be the best description that comes to mind =)
And the bacterial findings are pretty cool. In essence, they demonstrated that the bacterial species they were working with evolved a novel nutrient digestion mechanism following a shift in food supply.
It's actually funny that they picked on him for that article. There's another that actually demonstrates evolution in higher organisms. It dealt with lizards and their leg length, was published in 2006 (or maybe 2005) in Nature. I'll have to dig it up next time the evolution versus creation thing rears its ugly head here.
-
Yeah, sounds like a letter a pissed-off professor would write. You wouldn't believe how many they need to write during a year. Creationists are not the only people who ask strange things from professors.
Props for the scientific response. And since this is Internet, I suspect it was totally ignored.
Mika
-
Post. Too. Long. Attention span....too....short!
Fixed.
I'm a bit surprised that the whole dialogue (or at least as much as is there) got posted, since it goes so far toward discrediting Conservapedia's creator and the site's general attitude about all things scientific. It should be interesting to see how much deeper Schafly wants to dig his hole on this matter.
-
I'm a bit surprised that the whole dialogue (or at least as much as is there) got posted, since it goes so far toward discrediting Conservapedia's creator and the site's general attitude about all things scientific. It should be interesting to see how much deeper Schafly wants to dig his hole on this matter.
Why wouldn't he post it? He won! Cause
Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates (http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Creation_Scientists_Tend_to_Win_the_Creation-Evolution_Debates)
Of course it's pretty easy to win if by win you mean put out such a large amount of flim-flam and nonsense that the scientist can't answer it all and ends up looking bad.
-
Of course it's pretty easy to win if by win you mean put out such a large amount of flim-flam and nonsense that the scientist can't answer it all and ends up looking bad.
Nevermind the fact that by far the majority of serious scientists don't bother with the nonsense in the first place.
I have a theory.
Creationist types tend to correlate with anti-vaccination/anti-medicine types. Frequently they are the same people. Thus, eventually a combination of disease and socioeconomics is likely to weed them out of the gene pool (because, let's face it, if you want a career in the sciences you are not going to be successful if you dogmatically believe in Creationism). The fewer that survive, the fewer of the around to teach their children this crap.
Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.
-
I don't even bother looking at it any more, it's one of those sites that can never, ever be wrong, even when they are wrong. The moment the responses to that letter started dropping to making sarky comments about the number of Postscripts, I realised just how little evidence they actually had to defend their own opinions.
-
I don't even bother looking at it any more, it's one of those sites that can never, ever be wrong, even when they are wrong. The moment the responses to that letter started dropping to making sarky comments about the number of Postscripts, I realised just how little evidence they actually had to defend their own opinions.
At least you know what's going on.
I don't. :blah:
-
Trashman, not every thread is about you and your nonsense.
MP-Ryan took the time to explain to you that the records which point out that the Vatican was wrong actually come from the Vatican and yet you still persist in trying to claim that because you can never know history you can never be certain it's correct ignoring his entire point.
You were warned that I didn't appreciate your attempts to thread hijack to your nonsense yet still you persist. For this reason you're monkeyed again. See you again in a week.
Now that the ban is lifted, let me answer this:
1. I'm not hijacking anything. Explaining why a believe version X of an article on Conservapedia/Wikipedia is on topic, since you know..people asks why.
2. You might want to use the gray matter in your skull for a little logical thinking.
So, I'm faced with several different versions of event X. All versions are written nicely, sound OK and claim to have evidence to back it up. I haven't seen evidence for either version (and I probably never will), so why should I take version X1 to be true and denounce even the possibiltiy of other versions to be correct?
Until presented with actual evidence the only logical action is to hold all versions as possible. Naturally, human nature being as it is, we tend to pick one version we believe to be true, altough we don't really know it. One should stay open to other version tough, not attack whomever doesn't agree with you with zealous fury.
-
And....another week.
You've basically said that you entered the debate with total ignorance of the evidence on either side. If you are starting an argument about a subject you admit you know nothing about and don't wish to learn anything about I can only conclude you are doing it cause you like to argue and don't care what you argue about. That's trolling. And you're getting a week off for it.
Oh and since I'm here, They've changed their weekly article to one which contains this delightful nugget (http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem).
Dr. John Hartnett, a creationist physicist, spurred by Humphreys' model, has proposed an alternative time dilation model, by theorizing the Earth was in a time-dilation field during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe. According to the Bible, God "stretched out" the heavens (space), and this movement during creation week caused time to travel faster for those objects, in accordance with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, adding to the time dilation caused by gravity, per Humphreys, in accordance with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
So the last ditch defence is to claim that everything is billions of years old except the Earth? :lol:
-
I saw that on an episode of Stargate!
-
So does that mean that the sun is billions of years old too? The moon? Or did this only affect stuff outside the solar system? :)
-
Now that the ban is lifted, let me answer this:
1. I'm not hijacking anything. Explaining why a believe version X of an article on Conservapedia/Wikipedia is on topic, since you know..people asks why.
Your argument about the article keeps on going into your own vague theories about human nature and you trying to lecture other people how to use evidence, when they are clearly far more well-read and educated and able to make competent arguments using data than you. Accusing someone of being naive just because you don't know anything is just plain trolling. If you want a discussion on nihilism or a philosophical discussion on existence, then go start a thread on it.
2. You might want to use the gray matter in your skull for a little logical thinking.
So, I'm faced with several different versions of event X. All versions are written nicely, sound OK and claim to have evidence to back it up. I haven't seen evidence for either version (and I probably never will), so why should I take version X1 to be true and denounce even the possibiltiy of other versions to be correct?
Until presented with actual evidence the only logical action is to hold all versions as possible. Naturally, human nature being as it is, we tend to pick one version we believe to be true, altough we don't really know it. One should stay open to other version tough, not attack whomever doesn't agree with you with zealous fury.
Actually, the logical thing would be to attempt to learn more about the subject rather than attempt the logical fallacy of bringing up the even more contentious subject of human nature to support your argument. You haven't seen evidence for either version because you haven't bothered to look for it. If you don't know a damn thing about the subject, then don't try to pass yourself off as some expert arbiter on what is and isn't correct about the subject.
Also, your first argument there is a clear ad hominem abusive fallacy.
-
You're all idiots my theory has all evidence in its favor but I won't show you because my theory is too better than yours.
-
please....lets....just....stop....this -.-
-
You're all idiots my theory has all evidence in its favor but I won't show you because my theory is too better than yours.
Oh god, Centrixo has hacked Snail's account.
-
And....another week.
You've basically said that you entered the debate with total ignorance of the evidence on either side. If you are starting an argument about a subject you admit you know nothing about and don't wish to learn anything about I can only conclude you are doing it cause you like to argue and don't care what you argue about. That's trolling. And you're getting a week off for it.
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
When did I say that? I've read much about this issue (books and articles) so I guess I know as much about it as most people, if not more.
Now if you're telling me you got hard facts about this case, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call bull*** on that... I find it hard to believe you got granted access to the Vatican archives and other manuscripts in various museums. So you got your info for the same sources as everyone else - a book or two or a few internet articles.
Oh, b.t.w. - you suck as an admin. Big time. Misuse of power, frivolous behavior and all that jazz.
I know I can be a stubborn, irritating SOB - heck, no ones denying that. But I also happen to be a stubborn, irritating SOB that's right. And when I'm right, I don't back down in front of anyone - I wouldn't even if you were the president of Earth and I sure as hell won't be scared by a admin on a power trip.
You should actually look into legit reasons for banning me, instead of coming up with this crap in an effort to shut me up.
Ironic isn't it? You're the one who so often talks about freedom of speech and tolerance. Oh, how the mighty have fallen! :lol:
-
*sigh* Trashy, you know with that kind of comment, he's probably gonna wake up and monkey you again. Just calm down and go back to your silly wrong arguments, ok?
-
I'm tempted to say that Karajorma would be doing a disservice to the community if he didn't ban you right now.
-
Which is why it's a month off this time.
You haven't posted on the subject of Conservapedia since the first post. You keep trying to drag the topic to your nonsense. No one is interested. I've told you several times to stop and yet you are still doing it. See you in August Trashman.
EDIT : This does mean I won't get a weekly reminder to check Conservapedia any more now. Pity. :D
-
Don't worry, I'll remind you.
-
Not being hugely familiar with the America Civil War I can't tell if there are any obvious factual errors in their new article of the week.
-
Isn't the Revolutionary War the AOTW?
-
Bah! One war in that country. I know little about either. :D
-
It's fairly close to correct.
Go read (or reread) the article on Barrack Obama. Hilarious.
-
For the earth to be subject to such severe time dilation, it would either have to be moving through space at nearly the speed of light, or caught inside of a gravity well bigger than pretty much anything ever observed. Either one of these scenarios (despite having no evidence for them) would lead to the destruction of the earth, or at least it would be rendered inhospitable for life.
-
I am sorely tempted to request Trashman be unmonkeyed for the sole purpose of letting me see how deep a hole he can dig for himself, and whether the one time I managed to shut him up was a fluke (no, not a worm) or not.
In other words, in the name of science!
...or I'm bored.
-
It's fairly close to correct.
Go read (or reread) the article on Barrack Obama. Hilarious.
I'd never actually thought Conservapedia was racist until now.
-
Well if you stick that many idiots together racism always floats to the surface.
If elected, Obama would be the first Affirmative Action President.
Obama has declared himself to be a Christian, yet never replaced his Muslim name with a Christian one as many do, casting doubt on his politically self-serving claim
Seriously? I guess I'm not an atheist then cause I still have a Muslim name too. :rolleyes:
The article is so obviously biased that it's a joke. Look at the amount of nonsense they have over him saying that his great-grandfather was present at the liberation of Auschwitz when he actually meant Buchenwald. For anyone else they'd have just said that he heard the story when younger and picked the wrong concentration camp. But since Obama said it, it must obviously be a lie.
But the best piece of two faced reporting must be the fact that both candidates dropped support for a religious figure. Mention is made of Pastor Jeremiah Wright.
Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statements "God damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost." In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic."
Funnily enough the page for John McCain says nothing about Rev John Hagee. The BBC on the other hand has this lovely nugget.
US presidential hopeful John McCain has rejected the backing of a Church leader who said Hitler was carrying out "God's will" in chasing the Jews from Europe.
It comes after the comments by evangelical preacher Rev John Hagee, which were made in the 1990s, re-emerged on a US news website. In a sermon, Rev Hagee said the Nazi leader was carrying out a divine plan to gather Jews into the Holy Land.
Rev Hagee has also described the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and a "false cult system", as well as suggesting that Hurricane Katrina was God's retribution for homosexual sin.
But while Senator McCain condemned those comments, he had not rejected Rev Hagee's endorsement until Thursday, when an audio recording of the preacher saying that God sent Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land was published on the Huffington Post website.
Sounds like a no score draw to me for both candidates. :p
-
I am sorely tempted to request Trashman be unmonkeyed for the sole purpose of letting me see how deep a hole he can dig for himself, and whether the one time I managed to shut him up was a fluke (no, not a worm) or not.
In other words, in the name of science!
...or I'm bored.
:wtf:
I think the reason why I can't get the hang of Conservapedia is because I'm not American.
-
I've been gone over two weeks, and I come back and this is still ****ing here!? WTH?
-
Well it did get bumped twice. :D
-
I am sorely tempted to request Trashman be unmonkeyed for the sole purpose of letting me see how deep a hole he can dig for himself, and whether the one time I managed to shut him up was a fluke (no, not a worm) or not.
In other words, in the name of science!
...or I'm bored.
:wtf:
I think the reason why I can't get the hang of Conservapedia is because I'm not American.
"When the facts don't support the ideology, it's time to change the facts"
edit: You could say that American conservatism has become so cultlike that it simply cannot tolerate facts that contradict some of it's basic premises. From their point of view it's like the rest of the world had some bias against ideology that has thrived and lived in isolation for decades. Now the ideology is unable to change because it has been turned into a tool.
Instead of people changing this ideology, the ideology changes people - it is no more a social network, but an overarching social theory that is no longer limited to it's origins in politics.
The entire ultraconservative movement is metaphorically speaking a house so delicately built that removing or changing even one building brick of the structure could lead to catastrophic change. Such stagnation and clinging to ideology is not uncommon in the looong history of mankind.
-
http://www.conservapedia.com/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome
Sudden Jihad Syndrome is a term Daniel Pipes coined to describe Muslims that suddenly or unexpectedly turn against civilized, Western society and engage in acts of terror. Pipes has argued that due to this phenomenon all Islamists must be considered potential terrorists.
:wtf:
-
:wakka:
-
:wtf:
I think the reason why I can't get the hang of Conservapedia is because I'm not American.
I'm American and I still don't get Conservapedia. Must not be meant for those capable of rational thought.
-
http://www.conservapedia.com/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome
Sudden Jihad Syndrome is a term Daniel Pipes coined to describe Muslims that suddenly or unexpectedly turn against civilized, Western society and engage in acts of terror. Pipes has argued that due to this phenomenon all Islamists must be considered potential terrorists.
:wtf:
You do have to wonder if post office workers also suffer from this then. :D I guess we have to treat all of them as terrorists too. :D
-
http://www.conservapedia.com/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome
Sudden Jihad Syndrome is a term Daniel Pipes coined to describe Muslims that suddenly or unexpectedly turn against civilized, Western society and engage in acts of terror. Pipes has argued that due to this phenomenon all Islamists must be considered potential terrorists.
:wtf:
You do have to wonder if post office workers also suffer from this then. :D I guess we have to treat all of them as terrorists too. :D
Daughter: Daddy! Daddy! Look, its the mailman!
Dad: Well it sure does! Except he looks like he has his bag strapped to his front...
Daughter: Why does he have it like that Daddy?
Dad: I don't know, I'll go investig-
Fox news: Earlier today, there was an explosion in a neighborhood where a mailman was seen with a bomb strapped to his chest. It is clear that this man was Islamic and was performing a Jihad against this neighborhood, possibly for Al Qaeda. No remains were found, and mailmen are now being thoroughly checked for any explosives and double checked if they are Muslim. More news at 6 where we give you facts straight from conservapedia.com!