[Flipside]

Alright, you've killed it. You can stop kicking now

[Wanderer]

This one? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-07-evolution-poll-results_N.htm?csp=34

[WMCoolmon]

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...

[karajorma]

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]

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.

[Nuke]

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

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Admiral_Stones]

Someone please hack that site ASAP.

[karajorma]

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.

[Mobius]

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)

[colecampbell666]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[WMCoolmon]

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)

[Flipside]

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

[tinfoil]

I see your usable posts has gone down

[colecampbell666]

do you make an effort to post in every new thread?

Seriously, stop spamming.

[tinfoil]

It's not like you don't.

[karajorma]

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*

[colecampbell666]

Who are you referring to? I assume tinfoil.

[karajorma]

Yep.