Conservapedia.com

created as an alternative to wikipedia because of the 'anti-christian bias' (not recognizing biblical scriptures as reliable sources) and 'anti-american bias' (allowing european spellings like theatre and labour)

here's some fun Alternative Science from their gravity page

---

"Gravity is considered by scientists and evolutionists to be one of the fundamental forces of the universe"

"Some have criticized gravity, reminding us that it is only a theory"

"Furthermore, experiments done by NASA prove that the Moon is receding (moving further away) from the Earth at a rate of 3.8cm per year, directly contradicting the theory that masses attract one another"

"The considerable disagreement between scientists about the theory of gravity suggests that, like evolution, the theory will eventually be replaced with a model which acknowledges God as the source of all things, the Prime Mover, and the only real fundamental force in the universe."

At first I laughed at that.  Then I realised that we live in a democracy and these people have the same rights to choose our leaders as I do and that they actually make up a crucial voting block, that plays a significant part in both elections in my country and many other countries.  It seems that actually people who take religion seriously completely own those who do not.

If, like me, you're unhappy about this, you really can't complain unless you're actively doing something to change the disgusting way the religion plays such a significant role in our lives.  These people are clearly very poorly educated and they don't know what they're talking about.  People listen to them because of their irrational views.

At first I laughed at that.  Then I realised that we live in a democracy and these people have the same rights to choose our leaders as I do and that they actually make up a crucial voting block, that plays a significant part in both elections in my country and many other countries.  It seems that actually people who take religion seriously completely own those who do not.

If, like me, you're unhappy about this, you really can't complain unless you're actively doing something to change the disgusting way the religion plays such a significant role in our lives.  These people are clearly very poorly educated and they don't know what they're talking about.  People listen to them because of their irrational views.

No people listen to them because they are scared and believe them because they bring comfort.

They are scared of being alone, scared of being without a parent. They want some all supreme being to guide them through their lives because they don't want to take responsibility for themselves. Same thing for those who believe in fate, what the belief boils down to is a puppet show and they are the puppets.

I think it's hilarious but necessary.  Most of their 'examples of bias on wikipedia' are ridiculously biased themselves, but a few of them seem to have some merit, such as the following: 

Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an elementary proof until this omission was pointed out here.

Now that I look more closely to these "biases", though, the ones with merit were all fixed on Wikipedia.  The real bias is in Conservapedia's adherence to illusive religious and American authority. 

I know where I'm going to go for all my sources now.

I like this random page...

Well the whole "pointing figures at biased" thing is absalutely stupid. The reason is because everyone is biased to some degree or another. In many situations, you kind of have to be. Police need to know who to look for and looking for a "a tall man with black hair and brown eyes" doesn't help much without knowing skin color.

Interesting... you would call describing somebody by the colour of their skin as biased?

Many people do.

Exactly.

I answered the question because I know what it is like to be a police officer. But I also know that some people will accuse you of being biased for just doing your job.

Interesting... you would call describing somebody by the colour of their skin as biased?

I would call that profiling.  But I do agree with Wolfwood in that everyone is, by nature, biased in some way. 

Dramatica is moar correkt

Quote from: EvilToothpaste on March 05, 2007, 09:10:12 AM

Quote from: Ned Kelly on March 05, 2007, 08:31:39 AM

Interesting... you would call describing somebody by the colour of their skin as biased?

I would call that profiling.  But I do agree with Wolfwood in that everyone is, by nature, biased in some way. 

I still think its stupid what goes on at airports. I am a relatively "up to No good" looking fella. Im in line at the airport. They stop the 15 year old girl in front of me and do a full search on her. hehe... retards. They shouldnt fucnk with these lil old ladies and kids just to avoid "profiling" The ACLU needs to step back.

Perhaps they do it to seem like they aren't like... judgemental or streotypical? Instead it just makes them look like wetods

Quote from: theonlydann on March 05, 2007, 09:22:46 AM

Quote from: EvilToothpaste on March 05, 2007, 09:10:12 AM

Quote from: Ned Kelly on March 05, 2007, 08:31:39 AM

Interesting... you would call describing somebody by the colour of their skin as biased?

I would call that profiling.  But I do agree with Wolfwood in that everyone is, by nature, biased in some way. 

I still think its stupid what goes on at airports. I am a relatively "up to No good" looking fella. Im in line at the airport. They stop the 15 year old girl in front of me and do a full search on her. hehe... retards. They shouldnt fucnk with these lil old ladies and kids just to avoid "profiling" The ACLU needs to step back.

Perhaps they do it to seem like they aren't like... judgemental or streotypical? Instead it just makes them look like wetods

Ok who is more likely going to be up to no good? The 15 year old little girl (who btw I have to accuse the cops of being pedos for stopping and doing a full out "search" :p assholes!) or the muslim with the turban and a trenchcoat with what appears to be dynamite strapped underneath?

FFS there is a reason why the FBI have special people in some think tank somewhere who do nothing BUT profile!

And again I have to agree with the wise Adam Corrola when he says that the liberal anti-profiling morons should have their kids kidnapped by suspicious people and told "I'm sorry ma'am but we have to investigate all 7 thousand people in this city. We have a list of known pedos but we just can't PROFILE them and consider them suspects without  some kind of proof. It will take about 21 years. Would you like some coffee while you wait?"

Make em drink tea instead.

TEA AND CAKE OR DEATH!

Quote from: beast on March 05, 2007, 05:29:54 AM

At first I laughed at that.  Then I realised that we live in a democracy and these people have the same rights to choose our leaders as I do and that they actually make up a crucial voting block, that plays a significant part in both elections in my country and many other countries.  It seems that actually people who take religion seriously completely own those who do not.

If, like me, you're unhappy about this, you really can't complain unless you're actively doing something to change the disgusting way the religion plays such a significant role in our lives.  These people are clearly very poorly educated and they don't know what they're talking about.  People listen to them because of their irrational views.

No people listen to them because they are scared and believe them because they bring comfort.

They are scared of being alone, scared of being without a parent. They want some all supreme being to guide them through their lives because they don't want to take responsibility for themselves. Same thing for those who believe in fate, what the belief boils down to is a puppet show and they are the puppets.

Any evidence to back that up?  The evidence of scientists like Dr Scot Atran, Dr Stephen Pinker, Dr Marc Hauser, etc. shows that our reasons for believing in God have nothing to do with fear.  What evidence do you have that suggests that their work is wrong?

In any event I was actually referring to the fact that people with Christian views vote for politicians with the same religious views, not the reasons why they hold those religious views.

Haha.  That's waaaaay to hilarious to be real.