"Creationists can cite material showing that there is no real fossil evidence for the macroevolutionary position and that the fossil record supports creationism:"
*edit* forgot to add in the Laugh...
wait for it
here it comes
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA
*edit* forgot to add in the Laugh...
wait for it
here it comes
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA
Last edited by Naughty_Om (2007-03-04 12:53:27)
read the wikipedia biases page.
here
here
wikipedia gets slammed by conservapedia, in true conservative style
Oh jeez these guys are serious.herrr_smity wrote:
wikipedia gets slammed by conservapedia, in true conservative style
By the way smitty, that link under your sigdog doesn't work.
click and ye shall find the truth about that.
oo noooATG wrote:
Oh jeez these guys are serious.herrr_smity wrote:
wikipedia gets slammed by conservapedia, in true conservative style
By the way smitty, that link under your sigdog doesn't work.
click and ye shall find the truth about that.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_o … _Wikipedia
number 15 is
and i thought the point of the website was to gather information on everything
now there might be a loophole in the english language i don't know about but i believe popular culture, or gossip as the site puts it, comes under the term everything.
gg conservapedia...
number 15 is
now WIKI stands for What I Know IsWikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[14] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
and i thought the point of the website was to gather information on everything
now there might be a loophole in the english language i don't know about but i believe popular culture, or gossip as the site puts it, comes under the term everything.
gg conservapedia...
I found it funny when I clicked the random page link and it took me to the main page
well it is random you have to give it that
...Man, at first I totally thought this was a joke...
Yeah same, wow. Just wow.
Is this a joke? Because it just seems so ludacris, it is retarded.
How can you complain about a bias on a site anyone can edit?
Just fucking edit it yourself.
Just fucking edit it yourself.
I love how Amero-centric it is, as if the proportion of Americans who are liberal or conservative has anything to do with how biased towards either a web encyclopedia is. Note once again, Americans and their ratios do not control the world, or the internet.# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.
Last edited by <BoTM>J_Aero (2007-03-04 16:55:33)
true true<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
I love how Amero-centric it is, as if the proportion of Americans who are liberal or conservative has anything to do with how biased towards either a web encyclopedia is. Note once again, Americans and their ratios do not control the world, or the internet.# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.
but careful the real hardcore america lovers (who cannot read very well) will be lighting their torches
Are you guys trying to turn this into a flame war? Just shut up, you're being rather immature.sfarrar33 wrote:
true true<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
I love how Amero-centric it is, as if the proportion of Americans who are liberal or conservative has anything to do with how biased towards either a web encyclopedia is. Note once again, Americans and their ratios do not control the world, or the internet.# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.
but careful the real hardcore america lovers (who cannot read very well) will be lighting their torches
Yknow, if you spam the random page button, you realize this site is a grade school kid project farce of a website
serious, here is the text of the "Muslim" page
serious, here is the text of the "Muslim" page
thats fucking IT!"Those who believe in Islam."
The Iraq page is great.
"A Middle-Eastern country, invaded in 2003 and currently occupied by a U.S.-led coalition."
"A Middle-Eastern country, invaded in 2003 and currently occupied by a U.S.-led coalition."
baseless logic! (CE or AD?!?!?!?)
good god somebody please stab my eyes out with a fucking fork....and i'm conservative too!
good god somebody please stab my eyes out with a fucking fork....and i'm conservative too!
SMH.com, the Sydney Morning Herald's website, cited conservapedia as a website set up for helping the education of home-schooled children.
Another of the reasons was "the use of 'english' spelling as opposed to 'US' spelling in a lot of the articles".
Lol...
Another of the reasons was "the use of 'english' spelling as opposed to 'US' spelling in a lot of the articles".
Lol...
Encyclopedia Dramatica is good for a few NSFW laughs.
Piss. Piss piss piss.
That site is ridden with Christian and American bias.
Uncyclopedia has a good entry on it
That site is ridden with Christian and American bias.
Uncyclopedia has a good entry on it
from wikipedia's article about conservapedia
"[conservapedia claims that] gravity and evolution are theories that remain unproven."
lol no gravity ;D
"[conservapedia claims that] gravity and evolution are theories that remain unproven."
lol no gravity ;D
lol just making satire out of stereotypesCommie Killer wrote:
Are you guys trying to turn this into a flame war? Just shut up, you're being rather immature.sfarrar33 wrote:
true true<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
I love how Amero-centric it is, as if the proportion of Americans who are liberal or conservative has anything to do with how biased towards either a web encyclopedia is. Note once again, Americans and their ratios do not control the world, or the internet.
but careful the real hardcore america lovers (who cannot read very well) will be lighting their torches
though i can't speak for <BoTM>J_Aero
I take stuff like this about as seriously as the Westboro Baptist Church. And tagging an entire political group by what one website has to say is enormously stupid.
I agree that 'Before Christ' sounds cooler than 'Before Common Era.' Is there a comic called 'B.C.E.'? A movie called '1 Million Years B.C.E.'? I think not. I also agree that Wikipedia does have its problems, and that there are people who lurk there who have nothing better to do than engage in constant edit wars...but is Wikipedia really that much of a universal information compendium to get upset about? Why worry about it? Buy your own personal media if you don't like it.Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deception.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-03-05 08:57:55)