h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I enjoyed the entry on Canada: http://www.conservapedia.com/Canada


It reads like it was written by a (poor) grade 3 geography student.

Certainly a source to trust.


I wonder what the France entry looks like . . .

Math,

No, you are uninformed about 'the abrahamics'. Your criticism of all of them on those grounds is akin to criticism of you for crystal dangling. You rate your erudition waaaaay too highly here.

More importantly:
You're utterly missing the point on empiricism. Obviously we have some damned good evidence for your experiences. (Assuming you're not lying). What we - and you - lack is confirmatory evidence that your interpretation of your perceptions corresponds to reality which can withstand sceptical enquiry. You won't offer any. You require us to have faith first. And you're not asking yourself the question "Am I kidding myself?"

Oh..and...
>>
(An individual tree is indeed a lot more than just wood and leaves, they are an entire eco-system, a world within a world, but we won't go there).

Picky, picky, picky! I'll have you know I'm something of an amateur mycologist - but I was making a rhetorical point, not lecturing on the symbiotic relationship between fungi and trees.

(It's damned interesting though. Fungi need trees to host them. trees need fungi to turn their food sources into usable forms).

oh my. I just looked at France:


'A country in Europe. Thrived during the middle ages. The capitol is Paris, France, which was founded in the Middle Ages.'

It must be hard to get a spelling mistake, a sentence fragment, and an historical error into such a short entry.

Well it is certainly one of the funnier christian wacko sites. Not quite as amusing as "Christian Voice" which has the "Pot Noodle Horn" as its logo and an obsession with gay police mind....

On the Spanish-American War:

The war between America and Spain for control of Cuba, the Phillipines and other Spainish colonies, which America, being a Christian nation, won, while Spain, being a Catholic country, lost.

I think wikipedia should be terrified of their new rival. The insight is just, like ... wow!

Although Conservapedia started as a sincere attempt at conservative brainwashing, many of its articles are not-too-serious satire by not-too-conservative contributors. So I'm not sure how much of this content is authentic.

It truly does read like a bit of a joke.



(check out 'dinosaur')

That is helluva funny.....

going back to the origins of Conservapidea - as Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Aye, there's the rub. Try to edit a page. Then try to create an account - it's a closed system! HA. Having to login to edit *and* not allowing account creation guarantees it will stay small.

Have you read the Conservapedia Commandments?

http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Conservapedia_Commandments

Gosh, if that's American spelling then things are worse over there than I thought.

az

>>"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

I love that! I'm going to quote it endlessly from now on.

HI FB

Well thank the Lord for that!

I thought for minute I would have to take the cure (A weekend with Eddie the Bobobo is a small hotel in Llandudno).

I am truly blessed...

Matholwch . Free at last...

OK Eddie

Time to listen - I attack the organisations, I attack the doctrine and the dogma, I don't attack indivduals' personal beliefs. This is where I and lot of others on h2g2 differ.

And given my vocal and repeated opinion on crystal dangling I'll take that as a little trolling.

I am well aware of what you want from me and you know damn well I can't give it to you because you will not meet me in the middle. It's a bit like talking to a colour blind man and saying that if he will accept a little guidance and training he can see the difference between green and red. And then that man refusing because he cannot see any evidence right now that there could be a difference (and don't deconstruct that anlaogy using sicnbetific methods, it's an analogy).

I'm starting to think we are approaching the end of this conversation, unless you can come up with a new aspect/approach. I don't want to bore everyone else to death with our endless wrangling.

Oh no it isn't.
Oh yes it is...

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Fair enough. No desire to fall out over anything serious.

Although...I can't resist deconstructing the analogy. Colour blind people can't be trained to distinguish colours. But they can have the properties of light demonstrated to them. Just like you and I with the invisible spectrum.

It's an analogy stupid, it is not subject to scientific method... oi vey

Clifford Longley was on R4's 'Anodyne Homily for the Day' this morning. I've always thought that he was a particular (begins with tw and rhymes with a winged mammal), but he clearly hasn't understood the arguments against Intelligent Design properly, has he? (see last para):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20070305.shtml

I think this is insidious. Sure, he's rejecting the US pseudo-science, but he's still allowing ID as a valid hypothesis - indeed, he's starting from ID as a premise. Worse, there's a tacit criticism of scientists for refusing to acknowledge the self-evident existence of a creator.

He likes to do this - to sneer at the non-religious for refusing to see the point.

I don't often agree with CL, but I don't see the problem here, EdeB. He writes that ID, while not scientific, is no big deal to people with a religious mindset; I think he's correct.

As for "tacit criticism of scientists" that's not something to get worked up about, even if it's really there - which I doubt.