Conservapedia scavenger hunt

[Dudebro]

In this game we'll be searching for the most ridiculous entries on their website. I know this may seem a little strange but this site is so crazy it comes off as satire but it's really not. The guy who made the site is serious at least but I'm not sure about his editors, they could be very clever parodists.

Example of the admin being serious(and moronic)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair

In this example he tries to slander and discredit Michigan State University professor and National Academy of Science member Richard Lenski for his work that shows evolution happening in bacteria. Being a complete bias moron the admin proceeds to make a fool of himself and the professor pwns him badly. His replies are long and wordy but they're worth reading if you wanna see a great smackdown from a respected scientist.

Here's Penn talking about them, it's awesome. He thinks it's a troll site. It should be assumed that all his videos are NSFW.
Conservapedia or Troll Site? - Penn Point - YouTube




Ok so onto the game-

This is a broad one to start, the pictures they posted on their Liberals page. Feel free to pick pieces of this page for later entries, it's that good.
Liberal - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Liberal)

They have five pictures on that page. One is Obama which is normal, besides the immature and ridiculous caption. The next picture is John Wayne Gacy. Yup that's right the only other pictured liberal is a notorious serial killer. Their evidence? An interview where he also claimed he didn't kill anyone, compelling! The next picture is another immature attack on liberals - a pic of seemingly poor children with the caption that liberals don't donate to charity like conservatives do(how mature!). The next pics are one implying that liberals believe in superstitions(like imaginary beings in the clouds judging us?) and a random pic that calls libs "smear merchants"(there's that maturity again, also irony).


Top that.
http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page

[Demon-Mask]

Since I love doing this, I'll show you something nice.
Several nice ones, I just can't pick one when so many are so perfect for this.
Dinosaur - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Dinosaurs)
Social effects of the theory of evolution - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Social_effects_of_the_theory_of_evolution)
Creation science - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Creation_science)
Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Creation_scientists_tend_to_win_the_creation_vs._e volution_debates)
Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Evolution,_Liberalism,_Atheism,_and_Irrationality)
Professor values - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Professor_values)

[Dudebro]

I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to force you to pick one. Otherwise I could've just linked the entire site for this, it's all so ridiculous. I was hoping people would pick specific sentences, paragraphs, photo placements, ect.

Since this is not active yet I'll pick another-
Homosexual indoctrination (http://conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Agenda) is common as early as elementary school in more liberal (http://conservapedia.com/Liberal) states.[8] (http://conservapedia.com/Public_education#cite_note-7) The failures of underperforming public schools are paradigm of socialism (http://conservapedia.com/Socialism), along with landfills (http://conservapedia.com/Landfills) and the Canadian (http://conservapedia.com/Canada) healthcare system.
That last sentence doesn't make sense right?

[Mareeps]

Warning! Stupidity Dead Ahead!

Causes of atheism - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Causes_of_atheism)

also, in the upper right corner... "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" I'd sooner trust a Nigerian Prince.

[Dudebro]

From the page you linked-
Naiveté/Gullibility: Many atheists have embraced a number of far fetched, unworkable, and errant notions and ideologies such as communism (http://conservapedia.com/Communism), abiogenesis (http://conservapedia.com/Origin_of_Life), and evolution (http://conservapedia.com/Evolution) despite abundant evidence of their falsity.
This is the kind of thing that makes me think it's a really clever satire. The only other explanation is they're just stupid. They are extremely religious, which is a far fetched and unworkable thing to devoutly believe in, but they level that criticism at two scientific theories that are in fact workable and not far fetched. It really does make me curious if they're serious.

[Mareeps]

http://forum.i3d.net/attachments/offtopic-english/943227833d1305709183-english-spam-thread-not-sure-if-troll-just-very-stupid-28n1299498207760-29.jpg

Pretty much sums up my feelings about the place.

[hackeynut]

I found this gem just by pushing "random page"


The Nativity

From Conservapedia


Jump to: navigation (http://conservapedia.com/The_Nativity#column-one), search (http://conservapedia.com/The_Nativity#searchInput)
The Nativity refers to the story of the birth of Jesus (http://conservapedia.com/Jesus) as recorded in the Bible (http://conservapedia.com/Bible) where He was visited by Wise Men (http://conservapedia.com/Wise_Men) from the East who had been following the Bethlehem Star (http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bethlehem_Star&action=edit&redlink=1) and from shepards nearby who were visited by a host of angels (http://conservapedia.com/Angels). Jesus himself was in a manger in a stable or cave with Mary (http://conservapedia.com/Mary) and Joseph (http://conservapedia.com/Joseph_of_Nazareth).
The recreation of nativity scenes has been popular in Christian culture, especially around Christmas (http://conservapedia.com/Christmas) time. The scenes usually have three wise men, although the number of men is not stated in the text, only that they brought three gifts. Also, it is believed that the wise men did not arrive until some time after the birth, but they are still included in traditional nativity scenes.
While Nativity scenes have been a proud part of American heritage, in recent years they have often been opposed in lawsuits filed by intolerant liberals when displayed on public lands, an unfortunate part of the times.

---------- Post added at 10:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 AM ----------

Another great one: God (http://conservapedia.com/God)'s position on "Moderates"
"“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.-Revelation (http://conservapedia.com/Revelation) 3:15-16 [3] (http://conservapedia.com/Moderate#cite_note-2)

Moderates - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Moderate)

[Dudebro]

Oh they love that "spit you out of my mouth" thing. They use it to mock conservatives who aren't as extreme and hateful as them. It's pretty sad. The saying is also pretty gross and disturbing, god is a weird dude.

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:34 PM ----------

Another one, I couldn't resist-
Atheism (http://conservapedia.com/Atheism) True conservative meaning - Denial of God's existence, a discredited and failing liberal worldview known to cause mass murder, immorality, uncharitableness, obesity and other negative consequences.

False liberal redefinition - Lack of belief of a deity

[samejamesbond]

I think the site may be serious for one reason, the page on the Bible has a
huge amount of depth on it, it makes me think they're serious about it.

Bible - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Bible)

Check this out:
Global warming - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Global_warming)

I like the Dinosaur page and their evidence for human/dinosaur coexistence is this:
There is excellent evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted. During a visit to the Creation Museum, the evolutionist and atheist PZ Myers had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.VIDEO See also: Atheism and obesity and Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese


I also like they're claim that heavy metal leads to an irrational society.
Heavy metal music - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Heavy_Metal)

[Dudebro]

There is excellent evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted.
But they don't provide any. Their evidence is that they believe in it because young earth creationists do. Because of that they dismiss anything that counters their nonsense, like all the years of science facts that contradicts their made up story.

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/1/16/0f9cac31-287d-4efa-871c-701ae9d8506d.jpg
A conservapedia fact!

[Mareeps]

Apart from a page explaining what windows were, i found this: Emotional gambling - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Emotional_gambling)

[Kong]

Apart from a page explaining what windows were, i found this: Emotional gambling - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Emotional_gambling)
You're not supposed to just post links. Post a quote or image from the page.

Some of the stuff on the site does seem like they are being serious. For example, they rewrote the entire bible ( Conservative Bible Project - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project) ) and I am pretty sure they were completely serious. But I think they have been infiltrated by trolls that are trying to do satire.

The whole "atheists are fat" thing just seems way too ridiculous to be serious. Off the top of my head the most famous atheist's that come to my mind are Richard Dawkins, Michale Shermer, George Carlin, C.K. Louis (fat), Pen Juliet (fat - but also 6.5 feet tall and 56 years old), Teller, Carl Sagan, Bill Mahr, Daniel Dennett (fat, but also 69 years old) me. All but three of those are very skinny.

And their evidence that Christians are fit, is Chuck Norris.

Their evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed is this
PZ Myers riding the triceratops at The Creation Museum - YouTube
The 52 year old guy is an evolutionary biologist and famous critic of Intelligent Design/Creationism. He had more difficulty climbing on the model dinosaur than the guys that were less than half his age, therefore any of his ideas that they disagree with must be wrong. Although, any of his ideas that they do agree with would of course still be right.

I vote troll.

[Dudebro]

It really does seem like trolling but I tend to believe this editor is legit. He's got a history on the internet and his motives have remained the same(same with his immaturity and poor writing skills). It appears that he has some kind of mental disorder and he actually believes what he writes and thinks he's helping the world by saying it. He's the most prolific editor on their site, he has waaaaaaay more "contributions" than any other member. So either he's Colbert good when it comes to parody(pretty unlikely) or the owner of conservapedia doesn't want to get rid of the one editor that puts them on the map even though it's for the wrong reasons. Also I think the admin agrees with most of his stuff. What he doesn't agree with he still defends as fair because he thinks there's a liberal bias in everything and this is payback. More immaturity.

Here's Rationalwikis page on that wacko. They are very insulting about him but they do have lots of examples and sources to show his insanity.
Conservapedia:Conservative - RationalWiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Conservative)

(http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Conservative)

[Demon-Mask]

I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to force you to pick one. Otherwise I could've just linked the entire site for this, it's all so ridiculous. I was hoping people would pick specific sentences, paragraphs, photo placements, ect.

Okay, I'll pick one.
Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Creation_scientists_tend_to_win_the_creation_vs._e volution_debates)
Creation scientists (http://conservapedia.com/Creation_science) tend to win the creation (http://conservapedia.com/Creation) vs. evolution (http://conservapedia.com/Evolution) debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the United States (http://conservapedia.com/United_States). Given the lack of evidence for the evolutionary paradigm (http://conservapedia.com/Evolution) and the abundant evidence for biblical creation (http://conservapedia.com/Creation_science), this is not surprising. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.[1] (http://conservapedia.com/Creation_scientists_tend_to_win_the_creation_vs._e volution_debates#cite_note-0)[2] (http://conservapedia.com/Creation_scientists_tend_to_win_the_creation_vs._e volution_debates#cite_note-WWD-1)
Particularly the second sentence.

[Dudebro]

They say that second sentence with such immaturity it almost makes me feel bad for them. But then I remember how hateful they are and I don't care about them anymore.

I'd love to see the actual full quote from Robert Sloan so I know the context. Those guys love to quote mine. I wouldn't be surprised if the full quote was "Creations tend to win in their own minds because they refuse to use critical thinking" or something else obviously against their intention.

[Demon-Mask]

The immaturity through that whole site is why I find it amusing and depressing at the same time.

Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Evolution,_Liberalism,_Atheism,_and_Irrationality)
Americans most likely to believe in only evolution (http://conservapedia.com/Evolution) are liberals (http://conservapedia.com/Liberal) (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).
White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.[3] (http://conservapedia.com/Evolution,_Liberalism,_Atheism,_and_Irrationality# cite_note-2)
So, people with higher-education are more likely to subscribe to the theory of evolution? Doesn't that make evolution a more appealing theory? But, liberals, college graduates, atheists and minorities are the bad guy around there, making the fact that several of these groups subscribe to the theory of evolution look bad to them, and the fact that these people subscribe to the theory of evolution makes them look worse to the conservatives.
My god! It's a loop.

[Dudebro]

They are very open about not trusting professors and experts. They think the "best of the public" is better. In other words they know more because they think everyone else has a liberal/atheist agenda.

The best of the public is better than a group of experts.Best of the public - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Best_of_the_public)

Possibly the best display of their pettiness
Conservapedia posted errors and flaws (http://conservapedia.com/Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study) in a pro-evolution (http://conservapedia.com/Evolution) article by Professor Richard Lenski (http://conservapedia.com/Richard_Lenski) (published after a mere 14-day peer review), but PNAS (http://conservapedia.com/PNAS) refused to correct the errors (http://conservapedia.com/Letter_to_PNAS) and Lenski responded with petulant rants (http://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog) insisting his critic lacked "expertise". I linked this incident in the first post spoiler. In it Lenski politely informed them that the test samples they requested are live bacteria and it wouldn't make sense to send them to a random, unqualified, person on the internet. Besides none of them being a biologist or anything equally qualified they have no lab to do the work in. In response to that the admin sent back a rude and sladerous email and posted more of the same on the site about him. So in response Lenski emailed him a scathing, yet very well written and thoughtful, retort that is seen as one of the best smack downs in recent science history.

[Demon-Mask]

Wow, that's dumb. I wish there weren't people so dumb in the world.
Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence - Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Couples_and_Domestic_Violence)


In regards to homosexual couples and domestic violence, studies indicate that as a whole homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Promiscuity|homose xual) In addition, studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior which will be covered shortly. These studies are not surprising at all given what pathologists have stated regarding the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders (http://conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Murders).
Regarding studies regarding homosexual couples and violence, a recent study by the Canadian (http://conservapedia.com/Canada) government regarding homosexual couples states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual (http://conservapedia.com/Heterosexual) couples".[2] (http://conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Couples_and_Domestic_Violence#cite_note-1) According the American College of Pediatricians (http://conservapedia.com/American_College_of_Pediatricians) who cite several studies violence among homosexual couples is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.[3] (http://conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Couples_and_Domestic_Violence#cite_note-acpeds-2) In addition, the American College of Pediatricians (http://conservapedia.com/American_College_of_Pediatricians) states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."[3] (http://conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Couples_and_Domestic_Violence#cite_note-acpeds-2)

I'd like to see the study findings as a whole, who was polled, where, when by whom, you know all of that good stuff. That seems like a big claim to make without some good evidence.

[samejamesbond]

I looked at the figures, it is true that there is an increase in violence:

Their citation, Page 24
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf

It decreased among women and remained the same among men!
So it must mean that there is a correlation between homosexuality and violence!!!

Of Course! - YouTube

[Dudebro]

Conservapedia leaves out parts that would make them look bad. Like how lesbians have a very low rate of violence and stds. Seems to me that men are the common denominator in this problem.

[Demon-Mask]

I looked at the figures, it is true that there is an increase in violence:

Their citation, Page 24
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf

It decreased among women and remained the same among men!
So it must mean that there is a correlation between homosexuality and violence!!!

Thank you for that citation, it just shows that they interpreted the data in a nonsensical fashion.