Be funny if that were true. Then lefty social vandals could sneak in idiotic misinformation and snicker when their ideological opponents blindly parrot it back to them.
“Carbon dating does so work because all the little carbon atoms fall in love with each other and stick together! I read it on Conservapedia!”
Later is now, my friend! Have a look at the page on The Truthiness of Evolution. What starts as a simple point/counter-point page devolves into a knock-down dragout between people arguing, losing any sort of encyopedia-ness. Kind of like Great Debates without the awesome.
“Others have pointed to the pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene cult of the pig-god Jamal.”
Funny, when I saw the word ‘Homosphere’ I thought it was a new fairy-tale Uber Christians told their kids. You know, the one with the floating silver ball with blades on the end that floats around church hallways and attacks little kids who don’t pray to Jesus enough.
Don’t get me started on the Priest/Minister/Tall Man. :eek:
I can’t get to the page – I googled it and tried to get in from every link on the first page of entries, but the server must be down. I think it may be the most successful sabotage of the extreme right ever. That’d be great – the Steve Colbert of online encyclopedias!
It would be nice if Wikipedia had some editing oversight, though. I’ve heard that it’s been suggested, but it would cost too much, etc. Still, it’d be nice to have a living, dynamic, and FREE online encyclopedia that one could unequivocally depend on.
They should just have one page called La La La La La I Can’t Hear You. Every query about evolution, science, physics (and therefore mathematics), any literature after the fall of the Roman Empire, geology, history, any non-European non-American country, any alternate religions, or anything that uses reason or common sense should redirect to that page.
Let’s start a betting pool on how long it takes for Conservapedia to collapse under the weight of all the alternative varieties of religious dogma it has to support. Instead of “the neutrality of this article is under dispute” it should read “the supporters of this viewpoint will be excommunicated and sent to HELL!!”