The article on separation of church and state is hilarious. "The term, "separation of church and state", typically refers to a widely repeated liberal falsehood about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution"
jesus http://www.conservapedia.com/Public_school#Graduates also, http://www.conservapedia.com/Sophistry
Somehow all the facepalm jpegs in the world wouldn't suffice. Also, maybe it was posted before, but this has to be the most retarded idea ever: http://www.conservapedia.com/Best_of_the_Public
I like how the guy who proved the Poincare Conjecture is on that page. The guy is a pretty weird dude (he turned down $1,000,000 and a Fields medal for his proof), but suggesting he wasn't an "expert" is absurd. Until he retired from research he was a full time researche mathematician, i.e. an academic: precisely the same group the article is trying to downplay. Hell, ten years before he published his proof he already had turned down an offer from Princeton to join their faculty. They make it sound like he was just some random dude who posted his proof on the internet. He did post it on the internet, but it was on a website dedicated to posting pre-prints of papers that are intended to be published.
That whole list is full of ridiculous examples. I mean, "the investigation of the Challenger Disaster by maverick physicist Richard Feynman"? Really? Also, I like how they assert that Kalashnikov drew inspiration from the Bible to design the famous AK47.
http://conservapedia.com/Falsifiable lol @ thinking scientists still care about Karl Popper's formulation of falsifiability
I can think of a certain type of beliefs that many people hold even though they have been experimentally shown to be incorrect... Another little gem: http://conservapedia.com/Western_atheism_and_race#cite_note-11 If you follow the reference, the whole story is that someone with photoshop made a picture of Michelle Obama look like a monkey.
That's actually the only of the four quantum mechanics notes on this page that doesn't contradict the theory. There is an actual probability that a macroscopic object (which Jesus supposedly is) appears on the other side of a barrier as-is. Sure, the probability is so close to zero that you can't even write the number down, but if god could manipulate the outcome, sure, it could work! Even without violating any laws of physics (except for the conservation laws).
http://www.conservapedia.com/Pedophile It's also [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Pedophiles-Guide-Love-Pleasure-ebook/dp/B0049U4CF6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1289444740&sr=8-1]encouraged and praised[/ame] in the Christian world, but what do facts have to do with anything.
Karl Popper's formulation of falsifiability is basically "falsify all theories until only one is left standing," which is an insanely tedious way of doing science. Moreover, as Thomas Kuhn has argued, scientific research is driven by counter-instances and anomalies, the very things that, for Popper, are supposed to falsify a theory. (Kuhn makes a lot of other points that rip Popper to shreds, but that's the biggest one.) What scientists care about is fallibilism, the idea that, given the right future evidence, any existing theory could be overturned. But they don't care about Popper's attempts to turn science into a purely deductive enterprise. Fallibilism was around long before Popper. It's also often talked about in terms of falsifiability (that any theory can be shown to be false), but it's still a decidedly non-Popperian formulation of falsifiability.
guys, they're on to us: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Conservapedia_obsessive_compulsive_disorder
Some creationists suggest that animals may have been independently recreated following the flood, in a 'second genesis.' This view is criticized as lacking biblical backing.
So essentially, the flood in the bible is an example of convergent evolution? See how the bible predicted everything science does, millennia earlier.
Don't be silly. Every kid knows that one snow is enough restore all the melted ice on the North Pole.
I'm really thankful to the person who made those experiments to confirm the truth about our souls. It allowed me to learn that the soul is material and has mass, and that the only other candidate for our equal in the animal world is the dog. I'm glad that the experimenter didn't fall for the liberal propaganda by losing time and testing whether the apes have souls.
The best part about the souls article is how it stresses the idea that souls are immaterial and lie outside the bounds of science: then proceeds to support the idea of souls by citing a 'scientific' study where souls are deemed to have mass in the paragraph that directly follows. Also, it sadly looks like the following troll contribution was removed from the article:
So I just started reading up on this VanDyke douchebag. What is it with all these lawyers fancying themselves qualified to argue philosophical and scientific matters?
"In addition, the Bible declares lesbianism to be a sin (Romans 1:27) and lesbians have significantly higher rates of obesity.[9]"
If the conservapedia crowd used the same reasoning and logic they use in their global warming news updates, then that means the existence of a single non-obese atheist should immediately negate and prove wrong the premise that there is a link between obesity and atheism.
