Support Conservapedia
Patrick,
I think that site has been the victim of pro-evolutionist sabbateurs. There is a lot of great information in conservapedia, it is designed to eliminate many of the biases present in WIkipedia. Unfortunatley the evolutionists and liberals who oppose conservapedia cannot bear the idea that we conservatives might have our own source of reference information.
I do hope that we can correct this definition. It is absurd and wrong and will give conservatives a really great homeschooling resource.
---
Helena Petrovna Blavatsky
Friend,
I think you will have to wake up and smel the coffee. I dont mean any offence, but have you not noticed that there is a liberal conspiracy in America, a conspiracy whose goals include the systematic denial of Intelligent Design and an organized persecution of any American who dares to stand for something.
Our nation is in the grip of nihilists, people who hold nothing sacred and they have no problem at all sabbotaging a conservative child's education. Just look at what they did to a doctor who stepped "out of line".
Conspiracies aside...there ARE political conservatives who happen to support Darwinism. But if the owners of Conservapedia are honest and we tell them that the ID entry is full of distortions and outright lies they should correct the situation. After all, we ARE ID proponents and you'd think that we'd know what ID is and isn't.
I am pretty sure that the Conservapedia editors mostly reject Evolutionism - their goal is to eliminate anti-Christian bias from their site, and what could be more anti-Christian than the cult of neo-darwinism? I think we should support Conservapedia by helping to correct articles and donating new articles from OE.com where relevant.
I have checked conservapedia, and have found that the conservative bias there is far more explicit than on wikipedia, and I am a conservative. Also, there is not as much content, and the sparse amount that there is, is mostly opinion.
Yeah, I'd have to agree...unfortunately there really isn't an "unbiased" wiki-based encyclopedia out there. I'm also guessing that this likely won't occur unless there is some sort of 3rd party monitoring group intended to keep things unbiased (but what happens if the monitoring group itself becomes biased?).
I'm athesit and I came here for a good discussion. I'll start off by saying wow, you are very, very closed-minded. I admit it, atheists tend to be assholes. But you take your views and completely close your mind. It just so happens that there's much more evidence to support the darwinist theory than your intelligent whatever theory. There's actually some intelligent evidence to support it. The only plausible theist argument I've ever heard was saying that we can't prove that there isn't a god. I don't really want to go into details mostly because this site it probably abandoned based on the forum dates I've seen. But the craziest thing I've seen here is you calling Conservapedia non-biased and Christian. The most powerful source of bias has always been religion. You call anything that's not Christian biased? That's just insane to me. I'd think that a completely conservative encyclopedia could be one of the most biased sources. I am impressed by the intelligent arguments of many of the members here. They're well-researched and written. I'm just not convinced. Good luck completely closing off your children to a whole part of the world ourside of Christianity and theism, and raising them to have closed minds and pity non-believers. I'll be here pitying you. Pitying you not for believing in god, but just for your one-sided mind. You can write me off like another annoying atheist like I've done to many theists if you want, or you can actually look at what I've said and open your eyes.
mdberg, if you would be so kind as to list one major observed instance of unguided Darwinian processes producing more than 2 CCC events or possibly even CSI I'd appreciate it. Please list a major scientific journal or a place where research is reported. Links to Panda's Thumb or Talk Origins don't count.
Also, you may be conflating "Darwinist theory" with Universal Common Descent. ID is compatible with Universal Common Descent but does not require it. ID is also compatible with multiple LUCAs or Partial Common Descent. There are a variety of competing hypotheses that are compatible with ID. ID does not equate to creationism, although again they are compatible.
Lastly, I'd agree with you that it's unlikely Conservapedia will be unbiased. The real question is whether the content contained within is true or not.
mdberg wrote:
"I'll start off by saying wow, you are very, very closed-minded."
Really. Is that your 'open-minded' assessment? Are you willing to consider arguments to the contrary; that perhaps atheists are closed-minded? Or have you closed your mind to such possibilities? Certainly you wouldn't be so hypocritical as to accuse Christians of being closed-minded while you yourself persist in your own closed-mindedness. Would you?
mdberg wrote:
"I am impressed by the intelligent arguments of many of the members here. They're well-researched and written. I'm just not convinced.'
Hmmm. Sounds like the sentiments of someone with a very closed mind…'intelligent arguments, well-researched, well-written, but I've already made up my mind, thank you very much.'
Oh, the irony.
Extremely well put. As I have debated several atheists and evolutionists (recently on the AntiEvolution.Org site), the hipocrasy of those claiming I'm closed minded is mind-numbing. God converted me to a Christian through science. One day I'm a happy atheist using science to beat Christians over the head, the next I'm staring at the ATP generation site, thanks to some newly available information, and my eyes were opened. From there I have been pulling at atheists' and evolutionists' "hanging threads on their tattered clothes" ever since.
Ken Pritchett
Physicist-Creationist
Birmingham, AL
www.evolutionistsnightmare.com
mdberg:
Let me go point by point through your post:
I'm athesit and I came here for a good discussion.
Discussion or browbeating? If you are like anything I used to be, odds are in my favor that you came here to beat up on some "poor, clueless, unsuspecting Christians".
I'll start off by saying wow, you are very, very closed-minded.
Both sides can be close minded, we just happen to have more proof.
I admit it, atheists tend to be assholes. But you take your views and completely close your mind.
While I'm sure no one here appreciated the verbal slip, most are probably agreeing with you on your first point. I belive that it is fear that drives atheists and evolutionists to act the way they do. On your second point, so do you.
It just so happens that there's much more evidence to support the darwinist theory than your intelligent whatever theory.
Only if it is made up. There is no biological proof that new structures can be formed from any type of genetic mutation, and natural selection only removes features from a population, it cannot add to them. There is also only scant evidence of common descent.
There's actually some intelligent evidence to support it.
Not sure if you were referring to ID or just repeating yourself, so I'll leave this alone.
The only plausible theist argument I've ever heard was saying that we can't prove that there isn't a god.
Most evolutionists do not believe Darwin was trying to disprove God's existance, in fact he made reference to the Creator several times in his work. However, quite a few, like the megalomaniacal Richard Dawkins, insist that evolution disproves God. Regardless of which side of the religious fence you sit on, evolution is bad science wrapped in myth.
I don't really want to go into details mostly because this site it probably abandoned based on the forum dates I've seen.
No, go on, enlighten us.
But the craziest thing I've seen here is you calling Conservapedia non-biased and Christian. The most powerful source of bias has always been religion. You call anything that's not Christian biased? That's just insane to me. I'd think that a completely conservative encyclopedia could be one of the most biased sources.
True, each person's worldview adds a bias to what they consider to be truth. However, that does not help the evolutionists' position. Truth can still be discerned, and worldviews can change accordingly.
I am impressed by the intelligent arguments of many of the members here. They're well-researched and written. I'm just not convinced.
Well then, this is the most honest thing you've said so far. What specific problems do you have?
Good luck completely closing off your children to a whole part of the world ourside of Christianity and theism, and raising them to have closed minds and pity non-believers. I'll be here pitying you. Pitying you not for believing in god, but just for your one-sided mind. You can write me off like another annoying atheist like I've done to many theists if you want, or you can actually look at what I've said and open your eyes.
My goal is to raise my children to belive in, and fear God, then accept His sacrifice and receive salvation. I suspect most here are the same. It is also my goal to help use science to reveal the truth he left us in His Word. To that end I don't want to see anyone lost and permanently cut off from God, so I will be more than happy to help you through the issues which stand in the way of your acceptance of His Truth.
What is your goal.
Ken Pritchett
Physicist-Creationist
Birmingham, AL
www.evolutionistsnightmare.com
kpritc01 wrote:
"Extremely well put,"
Thank you, Ken. And I enjoyed your posts, too. I suspect, unfortunately, that mdberg was just a drive-by… maybe it didn't start out that way for him or her, but I think that people in that position come here exactly as you say, thinking they're going to have an easy time of debating people who, in their view, have checked their brains at the door. This is what they've been taught, and it's even possible that a few Christians have reinforced that view for them. Of course, they very quickly discover they've bit off more than they can chew, at which point they vanish, having run off with their tail between their legs, never to be heard from again.
I think that's funny. (ironic, really… actually it's rather sad)
There's a new wiki and it's going to blow Wikipedia out of the water. Imagine an educational resource like Wikipedia but free of the Anti-American, Anti-Christian, Pro-materialistic bias.
I'm sure WIkipedia is great if you want to learn about "Gangsta Rap", "Gang-banging" or catch up with the latest gossip about Britney Spears, but is that what we want our kids to be learning? Our kids should be learning about scientific facts like ID, and the history of America our Christian founding fathers.
Conservapedia is just the right sort of thing for those of us who are homeschooling. Where else can you find an accurate reference for all of the world's most interesting issues, and be sure that the articles are 100% free of bias, spin and political correctness.
This page explains the fundamental differences between WIkipedia and Conservapedia. I do hope you will join me and submit a few articles. May I suggest that with the author's permission, some articles from this site might be donated to help build Conservapedia?
login or register to post comments | 1 point