More Conservapedia
Mar. 2nd, 2007 06:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dream_labyrinthThe site finally loaded, so here I am browsing.
In the article about Common Era (a term I had not heard before), one line particularly puzzled me:
The conclusion is obvious: usage of the term "Common Era" seeks to deny recognition to Christianity. Beware of other examples of this, and beware how schools and tests are converting to "Common Era" dating systems to appease hostility to Christianity.
Consider this frank question and answer with a rabbi about the use of "Common Era," which illustrates that the term "Common Era" did not come from Judaism:
(it goes on with a communication between an unnamed rabbi and somebody named Viviane. She asks the rabbi about where the term comes from and he says he doesn't know, and neither did a professor of history whom he asked.
Nowhere in the article did it state that anybody ever believed the term to come from Judaism, so why explicitly say that it doesn't and give such a wishy-washy reference? I am quite sure a number of pastors I could ask do not know every term that might or might not have come from Christianity and become commonly used.
Nero apparently is most noted for killing Christians, his wife and his mother. And for fiddling while Rome burned, which is marked as a quote but there is no source given, which is a pity, as I would assume the fiddle was not commonly played in Ancient Rome.
I didn't realise that the Etruscans overthrew the king of Rome and established the Roman republic, but then I do admit my knowledge of Roman history is a bit sketchy.
This is another interesting entry: Godfrey Harold "G.H." Hardy (1877–1947) was an atheistic British mathematician who felt that the approach of the elementary proof lacked the "depth" needed to solve difficult math problems. He was shown to be wrong when Paul Erdos devised an elementary proof to the Prime Number Theorem, which has only been proven using non-elementary complex analysis.
Now, I do admit maths is not my strong side, but what logic I possess tells me that just proving one thing using elementary proof that had hitherto only been proven by more complex methods does not mean that the idea some things cannot be proven by elementary proof is wrong.
Japan is a group of islands, apparently. Last time I checked an atlas, it was a country. Oh well.
Islam is an uncomplicated religion to live by. Good to know!
I know this shows that I am a liberal and an atheist, but I cannot condone the spelling of the family as "Hapsburg". I don't care what is common in which part of the English speaking word. The name is Habsburg. I don't go around calling Bush "Push", do I?
It is a bit difficult now to discern between original Conservapedia articles and those edited by others to make fun of the project. The article on Bill Clinton has obviously been tampered with, I don't think the phrase about the "devil incarnate" was in there originally.
The article on evolution looks like it might be in the state it was intended to be by the creators of Conservapedia, and it has the advantage of being more than a sentence long.
However, it doesn't succeed in containing a whole lot of information, even biased information.
The entry on Charles Darwin informs us that he always made a point in saying that he did believe in some sort of God. Very reassuring.
Unfortunately, there is no article yet about Gregor Mendel. It would have been interesting to see what they have to say about him.
All in all - the whole project is bloody ridiculous. Of course, I know that some people's simplemindedness knows no bounds, but I would assume that the site would be little used as a reference.
It s rather funny to see that one of the reasons they state for resigning Wikipedia is that they don't give the Asian world its rightful place, as Wikipedia doesn't mention feudalism in Asia, yet Conservapedia seems rather reluctant to admit that the world does not, in fact, revolve around the United States of America.
Also, and lastly, before I bore you out of your minds, this article made me grin. It is mentioned as yet another proof of the bias of Wikipedia that it doesn't mention Bacon's Rebellion in their article about Indentured Slavery. This is - word by word - what Conservapedia has to say about the rebellion. Please note the unbiased, comprehensive article:
Bacon's Rebellion was a revolt in 1676 by former indentured servants in colonial Virginia. It was led by an English immigrant, Nathanael Bacon.
Bacon killed Indians in Virginia. He rode to Jamestown and burned it because the Governor would not let him kill more Indians. He died of a disease before he could be hung like his friends.
Macchiavelli suggested to let your enemies damn themselves with their own words. I could not have said it better, or done a better job at it, than Conservapedia does it itself.
In the article about Common Era (a term I had not heard before), one line particularly puzzled me:
The conclusion is obvious: usage of the term "Common Era" seeks to deny recognition to Christianity. Beware of other examples of this, and beware how schools and tests are converting to "Common Era" dating systems to appease hostility to Christianity.
Consider this frank question and answer with a rabbi about the use of "Common Era," which illustrates that the term "Common Era" did not come from Judaism:
(it goes on with a communication between an unnamed rabbi and somebody named Viviane. She asks the rabbi about where the term comes from and he says he doesn't know, and neither did a professor of history whom he asked.
Nowhere in the article did it state that anybody ever believed the term to come from Judaism, so why explicitly say that it doesn't and give such a wishy-washy reference? I am quite sure a number of pastors I could ask do not know every term that might or might not have come from Christianity and become commonly used.
Nero apparently is most noted for killing Christians, his wife and his mother. And for fiddling while Rome burned, which is marked as a quote but there is no source given, which is a pity, as I would assume the fiddle was not commonly played in Ancient Rome.
I didn't realise that the Etruscans overthrew the king of Rome and established the Roman republic, but then I do admit my knowledge of Roman history is a bit sketchy.
This is another interesting entry: Godfrey Harold "G.H." Hardy (1877–1947) was an atheistic British mathematician who felt that the approach of the elementary proof lacked the "depth" needed to solve difficult math problems. He was shown to be wrong when Paul Erdos devised an elementary proof to the Prime Number Theorem, which has only been proven using non-elementary complex analysis.
Now, I do admit maths is not my strong side, but what logic I possess tells me that just proving one thing using elementary proof that had hitherto only been proven by more complex methods does not mean that the idea some things cannot be proven by elementary proof is wrong.
Japan is a group of islands, apparently. Last time I checked an atlas, it was a country. Oh well.
Islam is an uncomplicated religion to live by. Good to know!
I know this shows that I am a liberal and an atheist, but I cannot condone the spelling of the family as "Hapsburg". I don't care what is common in which part of the English speaking word. The name is Habsburg. I don't go around calling Bush "Push", do I?
It is a bit difficult now to discern between original Conservapedia articles and those edited by others to make fun of the project. The article on Bill Clinton has obviously been tampered with, I don't think the phrase about the "devil incarnate" was in there originally.
The article on evolution looks like it might be in the state it was intended to be by the creators of Conservapedia, and it has the advantage of being more than a sentence long.
However, it doesn't succeed in containing a whole lot of information, even biased information.
The entry on Charles Darwin informs us that he always made a point in saying that he did believe in some sort of God. Very reassuring.
Unfortunately, there is no article yet about Gregor Mendel. It would have been interesting to see what they have to say about him.
All in all - the whole project is bloody ridiculous. Of course, I know that some people's simplemindedness knows no bounds, but I would assume that the site would be little used as a reference.
It s rather funny to see that one of the reasons they state for resigning Wikipedia is that they don't give the Asian world its rightful place, as Wikipedia doesn't mention feudalism in Asia, yet Conservapedia seems rather reluctant to admit that the world does not, in fact, revolve around the United States of America.
Also, and lastly, before I bore you out of your minds, this article made me grin. It is mentioned as yet another proof of the bias of Wikipedia that it doesn't mention Bacon's Rebellion in their article about Indentured Slavery. This is - word by word - what Conservapedia has to say about the rebellion. Please note the unbiased, comprehensive article:
Bacon's Rebellion was a revolt in 1676 by former indentured servants in colonial Virginia. It was led by an English immigrant, Nathanael Bacon.
Bacon killed Indians in Virginia. He rode to Jamestown and burned it because the Governor would not let him kill more Indians. He died of a disease before he could be hung like his friends.
Macchiavelli suggested to let your enemies damn themselves with their own words. I could not have said it better, or done a better job at it, than Conservapedia does it itself.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-03-02 07:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-03 06:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-02 11:10 pm (UTC)I really, really hate that they're equating conservative with Christian. They are not synonymous and I really fucking hate the neocons who've taken over the conservative wing of politics with this simple-minded bullshit.
It's just stupid and frustrating. Damning by their own stupidity indeed.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-03 06:18 pm (UTC)Macchiavelli is sometimes just perfect to quote.
It seems strange in a country as diverse as the US that suddenly all "good conservatives" are supposed to be Christian. Can't a Jew, or a Muslim, or an Atheist, be just as adhering to values others might consider outdated and oldfashioned? (Which, besides, is not all that conservatism is about, despite what it gets reduced to so often. I only say that to save my own ass, as I have some conservative loyalties myself and would hate to be out into the same box as some of these idiots.)
no subject
Date: 2007-03-04 04:27 am (UTC)Jews? Get real. They don't believe in Jesus, so they're Democrats.
Atheists are actually the most dangerous people in this country, because they don't believe in anything. What's stopping them from robbing all the banks and just murdering everyone if they don't follow the Bible? That's where morality comes from, you know.
I could go on and on...
no subject
Date: 2007-03-03 04:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-03 06:18 pm (UTC)