As would be expected, the Wikipedia page for Isaac Newton does discuss his religion in a detailed and unbiased manner. No need for a new Xtian friendly website. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Isa...Religious_views
"all the biblical quotes against it [homesexuality] you get that conservapedia, you're not going to get that kind of fair treatment on wikipedia"
That's an awkward kind of 'fair treatment' they have on conservapedia.
So, Wikipedia is 'Liberalist' and biased against Xtians where as Conservapedia is completely fair and unbiased ?
Sorry, but I do have a had time trying to avoid falling over from laughter.
I can only imagine their reaction if someone started filling up the Creationist and ID sections of Wikipedia (let alone Conservapedia) with a bucket load of reality. Also, would they allow 'us' to go into Conservapedia and correct their mistakes?
Those Xtians sure have a funny way with words, on one side they keep yapping about being prosecuted and censored. On the other hand they certainly pretty much want to kill, twist, misrepresent and/or censor any arguments that may threaten their little bubble of ignorance.
One more:
Concervapedia certainly are 'unbiased' as opposed to the 'liberalist' Wikipedia. Take their entries on Dinesh_D'Souza:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Din...inesh_D%
27Souza
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Din...inesh_D%
27Souza
Which one was supposed to be the unbiased one?
Lol, I love how he says Conservapedia welcomes all, as opposed to Wikipedia.
Unless of course you're gay, atheists, a scientists, a historian ......
The D'Souza articles are a wonderful demonstration of the wingnut conception of "unbiased". Of course the Conservapaedia article is "unbiased": it tells you next to nothing!
That is a dangerous teacher right there. I certainly hope it's not a public school he's working for.
Abuse abuse, child abuse right there
"Andy" Schlafly?
This would be the GAY son of Phyllis Schafly? The same son who she did not visit in the hospital after he was in a car wreck?
This would be the same Phyllis who has made a career of telling women they should not have careers?
I'm trying to figure out who's sicker here.
@Glen
I just read the entry on Wikipedia thanks to you.
It was his older brother 'John' who came out as homosexual
Wikipedia, Phyllis Schalfly
I am too scared to take a look at their article on Evolution
CC, be afraid, be very afraid.
Let's just say that the Conservapedia article on Evolution contains plenty of mentions of 'the alternatives' to Evolution and images of Stalin and Hitler...
Bunch of idiots
Andy is the failed lawyer son, actually. Run over to Google Groups and search for "andysch", especially the talk.origins stuff.
The "Atheism" article is funny, since it was almost entirely written by the infamous Ken DeMyer, who's been linkspamming just about every blog he can find with it, and he unilaterally declared it to be Article of the Year without the slightst pretense at discussion. Took the rest of them by surprise, forcing them to scramble and save face.
Want real fun, take a look at the articles for Barak Obama which suggests he's never done anything on his own and attributes everything to Affirmative Action, and the one for Richard Dawkins, which stubbornly insists he's not a real professor. Insane stuff.
god must love "simple" folk - he made so many of you!
Dani,
Thanks for the correction. I wrote quickly, Googled/Wiki'd and jumped.
Still, I have to wonder: who's sicker here? Now, we have three candidates...
Kels, their articles on "Scientific method" also differs greatly, though mostly in length. CP's article never mentions evolution.
lol this video keeps getting more insane as it goes on
It's just too funny to see that Chuck Norris it's considered to be a "source" in all this trash
The evolution article is just mostly quotes, so fucking stupid.
BEWARE OF DOGMA.
I seriously wonder whether these christians had any of their spare time away from all the prayer shit to look themselves in the mirror and self-reflect.
what a bunch of pharisees. jesus might have turn in his grave.
I'm pretty impressed that the christian cons have finally got their own wiki. I hadn't really thought before to check, but somehow I didn't really think that a wiki would be their thing because its open to editing. I mean they get their gospel from a book which they have staunchly refused to update in hundreds of years. So now they have a wiki, a wiki that anyone can create an account for and edit. So I created an account, and now I'm gonna see how many little edits I can get in before I get IP blocked.
I had fun at the page for sex, which just redirects you to a page on gender with absolutely no mention of sex as a bit of fun in the hay (the sexual intercourse page is blocked), also the page on contraception was interesting, no mention that contraception is also used as an effective aid against the transmission of STD's, nor did they mention condoms, the most effective form of contraception available..
beware of dumb people with time on their hands. things like conservapedia spontaneously generate from it.
somehow i feel a little proud of wikipedia now.
Commenting by HaloScan
