Conquer Club

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution



"Given that liberalism is so prevalent in academia, it is not entirely surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the evolutionary paradigm via evolutionary propaganda."

(note how there is no source to cite for this "prevalent liberalism in academia", which strongly suggests there is none, and that what they call "liberalism" the rest of the world calls "ideas" or "education". But of course acknowledging that would force those faithful devotees to things like Conservapedia to see things in a way other than black and white.)


"The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.[19] Prior to publishing the book, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist, which is a type of atheist."

Then it basically goes on to quote Hitler a bunch of times, because he subscribed to eugenics, an extremely racist, and proven to be factually baseless form of evolution.

The site will blow your mind.

Wow. The people publishing on this site really have a thing for Hitler:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Da ... olf_Hitler

When asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath."[9]

The interviewer wrote, regarding the Hitler comment, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."[9]

They are willfully misinterpreting what he said there. I'm no fan of Richard Dawkins, I don't really care about him, but I do care about journalistic integrity. Willful misinterpretation of what someone says is the same thing as bearing false witness, n'es pas?

Also, I bet this site will try and associate anyone or anything they don't like with Hitler. I'm going to keep posting examples as I happen to find them, this site is amazing. Perhaps it should be renamed, Godwin's Interweb Encyclopedia.

That site is ridicilous.

It tries to assert that only atheists believe in evolution, which is actually epic bullshit and then comes the biggest bs of all

Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" along with a community college biology class, have been linked to the tragic suicide of Jesse Kilgore.[15] Kilgore had several discussions with friends and relatives in which he made it clear Dawkins' book had destroyed his belief in God. This loss of faith is considered the cause of his suicide which is not surprising given that there is evidence which suggest that atheism can be a causal factor for suicide for some individuals.[16][17][18][19]

Lol, wut?

There is even an entire page about how supposedly suicides went up. One of the "proofs" is how suicide rate went up in Paris after an atheistic book was published. WTF?

Madefe is a big fan of Hitler too.

Iliad wrote:That site is ridicilous.

It tries to assert that only atheists believe in evolution, which is actually epic bullshit and then comes the biggest bs of all

Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" along with a community college biology class, have been linked to the tragic suicide of Jesse Kilgore.[15] Kilgore had several discussions with friends and relatives in which he made it clear Dawkins' book had destroyed his belief in God. This loss of faith is considered the cause of his suicide which is not surprising given that there is evidence which suggest that atheism can be a causal factor for suicide for some individuals.[16][17][18][19]

Lol, wut?

There is even an entire page about how supposedly suicides went up. One of the "proofs" is how suicide rate went up in Paris after an atheistic book was published. WTF?

I read that, hilarious.

Iliad wrote:There is even an entire page about how supposedly suicides went up. One of the "proofs" is how suicide rate went up in Paris after an atheistic book was published. WTF?

Well sir, you do know that correlation equals causation, do you not?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Professor_values

Holy shit, this might be the lolercoaster of the site... The entire article is too funny, and should be taken as a whole, I won't quote anything here except the contents:

# 1 Crimes and Alleged Crimes by Professors and Former Professors
# 2 Immoral, Unethical, or Bizarre Behavior
# 3 Crimes against humanity

Funny. I seem to remember my professors training me to work hard, develop a life long habit of voracious reading, considering both sides of an argument, and relying upon the empirical process to reach rational conclusions.

None of those habits are diametrically opposed to either a conservative worldview or Christianity. In fact, this kind of tripe undermines arguments made by party-line conservatives that anyone with any kind of an opposing viewpoint is stupid and uneducated, since, clearly, the party-line is to eschew things like education, or any book but the Bible.



Also, I can't seem to find many other articles concerning *Something* Values, aside from Hollywood Values. I did a search for Congressional Values, Senatorial Values..

Oh, I just found Conservative Values:


What I'm getting at here, is that Professors are people too, and that list of "crimes", put against a list of crimes committed by self-described conservatives in power would be just as depressing a list.

I really don't understand how these Conservative Values can foster such an us vs. them attitude, if they really are about this:

Conservative values are useful and powerful in combating common human weaknesses:

* Lust
* Laziness
* Jealousy
* Gluttony
* Pride
* Conflict
* Corruption

So, um, those are really pretty general moral issues. And everyone is guilty of them. The page on Liberal Values is so short, it's worth quoting here:

Liberal values refers to the value system commonly held by liberals, just as Professor values and Hollywood values do for professors and Hollywood respectively. Liberal values stand in stark opposition to conservative values and thus reject those things which conservatives hold to be dear and true. This includes, but is not limited to:

* Censorship of ideas not deemed politically correct
* Denial of politically incorrect truths such as the link between abortion and breast cancer
* Opposition to the free market, instead favoring heavy regulation
* A desire for equal outcomes as opposed to equal opportunity
* Liberal students protest or disrupt conservative guest speakers on college campuses
* To judge something immoral behavior is tantamount to being a bigot.
* Bigotry itself, an almost uniquely liberal trait

In general, liberal values tend to undermine traditional society, and in certain instances can cause irreparable harm to the lives of individuals who are brought under their sway.

I don't get it. Where have these values been defined and identified as such by a liberal authority? Is there even such a thing?

pimpdave wrote:

Liberal values refers to the value system commonly held by liberals, just as Professor values and Hollywood values do for professors and Hollywood respectively. Liberal values stand in stark opposition to conservative values and thus reject those things which conservatives hold to be dear and true. This includes, but is not limited to:

* Censorship of ideas not deemed politically correct
* Denial of politically incorrect truths such as the link between abortion and breast cancer
* Opposition to the free market, instead favoring heavy regulation
* A desire for equal outcomes as opposed to equal opportunity
* Liberal students protest or disrupt conservative guest speakers on college campuses
* To judge something immoral behavior is tantamount to being a bigot.
* Bigotry itself, an almost uniquely liberal trait

In general, liberal values tend to undermine traditional society, and in certain instances can cause irreparable harm to the lives of individuals who are brought under their sway.

I don't get it. Where have these values been defined and identified as such by a liberal authority? Is there even such a thing?

In general, I find most of these are true. I will go down the list, in order.

* Politically incorrect ideas, such as hate speech, are not allowed.
* Women who breast feed are seven times less likely to get breast cancer, maybe that is what they mean. The hormonal triggering mechanism starts the process of developing breast milk, but those hormones are never actuated, thus leaving these chemicals in the fatty tissue of the breast.
* check your local federal government on this one.
* check your local federal government on this one too.
* I have definitely seen this, observe the RNC kicking off McCain's campaign.
* Homosexuality comes to mind.
* The last one is far fetched...

While there is no such doctrine that outlines this list of liberal traits that I am aware of, I think that it is fair to say that a lot of these points are, in fact, true. You only need to look at the current administration to see the majority of it.

captain.crazy wrote: * Women who breast feed are seven times less likely to get breast cancer, maybe that is what they mean. The hormonal triggering mechanism starts the process of developing breast milk, but those hormones are never actuated, thus leaving these chemicals in the fatty tissue of the breast.

That's not really a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Besides, denial of truths for political reasons is pretty spot-on when talking about conservatives.

Snorri1234 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote: * Women who breast feed are seven times less likely to get breast cancer, maybe that is what they mean. The hormonal triggering mechanism starts the process of developing breast milk, but those hormones are never actuated, thus leaving these chemicals in the fatty tissue of the breast.

That's not really a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Besides, denial of truths for political reasons is pretty spot-on when talking about conservatives.

I think that you could make an argument about the breast cancer thing... but I would have to study it more to be certain. I can't claim one way or the other, I am only speculating. And I agree with you about denial of truths... its just that I recognize that this goes both ways. Do you disagree?

captain.crazy wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote: * Women who breast feed are seven times less likely to get breast cancer, maybe that is what they mean. The hormonal triggering mechanism starts the process of developing breast milk, but those hormones are never actuated, thus leaving these chemicals in the fatty tissue of the breast.

That's not really a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Besides, denial of truths for political reasons is pretty spot-on when talking about conservatives.

I think that you could make an argument about the breast cancer thing... but I would have to study it more to be certain. I can't claim one way or the other, I am only speculating. And I agree with you about denial of truths... its just that I recognize that this goes both ways. Do you disagree?

I don't disagree. Politics is usually about denying truths because it suits you. I think the offense is more that it's somehow a liberal value instead of just politics.

Snorri1234 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote: * Women who breast feed are seven times less likely to get breast cancer, maybe that is what they mean. The hormonal triggering mechanism starts the process of developing breast milk, but those hormones are never actuated, thus leaving these chemicals in the fatty tissue of the breast.

That's not really a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Besides, denial of truths for political reasons is pretty spot-on when talking about conservatives.

I think that you could make an argument about the breast cancer thing... but I would have to study it more to be certain. I can't claim one way or the other, I am only speculating. And I agree with you about denial of truths... its just that I recognize that this goes both ways. Do you disagree?

I don't disagree. Politics is usually about denying truths because it suits you. I think the offense is more that it's somehow a liberal value instead of just politics.

Sure. The point about breast cancer and abortion is vague. People (and there are many) will blindly take that point as fact without ever looking at the evidence as to why that may be the case. At any rate, I appreciate your rational dialog here, it seems that there are some here incapable of expressing a viewpoint without being vulgar.

The weirdest thing about this conservapedia is that they aren't actually biased in every article. I looked up The Netherlands, and instead of a condemnation of dutch values and policies it just offered pretty basic facts.

Snorri1234 wrote:The weirdest thing about this conservapedia is that they aren't actually biased in every article. I looked up The Netherlands, and instead of a condemnation of dutch values and policies it just offered pretty basic facts.

Oh!

That is interesting. I will have to look the site over myself.

Bovver boy wrote:Madefe is a big fan of Hitler too.

He did have a very sexy moustache.

pimpdave wrote: "The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.[19] Prior to publishing the book, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist, which is a type of atheist."

This has been asserted by folks who want to put forward a young earth = Christianity idea, but is really not true at all.

First, Darwin was hardly the first to come up with this theory. He put forward many other ideas before Descent of Man because he feared it would be used by racists to justify racism, though sicentifically, he did NOT feel that view was valid.

Second, while no one can really know anyone's heart, many people who actually knew him assert he was very much a Christian. He did attend seminary.