Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    12 Aug '10 19:58
    Not content to attack Darwin and Evolution, creationists are now attacking Einstein. I guess because he is Jewish.

    http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page

    Nut cases will live on forever it seems.
  2. 13 Aug '10 08:56 / 1 edit
    "The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

    That is hilariously ignorant.

    So, basically, their problem with relativity is that it sounds similar to another word with a different meaning that they don't like.
  3. Standard member randolph
    the walrus
    22 Aug '10 05:13
    http://conservapedia.com/Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    22 Aug '10 06:40
    Originally posted by randolph
    http://conservapedia.com/Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge
    It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.

  5. Standard member PBE6
    Bananarama
    23 Aug '10 16:53
    This has to be one of the strangest arguments I've ever read regarding abiogenesis. I wonder what KellyJay would have to say about this?

    Feasibility of Abiogenesis

    Although scientists dismissed ideas involving abiogenesis, or the process from which life emerges from nothing, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in spontaneous generation, the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, God creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years.


    Conservapedia.com is teh lulz!!
  6. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    24 Aug '10 15:06
    Originally posted by PBE6
    This has to be one of the strangest arguments I've ever read regarding abiogenesis. I wonder what KellyJay would have to say about this?

    [b]Feasibility of Abiogenesis

    Although scientists dismissed ideas involving abiogenesis, or the process from which life emerges from nothing, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in spontaneous generation, th ...[text shortened]... ew that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years.


    Conservapedia.com is teh lulz!! [/b]
    Well now you know it has to be true
  7. 25 Aug '10 09:22
    Interesting that they're treating the Bible like a tabloid sports page.

    For those not so familiar, the approach is this. Fill your publication with lots of random speculation. Then, when something turns out to be vaguely true (which is bound to happen at some point) loudly proclaim "WE TOLD YOU FIRST". Conveniently forget everything that turns out to be wrong.
  8. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    30 Aug '10 02:49
    Conservapedia.com is the most concentrated collection of ignorance on the entire web.

    'Nuf said.
  9. 09 Sep '10 09:58
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Conservapedia.com is the most concentrated collection of ignorance on the entire web.

    'Nuf said.
    I considered Wikipedia to be unforgivably ignorantly liberal-biased. (and it is)

    But when I took a gander at Conservapedia.. let's just say it was fairly easy to choose the lesser of two evils.

    I specifically remember their stance on Relativity from years ago and the frigid embarrassment I felt for anyone who could take that nonsense seriously.
  10. 03 Oct '10 17:26
    ''The second chapter of the Gospel of John describes the conversion of water into wine by Jesus at a wedding reception. John 2:9 states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine. ''