This site will get you all good and mad

Jason

Somebody on one of the Simply Syndicated message boards alerted me to this travesty. Now, I know what you're thinking: Jason, you're a Republican. Aren't you the one who believes this stuff? The answer is no. No. NO. Fucking hell, no. I'm an economic and ethical conservative, you steaming gang of monkeys! My peeps don't hang with these creeps any more than Scrym role with PETA hippies.

David

Oh man, that thing has been making its way around the blogosphere in the past few days. According to another forum, Something Awful hit it about 2 weeks ago, so there is no telling just what is real and what is inserted satire.

And I've never thought of you as republican, I thought you were more of a libertarian.

ZakoSoldier

It is pretty much a useless wiki. It has far too many stubs or at least too high a percentage. It rarely has an article that doesn't mention Christianity. There are far too many things that do not Christianity mentioned including Kangaroos. It treats itself like it is the absolute authority on everything. Conservapedia does not really need to exist.

navelfluff

You might be surprised by the article on atheism.

Sail

You might be surprised by the article onatheism.

Wow, that article is surprisingly...fair. Good for them.

TheWhaleShark

Check out the article about evolution.

Andrew

Check out the article aboutevolution.

Now that pisses me off. Nothing will get me angrier than people who deny the evolutionary process. Especially when they start drawing a line between micro and macro evolution. Right now I'm listening to the Evolution 101 podcast and looking at all the evidence, it is impossible to deny that evolution occurs. It also disturbs me that creationists will blatantly lie about evolution. I guess it shouldn't surprise me though...

Kiey

There is actually an entry on the scientific method there... huh

TheWhaleShark

Check out the article aboutevolution.

Especially when they start drawing a line between micro and macro evolution.

See, I think the micro- and macroevolution terms are incredibly useful when discussing evolution; if someone I'm talking to uses either term, I'm immediately alerted to their status as an idiot and can subsequently stop caring or administer a cockpunch as necessary.

Andrew

See, I think the micro- and macroevolution terms are incredibly useful when discussing evolution; if someone I'm talking to uses either term, I'm immediately alerted to their status as an idiot and can subsequently stop caring or administer a cockpunch as necessary.

Rather than use the terms Macro- or Micro- I prefer to just state either whether the evidence occurs at the molecular level or morphological level. By using microevolution and microevolution, you, as a scientist, give credence to the idea that they are two separate processes.

TheWhaleShark

See, I think the micro- and macroevolution terms are incredibly useful when discussing evolution; if someone I'm talking to uses either term, I'm immediately alerted to their status as an idiot and can subsequently stop caring or administer a cockpunch as necessary.

Rather than use the terms Macro- or Micro- I prefer to just state either whether the evidence occurs at the molecular level or morphological level. By using microevolution and microevolution, you, as a scientist, give credence to the idea that they are two separate processes.

I think you missed the joke there.

To be serious, the terms micro- and macroevolution have no basis in science, because they are not two distinct processes. There is one process - evolution - and it is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Period. As far as we know, that is. In a real discussion, I always point out that micro and macro are the exact same process, and I discuss why they are the same process. Unfortuantely, the success rate in convincing those who need the most convincing is depressingly low.

It's important to note, by the way, that all evolution occurs at the molecular level, whether or not you can see it. When there's enough at the molecular level, or the right kind of molecular change, you'll see morphological differences, but you don't need to see any sort of phenotypic divergence for there to be genetic divergence. This is what confuses most non-scientists; they think that "evolution" refers only to grand sweeping changes, but in fact the scientific meaning of evolution occurs at very small scales, in small steps, and happens all the time. Bacteria acquire resistance to antibiotics with fairly alarming frequency; this is evolution in action.

Andrew

I think you missed the joke there.

I see it now, but when I read it this morning I literally just rolled out of my bed and my brain was still in idle mode. ~_^