The Best (Worst) Of Conservapedia

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Best (Worst) Of Conservapedia

ShadowCatboy: Jan 22, 2006; by FactsAreUseless

Not exactly Conservapedia, but relevant in terms of the insane home schooling dealy. Here's something I wrote for a different project that kinda petered out so I'm posting it here:

quote:

Excerpt from �A Homeschooler's Guide to Biblical Mathematics.�

In 1910, a secular attempt at establishing the foundations of math was published by Bertrand Russell: noted logician, Welshman, self-professed Atheist, and possible child molester. Between beating his wife with a cane and screaming at her in his incomprehensible native tongue, Bertrand Russell put his drunken scribblings to paper with the aid of Alfred North Whitehead: English philosopher and former Catholic*.

While in the secular world the resulting Principia Mathematica became a seminal work of philosophy and Godless mathematical doctrine, Christian mathematicians were not fooled. The critical flaw that demolishes Russell and Whitehead's attempt at unifying mathematics was that it refused to include a key unifying theory:

�For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.� (Colossians 1:16-17, KJV)

It is by rejecting God that Russell and Whitehead were unable to find a solid foundation for mathematical truths even as basic as �1+1=2.�

Secular education similarly leaves out mention of God in relation to math, and instead feeds children a series of disconnected facts with no deeper explanation as to how or why they work. This leads most students to assume that such facts are self-existent: �Why does 1+1=2? It just does!� Calling these facts neutral or self-existent is calling all the consistencies around us neutral or self-existent. This is called Naturalism and it is an affront to God.

In this book we will explore the divine basis of mathematics, and how God's covenant with man holds the principles of mathematics together. We will also explore how and why mathematical truths cannot be established by man alone. The last chapter will focus on the brutal, Hellish, orifice-distending consequences of any such attempt.

CLASS ACTIVITY: To emphasize the consequences of flawed secular math, take the students outside the classroom and have teachers prepare a sumptuous pork rib barbecue. The savory smell of cooked meat will help kids visualize the blistering flesh of Russell and Whitehead as they roast, screaming in agony in the fetid bowels of Hell.

*Note: While Whitehead renounced his idolatrous Catholic convictions, his embrace of fence-sitting agnosticism did not save him from Satan's bloodstained talons.

"Oh you're so silly, SCB! That parody is too obvious!"

Not really. The meat of that (aside from teasing Whitehead and Russel) is from an actual homeschool book publishing company. They actually sell books "Biblical Math" for the precise reasons listed above ("secular math == naturalism!!!"). While there were plenty of textbooks that linked mathematical terminology to the Bible in an allegorical sense (so you can get your 'rithmetic and religion in one yummy dose), these guys go further than that. Here's a verbatim quote from one of the writers/instructors/I-don't-know-what-the-hell-she-does:

Katherine Loop posted:

Math is NOT neutral
Growing up in a Christian homeschool family, I learned to look at subjects from a biblical worldview--that is, every subject except math. Like most people, I grew up viewing math as a neutral subject filled with facts and numbers. I couldn't imagine how math could possibly be taught biblically.

However, during my senior year I read a book called Mathematics: Is God Silent? (see our other math resource section) and realized that math was NOT neutral like I'd always thought. Math was really a testimony to God's faithfulness! I can't begin to describe the difference this knowledge made. Math suddenly became both meaningful and exciting. I realized that all those years that I thought I'd been learning math neutrally I'd really been swallowing worldly, humanistic thinking.

It is my prayer that the resources we have here will help you and your children discover God in your math class. May we look to Him everywhere--including math!

Considering that Schlafly believes that women are biologically predispositioned towards being deficient in math, I'd like to stick them together to see if they annihilate each other.

# ? Jun 13, 2011 17:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 5, 2024 12:02

potato!: Apr 24, 2008

I was just struck by their article on Counterexamples to an Old Earth, an incontrivertible list of observations which conclusively prove the earth to be 6,000 to 10,000 years old (not 4.5 billion):

quote:

It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth.[1] As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule. If each of 33 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is less than 3.8%. With the total of these counterexamples at 33, they demonstrate that the Earth must be young with a likelihood of greater than 96%. The same analysis can be applied to the Young Earth theory, but no valid counterexamples have been found in centuries of atheist attempts[Citation Needed].

The motivation for atheists to insist on falsely teaching that the Earth is old is to pull students away from God's immediate presence, and to turn them away from Jesus Christ.

(emphasis original)

quote:

The growing list of counterexamples to the theory of an Old Earth includes:
Astronomy

1. The moon's orbit is a very strong counterxample: The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the moon being as they are today.
Additionally, the moon's orbit is becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stability.[3]. This disproves the theory of an Old Earth even further.
2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.
3. The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[4][5]
4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[6]
5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains is too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.

Geology
The Nonconformity is readily apparent in the Grand Canyon where foliage and ground cover do not obscure the rock face.

1. The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them.[7]
2. An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches[8] with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.
3. The massive Great Lakes and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume; the third largest saltwater lake, Oroumieh Lake, could completely evaporate within the next five years.[9]
4. The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood.
5. The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time.
6. The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.
7. Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation several times each century;[10] extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation[11]
8. The lack of erosion between rock layers.[12][13]
9. Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water proceeds through the water cycle it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.
10. Paraconformity and unconformity such as that seen at the Grand Canyon disprove the uniformitarian view of earth history.
11. All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,[14] and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.
12. The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago.
13. The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.
14. The relatively recent separation of the still-moving continents from one land mass -- denied for 100 years by atheists before they accepted it -- suggest a young earth or at least a relatively recent cataclysmic event.
15. Fresh tracks of motion by stationary rocks are still visible in some areas, which have baffled Old Earth scientists for more than 60 years; Old Earth magazines refer to them as "self-moving rocks."[15]
16. Beaches have long been eroding far too quickly for the Old Earth theory; "between 80 and 90 percent of the sandy beaches along America�s coastlines have been eroding for decades," sometimes by as much as 50 feet per year.[16]
17. Land is sinking into the oceans at a rate of at least 7 inches per century,[17] which would have rendered most of the United States under water if the Earth were not young.
18. The flow of water in the Colorado River has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade.[18]

Biology

1. The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[19] music, personal letters,[20] quality of political debates,[21] the quality of news articles,[22] and many other measures.
2. The age of onset of sexual maturity is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.[23]
3. The high observed rate of extinctions of species[24] and harmful genetic mutations suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.
4. The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying (CNN's Anderson Cooper began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);[25] many celebrities (such as American Idol winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)[25] and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)[26] increasingly experience premature graying or balding.
5. The age of onset of cancer is markedly decreasing,[27] suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.
6. The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.
7. The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.
8. Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[28]
9. Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.[29]

Science & Discovery

1. A stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades.[30]

Oh, and their citation on [30] at the end there?

quote:

30. ↑ Though there has been some progress in this timeframe, many of the "discoveries" are liberal propaganda, or are scientifically weak.

# ? Jun 13, 2011 22:41

Such is Plutonis: Apr 25, 2011

potato! posted:

6. The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.

I like how fossils are not considered "direct evidence of life" and their ignorance of various remnants of civilizations that are from 5000 BC, such as the ruins of Uruk and other Mesopotamian civilizations.

# ? Jun 13, 2011 23:39

potato!: Apr 24, 2008

Ron Damon posted:

I like how fossils are not considered "direct evidence of life" and their ignorance of various remnants of civilizations that are from 5000 BC, such as the ruins of Uruk and other Mesopotamian civilizations.

Well fossils, at least, were put there by God to test our faith.

# ? Jun 13, 2011 23:46

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Ron Damon posted:

I like how fossils are not considered "direct evidence of life" and their ignorance of various remnants of civilizations that are from 5000 BC, such as the ruins of Uruk and other Mesopotamian civilizations.

Carbon-dating (and most modern liberal "science" for that matter) is a fraud, don'tcha know.

# ? Jun 13, 2011 23:52

logikv9: Mar 5, 2009; Ham Wrangler

JT Jag posted:

Carbon-dating (and most modern liberal "science" for that matter) is a fraud, don'tcha know.

quote:

Carbon dating, like other radiometric dating methods, requires certain assumptions that cannot be scientifically proved. These include the starting conditions, the constancy of the rate of decay, and that no material has left or entered the sample.

For all their hate for everything science related, they sure like claiming that things cannot be scientifically proved despite in every other sentence bashing science for being ~~witchcraft~~ liberal lies. Could this be considered a double negative?

# ? Jun 14, 2011 00:24

Stalingrad: Feb 5, 2011

I like how it has to be evidence of "civilisation" to be used for aging the earth, nothing from the Neolithic counts because if people were building things like Silbury hill in England 4500 years ago, or the Aboriginals of Australia doing paintings 19000 years ago, his ridiculous interpretation of the bible is wrong, so those are badly dated/liberal tricks.

Especially if, even if he refuses to accept the really old aboriginal paintings as as old as those evil liberal scientists say, he would still have to accept them as before civilisation.
So if he has an explantion for how there are cultures that are so completely diverse in a period just after the supposed great flood of Noah, a period where the population bottlenecked, I'd like to see it.
Becuase he can't use the Tower of Babel, that came with civilisation.

# ? Jun 14, 2011 00:46

HappyHippo: Nov 19, 2003; Do you have an Air Miles Card?

potato! posted:

I was just struck by their article on Counterexamples to an Old Earth, an incontrivertible list of observations which conclusively prove the earth to be 6,000 to 10,000 years old (not 4.5 billion):

This whole list reminds me of a Mark Twain quote:

quote:

In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

(That's Cairo, Illinois)

Edit: You also forgot the "citations" for this one:

quote:

1. The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[24] music, personal letters,[25] quality of political debates,[26] the quality of news articles,[27] and many other measures.
...
[24] SAT scores have been rapidly decreasing in real terms.
[25] E.g., Civil War letters.
[26] E.g., contrast the Lincoln-Douglas debates with debates today.
[27] The Federalist was written for the newspaper audience in the late 1780s, but is far too intellectual for newspapers today.

HappyHippo fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jun 14, 2011

# ? Jun 14, 2011 02:43

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

potato! posted:

.
Stupid people posted:
If each of 33 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is less than 3.8%

Someone really needs to make an animation of a guy with his hand palming his face, and on the back of his hand another face, with his hand palming that face, and more and more faces and hands forever. Like a recursive facepalm.

Because only that could truly summarize this absolute shambles of mathematical logic.

# ? Jun 14, 2011 07:46

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

What I liked about that is aside from the mathematical questionability of the quote, it says if even one is wrong, even ONE, young earth must be true.

And yet it doesnt work in the reverse. If you prove just one of his counterpoints wrong, then it should be proof that new earth is false right?

# ? Jun 14, 2011 15:07

Stalingrad: Feb 5, 2011

Remember Andy teaches children, and he teaches them things like this:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Rules_of_Chivalry_for_Students

The most :psyduck:

bit has to be the god drat cookies thing...

# ? Jun 14, 2011 15:16

BiggerBoat: Sep 26, 2007; Don't you tell me my business again.

RagnarokAngel posted:

What I liked about that is aside from the mathematical questionability of the quote, it says if even one is wrong, even ONE, young earth must be true.

And yet it doesnt work in the reverse. If you prove just one of his counterpoints wrong, then it should be proof that new earth is false right?

You're doing it wrong. Start with the conclusion first and then work backwards from there. Anything that can't disprove your argument, by extension therefore supports it.

# ? Jun 14, 2011 15:29

tankadillo: Aug 15, 2006

Stalingrad posted:

Remember Andy teaches children, and he teaches them things like this:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Rules_of_Chivalry_for_Students

The most bit has to be the god drat cookies thing...

This is actually kind of cute, in a "PSA from the 40s" kind of way.

# ? Jun 14, 2011 15:51

black potus: Jul 13, 2006

Stalingrad posted:

Remember Andy teaches children, and he teaches them things like this:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Rules_of_Chivalry_for_Students

The most bit has to be the god drat cookies thing...

It really bothers me that this "essay" is just a list

# ? Jun 14, 2011 16:29

MeLKoR: Dec 23, 2004; by FactsAreUseless

"We carbon dated H2O" has got to be one of the dumbest claims I ever read.

# ? Jun 14, 2011 17:42

Stalingrad: Feb 5, 2011

gang sines posted:

It really bothers me that this "essay" is just a list

As it always needs repeating, the man who wrote that essay is a 50 year old lawyer and engineer who was on the Harvard law review alongside the president.

# ? Jun 14, 2011 18:16

FreudianSlippers: Apr 12, 2010; Shooting and Fucking
are the same thing!

quote:

They were blatantly liberal, and made fun of Conservative's pro-life beliefs with their song "Bodies", from their "Never Mind The Bollocks" album.
The Sex Pistols, in their early days, used the term "anarchist" for shock value, and helped shaped the way anarchy was perceived in the public eye. They also made fun of Christians by calling themselves "antichrists", for which they were beat up for on several occasions. However, they are still a balanced, wholesome band, and they teach core values such as not lying, being loyal, following your dreams, and leaving the innocent alone.

The Sex Pistols: Balanced and wholesome. Engaging in wholesome activities like getting in fights with the audiance and dressing in swastika shirts just for shock value.

I wonder what he thinks about bands like the Clash, who were socialist as gently caress, or Crass, who did a entire album only about feminism.

FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jun 14, 2011

# ? Jun 14, 2011 18:46

Canned Sunshine: Nov 20, 2005; CAUTION: POST QUALITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION

potato! posted:

Well fossils, at least, were put there by God to test our faith.

Sadly enough, when I was getting my geology degree, quite a few really-conservative friends of mine argued this point seriously.

# ? Jun 14, 2011 18:49

Binowru: Feb 15, 2007; I never set out to be weird. It was always other people who called me weird.

FreudianSlippers posted:

The Sex Pistols: Balanced and wholesome. Engaging in wholesome activities like getting in fights with the audiance and dressing in swastika shirts just for shock value.

I wonder what he thinks about bands like the Clash, who were socialist as gently caress, or Crass, who did a entire album only about feminism.

This is one of those things that a troll snuck onto the site just to see how long before it got taken down, right?

...right?

# ? Jun 14, 2011 20:21

ShadowCatboy: Jan 22, 2006; by FactsAreUseless

MeLKoR posted:

"We carbon dated H2O" has got to be one of the dumbest claims I ever read.

This actually got me thinking to how it might actually be possible to carbon-date water and it's an interesting method in principle to determine the amount of C14 in the atmosphere, actually.

Still loving retarded though. :psyduck:

# ? Jun 14, 2011 20:29

Canned Sunshine: Nov 20, 2005; CAUTION: POST QUALITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION

ShadowCatboy posted:

This actually got me thinking to how it might actually be possible to carbon-date water and it's an interesting method in principle to determine the amount of C14 in the atmosphere, actually.

Still loving retarded though.

Yeah, I mean, natural water sources will have some level of Carbon-14 in them, but since many/most sources will readily be having Carbon-12 dissolved in and at some point removed, I'd imagine it'd be hard to actually get an accurate analysis.

It works somewhat well for ice cores though.

# ? Jun 14, 2011 22:17

ShadowCatboy: Jan 22, 2006; by FactsAreUseless

SourKraut posted:

Yeah, I mean, natural water sources will have some level of Carbon-14 in them, but since many/most sources will readily be having Carbon-12 dissolved in and at some point removed, I'd imagine it'd be hard to actually get an accurate analysis.

It works somewhat well for ice cores though.

Yeah I was thinking of how CO2 naturally dissolves in water to form carbonic acid. It actually weirded me out a little at first when I was calibrating a pH meter with DI water and it came to a pH of 5 until I remembered "Oh right, CO2."

I can't imagine how stupid someone would have to be to think that C14 dating of water would give... well I don't know what results they're looking for aside from the atmospheric ratios of C14 to C12, and even then there are better methods than that. Why the hell do they treat science like it should/does consist of magic all-purpose tools that spit out simplistic data results. If this was the 100 years ago they'd probably be guzzling soda water to treat gout and female hysteria.

# ? Jun 14, 2011 22:48

tankadillo: Aug 15, 2006

Checking their news list sometimes brings up some weird stuff.

quote:

A faint but irritating noise is disrupting a small town, as it did in the 1970s elsewhere: "Tiny village is latest victim of the 'The hum.'" [14]Add this to the enormous list of things atheism cannot explain.

It links here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8566281/Tiny-village-is-latest-victim-of-the-The-hum.html So what are they saying, that Christianity can explain it? Is God humming to these people?

And this sentence just doesn't make any sense whatsoever

quote:

When it comes to Sarah Palin, the majority of liberals are guilty of being Anti-American.

What is this supposed to mean? I don't even know what they're trying to communicate, other than that they hate liberals. I feel like they must have left a word out somewhere.

# ? Jun 15, 2011 01:35

logikv9: Mar 5, 2009; Ham Wrangler

raezr posted:

Checking their news list sometimes brings up some weird stuff.

It links here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8566281/Tiny-village-is-latest-victim-of-the-The-hum.html So what are they saying, that Christianity can explain it? Is God humming to these people?

And this sentence just doesn't make any sense whatsoever

What is this supposed to mean? I don't even know what they're trying to communicate, other than that they hate liberals. I feel like they must have left a word out somewhere.

They can't help themselves. If they weren't still trying to pretend that their articles were factual, I wouldn't be surprised if every other sentence was something along those lines.

"Sarah Palin was born on February 11, 1964. The majority of liberals hate America. She was born in Sandpoint, Idaho. Most liberals are in favor of socialism."

# ? Jun 15, 2011 08:52

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

raezr posted:

What is this supposed to mean? I don't even know what they're trying to communicate, other than that they hate liberals. I feel like they must have left a word out somewhere.

I think the idea is that, to them, Sarah Palin is one of the greatest and most patriotic Americans alive (i.e. she's white, conservative, and Christian), so if you hate her, you hate America.

# ? Jun 15, 2011 11:19

jojoinnit: Dec 13, 2010; Strength and speed, that's why you're a special agent.

The talk page on the "Greatest Conservative Movies" list is quite something!

Andy Schlafly posted:

Feminism is unmistakable: it has women acting like men and vice-versa, contrary to reality. Disney cartoons have been heavily feminist for at least 15 years. Beauty and the Beast, made 20 years ago, was not feminist in any way. But having a "Princess" act like a businessman and aspire to run a restaurant is feminist. What's next - Cinderella aspires to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company???--Andy Schlafly 10:10, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

# ? Jun 15, 2011 14:39

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

Welp. Never realised theatre prior to the 1800s (or therabouts) was feminist. All the chicks where played by guys!

Total homosexual agenda going on there folks.

(actually, now that I think about it..)

# ? Jun 15, 2011 17:10

Slamhound: Mar 27, 2010

Counterexamples to an Old Earth posted:

The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying (CNN's Anderson Cooper began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);[30]

Anderson Cooper's gray hair is a counterexample to and Old Earth.

I've said it somewhere else, but the absolute best entries are the ones that don't lend themselves to partisan rancor.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Botany posted:

Botany is the study and classification of plants and flowers.

That's it. That's all they could come up with. Unless they're actively hating liberals, they die on the vine.

# ? Jun 15, 2011 17:32

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

ShadowCatboy posted:

Yeah I was thinking of how CO2 naturally dissolves in water to form carbonic acid. It actually weirded me out a little at first when I was calibrating a pH meter with DI water and it came to a pH of 5 until I remembered "Oh right, CO2."

I can't imagine how stupid someone would have to be to think that C14 dating of water would give... well I don't know what results they're looking for aside from the atmospheric ratios of C14 to C12, and even then there are better methods than that. Why the hell do they treat science like it should/does consist of magic all-purpose tools that spit out simplistic data results. If this was the 100 years ago they'd probably be guzzling soda water to treat gout and female hysteria.

For what it's worth, oceanographers use radiocarbon (14C) dating to determine the age of water masses. A water mass that is no longer in contact with the atmosphere will have its carbon age to reflect the amount of time it has been isolated from atmosphere, while a water mass in contact with the atmosphere will reflect atmospheric 14C.

# ? Jun 15, 2011 20:02

kissekatt: Apr 20, 2005; I have tasted the fruit.

Slamhound posted:

Anderson Cooper's gray hair is a counterexample to and Old Earth.

I've said it somewhere else, but the absolute best entries are the ones that don't lend themselves to partisan rancor.

That's it. That's all they could come up with. Unless they're actively hating liberals, they die on the vine.

If you like the article on Botany, you will love Banana slug.

Banana slug posted:

Banana slugs are a variety of mollusk that look like bananas.

# ? Jun 15, 2011 20:25

ejstheman: Feb 11, 2004

ShadowCatboy posted:

Yeah I was thinking of how CO2 naturally dissolves in water to form carbonic acid. It actually weirded me out a little at first when I was calibrating a pH meter with DI water and it came to a pH of 5 until I remembered "Oh right, CO2."

I can't imagine how stupid someone would have to be to think that C14 dating of water would give... well I don't know what results they're looking for aside from the atmospheric ratios of C14 to C12, and even then there are better methods than that. Why the hell do they treat science like it should/does consist of magic all-purpose tools that spit out simplistic data results. If this was the 100 years ago they'd probably be guzzling soda water to treat gout and female hysteria.

I'm pretty sure I did an experiment once where I blew into water with a straw, and watched the pH go down on a meter as it picked up acid from the carbon dioxide. Science is loving awesome.

# ? Jun 15, 2011 21:50

potato!: Apr 24, 2008

kissekatt posted:

If you like the article on Botany, you will love Banana slug.

I'm surprised they referred to them as Mollusks instead of whatever Baramin they belong to.

# ? Jun 15, 2011 22:17

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

ejstheman posted:

I'm pretty sure I did an experiment once where I blew into water with a straw, and watched the pH go down on a meter as it picked up acid from the carbon dioxide. Science is loving awesome.

Or if you're Andy Schlafly, "Jesus is awesome."

# ? Jun 16, 2011 03:59

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

duck monster posted:

Welp. Never realised theatre prior to the 1800s (or therabouts) was feminist. All the chicks where played by guys!

Total homosexual agenda going on there folks.

(actually, now that I think about it..)

In Shakespeare's time, in England there actually was a lot of opposition to theatre for that reason (among others of course).

This wasnt as much of an issue in other countries though, I believe spain let both genders act at the same time.

# ? Jun 16, 2011 04:46

Big Hubris: Mar 8, 2011

Relativity, Theory of

But

Secular math

...Is this the TIMECUBE guy, or an acquaitance thereof?

# ? Jun 16, 2011 08:49

Binowru: Feb 15, 2007; I never set out to be weird. It was always other people who called me weird.

On the front page today (emphasis in original):

Conservapedia posted:

Halfway through June, Conservapedia is well ahead of its record pace for unique visitors in this month. Reason: people want truthful information rather than the liberal claptrap found elsewhere.

Hm, yes, I'm sure that's why.

# ? Jun 16, 2011 23:43

Jabbu: Aug 1, 2005; GODWIN'S LAW? WHAT THE FUCK IS GODWIN'S LAW YOU FUCKING CRYPTO-NAZI? WHY DON'T YOU STOP RAPING CHILDREN FOR FIVE MINUTES, PUT DOWN THAT GLASS OF PUPPY BLOOD AND JUST ADMIT THAT YOU'RE A FUCKING MONSTER

Binowru posted:

On the front page today (emphasis in original):

Hm, yes, I'm sure that's why.

It would be an interesting experience to try and go through a week with the mindset of a conservative...Then again, I think I've actually done that before, it was called being a 14 year old boy. :smuggo:

# ? Jun 17, 2011 00:43

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

Jabbu posted:

It would be an interesting experience to try and go through a week with the mindset of a conservative...Then again, I think I've actually done that before, it was called being a 14 year old boy.

"L L L L L Liberals?"

Seriously, I suspect a big part of thinking conservative is seeing monsters in every corner that must be suppressed. Its lizard brain thinking.

e:

"Oh Shaggy! Thats not a ghost-pirate! Its actually Mr Obama trying to stop us from discovering his kenyan birth certificate."

"You pesky kids!"

duck monster fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Jun 17, 2011

# ? Jun 17, 2011 06:38

Perestroika: Apr 8, 2010

If you're interested in that, you may want to take a look at Bob Altemeyers The Authoritarians, for a psychological analysis of how right-wing authoritarians tend to tick. It's not long, easy to read and pretty interesting, plus he put it up to read and download for free.

# ? Jun 17, 2011 09:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 5, 2024 12:02

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Is it confirmed that Schlafly is a Catholic?

If he is, why is he a Young Earth Creationist?

The Catholic Church is pretty explicit about it's support not only for an Old Earth, but also evolution.

Does this mean that Schlafly is one of those Catholics like Mel Gibson's dad that doesn't acknowledge Vatican II or any other modernism?

# ? Jun 17, 2011 10:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Best (Worst) Of Conservapedia

«‹›441 »