Oh, Christ on a crutch, I was ignoring Conservapedia, but then olvlzl had to go and ruin it for me.
Gravity is considered by scientists and evolutionists to be one of the fundamental forces of the universe. It is a theory which suggests that all masses are attracted to each other because of invisible particles called gravitons or invisible curves in space.
Let’s stick with the basics here:
1. They’re not called “evolutionists,” they’re called biologists, they are in fact real scientists, and they rarely think or write about gravity because they just get to assume that it’s there, working pretty much as always. “And once again, this mysterious force kept my bacteria culture from floating about the room” is a statement you’ll rarely find in the better biology journals. The “evolutionists” who don’t actually work in the sciences but still enjoy things like vaccinations and crops are called “sane people,” and you can, shockingly enough, find many of them in churches and temples that aren’t led by reactionary fear-mongerers across the nation.
2. We don’t talk much about “invisible particles” in the physics classes. Microscopic, sub-atomic even, yes. Invisible, no. And by the time we get down to fundamental forces-size, it becomes difficult to think of them as discrete particles so much as…you know what, nevermind.
And it’s space-time. And the word invisible doesn’t really apply here, either. Please, for the love of all that is good in the world, tell me that this is a very, very dry joke.
3. A belief in the theory of gravity will not challenge your belief in God in any way, and if it does it’s time for your pastor or other religous leader to refer you to a psychologist. There is no need to treat gravity so skeptically.
Schaffly’s spawn’s little project is just too funny.
Compare, for example, the difference between algebra for conservatives:
Algebra is a branch of mathematics.
Ordinary arithmetic deals with specific numbers, treated individually: 4 + 7 = 11.
Algebra uses letters that stand for numbers. These letters are called variables. For example,
x + y = 11
By using variables, algebra can go beyond individual number facts and express general relationships between sets of numbers. Thus, the equation above represents every pair of numbers that add up to 11:
* x could be 4 and y could be 7
* x could be 5 and y could be 6
* x could be 10 and y could be 1.
With algebra for just about everyone else:
Algebra is a branch of mathematics concerning the study of structure, relation and quantity. The name is derived from the treatise written by the Persian mathematician Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī titled (in Arabic كتاب الجبر والمقابلة )Al-Kitab al-Jabr wa-l-Muqabala (meaning “The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing”), which provided symbolic operations for the systematic solution of linear and quadratic equations….
Algebra is much broader than elementary algebra and can be generalized. In addition to working directly with numbers, algebra covers working with symbols, variables, and set elements. Addition and multiplication are viewed as general operations, and their precise definitions lead to structures such as groups, rings and fields.
The results are even better if you use calculus:
There is no page titled “calculus”. You can create this page.
For more information about searching Conservapedia, see Searching Conservapedia.
Calculus [from Latin, literally "chalk pebble" (used in reckoning)] is a major area in mathematics, with applications in science, engineering, business, and medicine. It builds on analytic geometry, and extends that field by introducing the concept of the limit, which allows control over arbitrarily small and arbitrarily large numbers. Calculus includes two major branches, differential calculus and integral calculus, related by the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, which says, roughly, that the derivative and integral are inverse linear operators.
Ok, one more for fun: an entry marked for deletion:
Cheesy potatoes is a delicious dish that can be easily made at home if you know how. Despite the fact that it is high in fat, it is quite a delicious complement to any meal you eat in your dinning room. It contains these ingredients: your choice of cheese, onions, hashbrowns, sour cream, Ruffles, butter and a secret undisclosed ingredient that must be discovered on your own. The amounts of the ingredients are also undisclosed as to keep you guessing. Can you make the perfect batch of Cheesy Potatoes? I doubt it!
That’s not the funny part. There’s nothting funny about not telling us how to make a perfect batch of delicious cheesy potatoes, and the secret ingredient is the crunchy crushed cornflake topping (only Kellogs will do). The funny part is next, the discussion about if it should, or should not, be deleted:
Neutral
* I’m neutral on this. I don’t think we really need an article on cheesy potatoes, and if we do have an article I think it should be useful to the reader and give the full ingredients list and cooking directions, without holding back any secrets. Dpbsmith 15:08, 10 March 2007 (EST)
P. S. I see no reason at all why this couldn’t go on User:TimothyR, TimothyR’s own user page, so I’m going to take the liberty of copying it there now in case the article gets deleted before he has a chance to copy it. Dpbsmith 11:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
[edit]
Delete* I believe it should be deleted – and not only because I hate cheese potatoes. If we want to make this a professional site we’re going to need professional articles and posts and avoid cheesy posts like this. Cheesy potatoes really doesn’t fit the bill….Tash 17:08, 10 March 2007 (EST)
* I believe this should be deleted as it really isn’t encyclopedic. I suggest deleting this article and making one on potatoes in general. Sulgran 20:53, 10 March 2007 (EST)
* This is silly. MountainDew 00:45, 11 March 2007 (EST)
* Delete Geo. 00:48, 11 March 2007 (EST)
* Would rather suit a cook book than an encyclopedic entry.
Irony is dead. Long live irony.
There is no need to treat gravity so skeptically.
It’s a slippery slope. First gravity, then heliocentrism, then evolution, then buttsex.
Maybe I should confess I joined Conservapedia (this evening). I have a compulsion to correct things, even on a site like this. Plus I wanted to defend Scouting and the UK Scout Association from being tarred with the same brush as the BSA. Nevertheless, I think I’ll be protecting by brain by spending very little time on it.
Coservapedia’s example of “biases” in Wikipedia:
“Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.”
“Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as “conservative” compared with “liberal”, and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as “liberal” compared with “conservative”. That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.”
“Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: “If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone.” Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers a article on the topic listed under the category “Pseudoscience”. What reputable encyclopedia uses such an unencyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? Wikipedia has a history of using the word “pseudoscience” in relation to its article on young earth creationism as a simple check to its log on the article shows.”
And though they appear to have edited it, their page on Relativity suggested that nothing practical has come out of the theory, at least about three weeks ago. And it was up like that for a while. Not sure when they changed it. Anyway, I originally thought it was satire, but I’m guessing it’s the real thing. Fucking morons.
Nevertheless, I think I’ll be protecting by brain by spending very little time on it.
Can’t the poor bastards have their little clubhouse to themselves? It’s not like they have a whole lot of other places they can go to feel smart.
As a biologist I just want to say, I am totally going to start referring to myself as an evolutionist.
A lot of what’s up now was actually posted by Science Blog readers–stealthy, deceptive Darwinists who seek to undermine the validity of Conservapedia. They are so good at blending in that the administrator has actually complimented several of them.
Oh, the idiocy. It burns!
On the other hand, Marc, I’m happily anticipating the day you will begin marketing t-shirts emblazoned with “Valenti’s War Kittens.” Seriously, that entry cracked my shit up!!!
Another biologist–but I’m going with “Evolutionista.”
[...] More fun with conservapedia from Kyso at Punk Ass Blog, complete with a hilarious conservapedia debate on cheesy potatoes (I’m for the Kellog’s cornflakes on top, not potato chips, for the record). [...]
It’s a slippery slope.
But if there’s no such thing as gravity, that shouldn’t be a problem.
Also: this post has taught me that the phrase “cheesy potatoes” becomes really, really funny after a while.