Surpassed Rush Limbaugh's traffic? Wow that explains everything about your politic views. Seems Ancient History on Wiki didn't have raptor Jesus in it.

Conservapedia is not conservative, its a website that is written from a (fundamentalist) Christian standpoint that brings in factual relativism to its articles adding homophobic, fascist and racist statements to other issues. It has fallen trap to the exact same criticism that it had leveled against Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#Reactions_and_criticisms

But that's okay, the Internet is big enough for everyone, but what I think it does show that you can meld the Internet now to bring you whatever view point you possess regardless if it conflicts with the facts.

Their funniest article is this http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

When are Janet Reno and the FBI going to siege this cult? Oh wait, they're Christians, that makes it o.k. Shame on wikipedia for removing unfounded supernatural claims from delusional cult members.

Hmm, bit of internet *politics? "Welcomes all, the way Americans do." .... he's talking about Wikipedia, but I say, in response to this being American rah-rah propaganda... BWA-HA-HA-HA! *lies

Adding video to channels (Lies, Politics) - requested by Krupo.

CHOGGIE-PEDIA!!!!!!

Conservative nutbag says "On wikipedia, on the evolution page, if we add information about creationism it gets deleted... its not allowed" (paraphrase).

Conservatives: go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution. Take a glance at your clock and realize how little time and effort it took you to find this page. Search for "creationist" on that page, and in just that section of the page, kindly note the following page links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Please note that the above links are all proof that information about creationism is not only allowed, but so is information about the argument and all the alternative evolution ideas that take theism into account.

Your brains are begging your bodies to join them in the afterlife.

ps. This is why everyone thinks you're full of shit.

Taken from Conservapedia's evolution page:

"The great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution."

What are they trying to say? How is this even relevant? Why is the fact that historical figures before Darwin's time didn't propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version relevant at all? Isn't that why we hold Darwin up as the father of the theory in the first place? Because he made the proposing first?

Could the following paragraph be included in the automobile section?:

"The great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin did not invent automobiles. Even after the invention of the automobile most leading scientists did not drive or use automobiles."

The whole paragraph doesn't bring any information to the table but it does subtly suggest that the Theory of Evolution is academically controversial. Wait, isn't that bias?

So is Conservapedia against bias as a principle or do they just not like being disagreed with?

Meh.

i'm on your side of the argument but- automobiles were invented evolution was not...

I grew up around kids like that. Heck, for a time, I was a kid like that.

A huge number of those kids will have changed their opinions drastically by the time they graduate college. (Most homeschooled kids get some level of postsecondary education) Exposure to the facts of biology and history frequently shows these kids that their parents and teachers were wrong.

"When we tried to add Theological Material to The Scientific Theory Of Evolution Is was Removed"

Noo!!! The Bias!

Oh and Isaac Newton, Christian indeed, and in fear of his life becasue of his love of alchemy (which was taken in a dim view by the Church)

So so many things wrong here...
can someone remove their blinkers

They claim Wikipedia is biased so they create "Converapedia"
That doesn't sound biased...

I would like to detract my handful of hits from the number he claims are "flocking" to conservapedia for information. I merely stopped to see a bloody carwreck of human logic and stupidity. And I may have backed up to look a few more times. I'm such a lookie-loo...

By the way, someone already came up with a word to describe conservapedia: Truthiness. according to Wikiality (a clearly non-baised source for the definitions of made-up words...)- it is "the reality that is intuitively known without regard to liberal ideals such as reason and logic." Think about it. The site and its purpose was mocked before it was even created.

*canada

Adding video to channels (Canada) - requested by Zifnab.