Republican Science....

C

Cypress

Well-known member
“Conservapedia – the conservative answer to Wikipedia.

Evidently, Wikipedia is too full of those pesky things that liberals like to call substantiated, and empirically-based facts.

Conservapedia straightens all that out. They make sure to give credence to the “scientific” theory, that the earth is only 6,000 years old:


The Pleistocene Geologic Epoch

in Conservapedia

The Pleistocene epoch is a theorized period of time that is said to have occurred 1.8 million to 11,000 years ago. It is during this period that modern man is theorized to have evolved The Pleistocene is also posits frequent glaciations.....

Young earth creationist scientists believe that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error. These scientists believe that the earth is young and has multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that the earth is young. Also, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments in addition to geology showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age. In addition, young earth creationist scientists have a number of arguments against the position of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe.



http://www.conservapedia.com/Pleistocene
Click to expand...
 
I read some at the link. Pretty wild, the universe is only 6000 years old as well...
And consider that these are the psople who just say no to drugs. A good thing because they sure do not need them to hallucinate.
 
Umm if the universe is only 6,000 years old how can we see objects that are over 6,000 light years away ?
 
uscitizen said:
I read some at the link. Pretty wild, the universe is only 6000 years old as well...
And consider that these are the psople who just say no to drugs. A good thing because they sure do not need them to hallucinate.
Click to expand...


The thing that I find interesting, is the methodology that is used to support this entry in Conservapedia.

For the last 500 years, since the Enlightenment, rational thought has required us to seek and use information and facts that are impartial, can be substantiated, and are based on observation. Deductive reasoning, in essence. Or, the Scientific Method. We let the observed facts lead us to a conclusion.

Note that this conservapedia entry is the opposite. Its' theological rather than enlightened. They start with the premise that "creation theory" is an acceptable scientific alternative, and then go out into cyberspace to find all sorts of kooky and scientifically invaldid sources, to "corroborate" their preconcieved theory.

It's Con's at their best. Have a preconcieved idea, and then go to partisan sources that aren't impartial to back your theory up ;)
 
uscitizen said:
Umm if the universe is only 6,000 years old how can we see objects that are over 6,000 light years away ?
Click to expand...
Now that is very simple to answer ----God put all those little stars and planets out there (they aren't really out there) and invented and buried Dino Bones just to confound us simpletons. RIGHT? HEH HEH :rolleyes:
 
LOL, some how when I initially read this I skipped over the word "Universe". Wow. These people are nutz.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm if the universe is only 6,000 years old how can we see objects that are over 6,000 light years away ?
Click to expand...

One would have to reject the Big Bang theory, and the empirical observation of an expanding universe.... One would have to assume that, spatially and temporally, the universe is much the same today as the day when it was "created" 6,000 years ago.

This is called republican science and republican logic. ;)
 
Cypress said:
One would have to reject the Big Bang theory, and the empirical observation of an expanding universe.... One would have to assume that, spatially and temporally, the universe is much the same today as the day when it was "created" 6,000 years ago.

This is called republican science and republican logic. ;)
Click to expand...

The scary/sad thing is that these people actually believe, not only what they propose, but that what they're supposedly doing is really science in the first place, and they rigorously defend it as such. My husband says that there exists a subpopulation who are inherently incapable of logical thought; I believe he's right.

Doniston, about the dino bones -- have you read about the Creationist Museum where they're showing scenes of humans and dinosaurs coexisting? Arrrrgh!
 
Thorn said:
The scary/sad thing is that these people actually believe, not only what they propose, but that what they're supposedly doing is really science in the first place, and they rigorously defend it as such. My husband says that there exists a subpopulation who are inherently incapable of logical thought; I believe he's right.

Doniston, about the dino bones -- have you read about the Creationist Museum where they're showing scenes of humans and dinosaurs coexisting? Arrrrgh!
Click to expand...

Didn't they breed together too?
 
I guess tha told movie with Raquel Welch and the dinosaurs was true then !
20000 BC I think it was. oops they got the date wrong, must have been 6000 BC.
 
Thorn said:
The scary/sad thing is that these people actually believe, not only what they propose, but that what they're supposedly doing is really science in the first place, and they rigorously defend it as such. My husband says that there exists a subpopulation who are inherently incapable of logical thought; I believe he's right.

Doniston, about the dino bones -- have you read about the Creationist Museum where they're showing scenes of humans and dinosaurs coexisting? Arrrrgh!
Click to expand...
Yes, I've read about it, but haven't visited. I prefer the Disny channel :)
 
Thorn said:
The scary/sad thing is that these people actually believe, not only what they propose, but that what they're supposedly doing is really science in the first place, and they rigorously defend it as such. My husband says that there exists a subpopulation who are inherently incapable of logical thought; I believe he's right.

Doniston, about the dino bones -- have you read about the Creationist Museum where they're showing scenes of humans and dinosaurs coexisting? Arrrrgh!
Click to expand...


My husband says that there exists a subpopulation who are inherently incapable of logical thought; I believe he's right.


With certain exceptions, I disagree. Obviously, anytime you get a woman within half a block of a shoe store, all logic and rationality is off the table.

Humans, however can be taught to be logical. Supposedly, that's why we have an education system. The problem is when children are indoctrinated with religion, theocracy, and faith-based belief systems. These do not require deductive reasoning.




Caveat: Kidding about the shoe thing....hold fire, on the sexist comments!
 
Cypress said:
Humans, however can be taught to be logical. Supposedly, that's why we have an education system. The problem is when children are indoctrinated with religion, theocracy, and faith-based belief systems. These do not require deductive reasoning.




Caveat: Kidding about the shoe thing....hold fire, on the sexist comments!
Click to expand...


Whew! Good thing you put in that disclaimer! :p

I think the key word there is "supposedly". Far too few teachers are equipped to promote logical, critical thinking. Part of this is reflected in the exam protocols, wherein questions are geared to simply parrot some memorized perceived absolutes instead of asking students to reason things out. Multiple choice may be easier to grade, but isn't much of a challenging format.

Our entire Med. School curriculum has been overhauled to require a more critical, operational approach than ever before. I can only say that it's about time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top