E=MC squared is a liberal plot

Robear wrote:

BTW, this area will see 17 year locusts again in 2013! That's the brood which hit in 1979 and 1996. I remember though that that was nowhere near the size of the 1970 brood, which hits again in 2021. That one had periods where you literally couldn't walk outside in some areas around Baltimore without crushing cicadas underfoot and feeling them fly into you. And the sound was incredibly loud, too.

Looking forward to 2021. (What's funny is that the current 17 year/13 year broods are less than 10,000 years old, as the Ice Age means that the US East Coast was not a conducive habitat. So those are actually indicative of evolution, not exclusive of it, since brood breeding is specific to locations, date of emergence and calls.)

Readying my wok....

LobsterMobster wrote:
Tkyl wrote:

Anyone else find it funny that these counterexamples that are indisputable have a probability of being correct that is nearly 100% and not actually 100%?

To be fair, a scientific 100% is a pretty rare thing because man, life is complicated. I happen to think that when science arrives at a "near 100%" in an honest and scientific way, that's good enough. Then again I'm also willing to update my beliefs as new evidence comes to light.

I get that science is very rarely 100%. But when a person claims that their statements are absolutely indisputable, but then claims that the chance of them being correct isn't 100%, you have to just laugh.

Tkyl wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Tkyl wrote:

Anyone else find it funny that these counterexamples that are indisputable have a probability of being correct that is nearly 100% and not actually 100%?

To be fair, a scientific 100% is a pretty rare thing because man, life is complicated. I happen to think that when science arrives at a "near 100%" in an honest and scientific way, that's good enough. Then again I'm also willing to update my beliefs as new evidence comes to light.

I get that science is very rarely 100%. But when a person claims that their statements are absolutely indisputable, but then claims that the chance of them being correct isn't 100%, you have to just laugh.

Fair enough.

baggachipz wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The whole example of the 13 and 17 year cicadas reminds me of the embarrassment of the banana video Cam Cameron made so famous.

You mean Kirk Cameron? Yeah, that's a classic.

WOW. I heartily encourage looking at the other gem on that Youtube page, "Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare". The is nothing as mystifying to me as someone without a basic education in evolution, biology, or basic science, explaining something.

Ballotechnic wrote:
baggachipz wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The whole example of the 13 and 17 year cicadas reminds me of the embarrassment of the banana video Cam Cameron made so famous.

You mean Kirk Cameron? Yeah, that's a classic.

WOW. I heartily encourage looking at the other gem on that Youtube page, "Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare". The is nothing as mystifying to me as someone without a basic education in evolution, biology, or basic science, explaining something.

Best part of the banana vid is the moment the dude realizes what he's about to do in demonstrating how perfectly bananas fit the human mouth.

NSMike wrote:

That Lancet study about the vaccinations has since been retracted and the scientist discredited.

People still choose to believe it's true. Unfortunately, there is no vaccine for stupid.

I thought that Paleocon was the vaccine for stupid.

That Lancet study about the vaccinations has since been retracted and the scientist discredited.

People still choose to believe it's true. Unfortunately, there is no vaccine for stupid.

Ballotechnic wrote:
baggachipz wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The whole example of the 13 and 17 year cicadas reminds me of the embarrassment of the banana video Cam Cameron made so famous.

You mean Kirk Cameron? Yeah, that's a classic.

WOW. I heartily encourage looking at the other gem on that Youtube page, "Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare". The is nothing as mystifying to me as someone without a basic education in evolution, biology, or basic science, explaining something.

Alright, I know I'm stating the obvious when I say this doesn't make sense, but it doesn't make sense.

What the HELL does he mean that the food industry depends on evolution not happening?

NSMike wrote:

What the HELL does he mean that the food industry depends on evolution not happening?

Who would buy a packet of bologna critters? Or peanut-apes?
Statistically speaking, if their interpretation of 'evolution' exists, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, would have encountered a box of Animal-Crackers by now.

EDIT: I get the feeling that the peanut butter man was once a young boy disappointed that his sea monkeys were not playful sentient friends but just a packet of scummy water and never recovered.

Ulairi wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

I'm going to invoke Poe's Law.

Conservapedia isn't a joke. If it is, it's the best-hidden joke ever. These people are actually this stupid.

I think it has to be some people trolling the internet. I mean, no one could actually believe what's on that site.

I grew up around people who believe this crap, and I even have family members who believe it.

So no, it's not just people trolling the internet (or even if it is, they have a legitimate audience).

I've been going on what I'd call a bona fide adventure through Conservapedia. Man, if you need a laugh, or a cry, that's the spot.

NSMike wrote:

What the HELL does he mean that the food industry depends on evolution not happening?

Excuse me, I appear to have found a T-Rex in my salsa.

Jonman wrote:

I thought that Paleocon was the vaccine for stupid.

No, he's the cure, not the prevention.

If anyone just happens to invent the cure for stupidity, it would be very nice if you could let your fellow Goodjers know in advance. I'd like to free up a little capital for investment.

The vaccine for stupid is education, and in a society that values celebrity gossip and denigrates critical thought, it is in short, short supply.

Ballotechnic wrote:
NSMike wrote:

What the HELL does he mean that the food industry depends on evolution not happening?

Excuse me, I appear to have found a T-Rex in my salsa.

God put the T-Rex in your salsa as a test of faith.

Gravey wrote:

The vaccine for stupid is education, and in a society that values celebrity gossip and denigrates critical thought, it is in short, short supply.

Going to college, I can tell you that it is not the cure for stupid. Stupid persists.

muttonchop wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
NSMike wrote:

What the HELL does he mean that the food industry depends on evolution not happening?

Excuse me, I appear to have found a T-Rex in my salsa.

God put the T-Rex in your salsa as a test of faith.

Surviving a T-Rex in my salsa might well convince me of a the presence of The Almighty.

It would probably convince me to buy salsa in smaller containers in the future too.

Farscry wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

I'm going to invoke Poe's Law.

Conservapedia isn't a joke. If it is, it's the best-hidden joke ever. These people are actually this stupid.

I think it has to be some people trolling the internet. I mean, no one could actually believe what's on that site.

I grew up around people who believe this crap, and I even have family members who believe it.

So no, it's not just people trolling the internet (or even if it is, they have a legitimate audience). :(

Ditto.

Who would buy a packet of bologna critters? Or peanut-apes?

I think you're severely undervaluing such commodities.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
sheared wrote:

All the religion bashing is fun (lets face it, sites like these demand it be done), but is this any different than the folks that still believe the US government was responsible for 9-11?

The people who believe paranoid 9/11 conspiracies aren't trying to get textbooks rewritten in order to push their viewpoint.

Possibly. I'm sure there are some out there that would if they could.

Fortunately, real science proves these nut jobs wrong in both cases.

The irony, it burns.

If you brought some of these folks into a museum, say the Smithsonian, would they burst into ash?

Kraint wrote:

The irony, it burns.

Check the Open-Mindedness Test page. Something like "Are you willing to acknowledge that same-sex marriage could dull our competitive edge in the Olympics?" I wish someone had asked me that in real life so they could have watched my gradual crumbling from stone-faced attention to gales of laughter to the regaining of composure just long enough to gasp out "Are...are..>snerk<...are you...>cough<...are you being serious?"

Oh my. I hadn't looked into Conservapedia yet. Wow. Just randomly came upon this while browsing.

"Rachel Maddow (b. 1973) is a left-wing American former radio personality for the defunct Air America radio network and current news anchor for MSNBC. She has a bachelors degree from Stanford University, and earned a doctorate from Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. Maddow is one of the few openly gay personalities in the mainstream news media. Like almost everyone at the MSNBC network, she has an immoral world view and uses her position in the media to advance her homosexual agenda. As an outspoken opponent of former U.S President George W. Bush, she uses her platform to oppose Conservative values and the Republican Party, while being a slavish supporter and follower of Barack Obama, never criticizing his socialistic policies."

Then this is the treatment Glenn Beck gets.

"Glenn Beck is a conservative and libertarian talk-radio host and television anchor employed by Fox News.[1] [2] His radio show, The Glenn Beck Program, is syndicated by over 230 radio stations across the United States. His television show, Glenn Beck, appeared daily on CNN Headline News, before he switched to FOX, during the 6:00 p.m. hour (EDT).
Beck is the author of five books, including The Real America: Messages from the Heart and Heartland and three #1 New York Times Bestsellers, An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems, The Christmas Sweater, Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, and most recently Arguing With Idiots.
Beck is a Mormon, having converted after recovering from alcoholism."

It doesn't exactly appear to be balanced.

It doesn't exactly appear to be balanced.

Of course not. Aside from overlaying Maddow's description with their own subjective interpretations of how she addresses the gay/lesbian issues facing this country (which are very visible and political, by the way, fair game for punditry), it's simply a lie that she's never criticized Obama.

NSMike wrote:
It doesn't exactly appear to be balanced.

Of course not. Aside from overlaying Maddow's description with their own subjective interpretations of how she addresses the gay/lesbian issues facing this country (which are very visible and political, by the way, fair game for punditry), it's simply a lie that she's never criticized Obama.

I know. I'm not surprised, I am just bemused. The stark contrast between the bare facts in the Glenn Beck article and the rampant subjectivity in the Maddow article is funny. My favorite was this, though.

"Like almost everyone at the MSNBC network, she has an immoral world view..."

I don't think that would pass an encyclopedia sniff test.

Conservapedia is a fantastic study in cognitive dissonace. It's basically the mindset of the conspiracy theorist wedded to an entire ideology instead of UFO:s or contrails or vaccines.

The Maddow/Beck thing isn't exactly surprising. It's Conservapedia. It doesn't claim to be balanced.

For me, it's highly representative of the modern conservative movement. I hear elements of it in political conversations every day.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I don't fault someone for being wrong but I do fault them for refusing to be right.

I just might have to sig that.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:

Conservapedia is a fantastic study in cognitive dissonace. It's basically the mindset of the conspiracy theorist wedded to an entire ideology instead of UFO:s or contrails or vaccines.

I really miss those guys. They were fun and harmless, and sometimes you'd get a nice spooky thrill by thinking "What if they're right!?" X-Files also kicked ass.

Kraint wrote:

The irony, it burns.

Oh, that's superb...

an example given on Conservapedia's page on 'Deliberate Ignorance' wrote:

Liberal Internet discussion boards quickly delete posts that present facts contradicting liberal ideology and ban users making such posts.

Yeah, let's see what their response is to me starting to edit some pages in such a way that contradicts their conservative ideology.