I tried searching to see if anyone has brought this up but I read about it in Der Spiegel online http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,469969,00.html

Seems that there’s a take off on Wikapedia for creationist.  http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page

It’s pretty amusing to read.  Another one was http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page  Which just seams to be a big rant.

Enjoy the reading.  :evil:

I like the Darwin fish (upside down, dead?) in the form field of creatinwiki. Clever!

Yeah, those creationists are clever devils, always evolving. :wink:

The site just points out the mixed blessing that is the Internet. Sure, it provides a forum for marginalized ideological nutcases like us   to exchange ideas, but it also puts any “knowledge” on an equal footing, including the wisdom of the ignorant, the stupid, the crazy, or the malign. Without a fair bit of sophisticated background information to decode the affiliations and agendas of the providers, anyone seeking information or insight will have a hard time deciding what is reasonable to believe and what isn’t, how legitimate a given source is on a given topic. I guess I have to believe that on balance more opinions available freely makes us on average better informed and freer, but when I picture my daughter trolling the web for knowledge some day soon, I can only hope I’ve given her a good enough balony detection kit.

Silliness.

Silliness? Yes. But dangerous silliness. Read here .

Stupid silliness.

It is certainly true that Darwinian notions of evolution have been twisted by racists in order for them to pursue their irrational ends. But one could make a much stronger argument in the same vein about Christianity. It has been used to justify anti-semitism, homophobia, slavery and bigotry of all sorts, including racism. Just look at the KKK with their burning crosses.

deleted by the author

deleted by the author

:shock:

As dangerous as it is, what’s bugging me is that their “portal” looks like the Stargate. You know, from the little-known sci-fi TV show?

I hope it’s not a ‘gate fan running this…

[quote author=“George Benedik”]...and a take off on YouTube for Christians, GodTube . All they need is a new version of Google, Godgle? :D

Have you seen Kirk Cameron’s Banana, The Athiest’s Nightmare ?  

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!

Soda pop tab?

It could be just because I have issues, but I find soda pop cans much more easier to open up than bananas.

*continues to struggle with banana*

You know, they have some serious errors in their Creation v. Evolution section. 

1. Evolution is a scientific view not an Atheistic worldview.
2. Order from chaos?  If there wasn’t some form of order, then we wouldn’t be able to study anything.
3.  The Bible is off by a few billion years (but we all knew that they think the Bible is inerrant and written by God rather than man)
4.  They don’t know what theory means.
5.  Accelerated decay   Are we on Comedy Central?  2.5 days? 

They have determined that the most likely times for accelerated decay were the first 2.5 days of the creation week, and during the flood and shortly thereafter.

Sorry, but I just can’t help but laugh at this stuff. I know, I should feel sorry for them and their attachment to *cough* dogma, but it’s so funny.

Oh boy!    It gets worse on Conservapedia.  :(

Mriana - 28 March 2007 03:28 PM

2. Order from chaos?  If there wasn’t some form of order, then we wouldn’t be able to study anything.

What I find interesting is they claim that a common thread in creation myths is forming order from chaos. Of course that in doesn’t mean Genesis chapters 1 & 2 is a myth, but do they ever pause and think about why these myths are so similar?

One thing that always confuses me is the literal translation of the story of Genesis.  There are, as many of you know, two conflicting stories in the Genesis Creation story http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html, and not small little details.  For example were humans created before animals or were animals created before humans, were Adam and Eve created together or was Adam created first then Eve.  This brings up an interesting choice, if you are reading the bible and taking a literal translation then one of these stories has to be thrown out, or you have to make inferences and theorize as to why there are the two conflicting stories, if that is the case then literal translation is thrown right out the window.  This then brings up another quandary if the God of the Bible is all knowing and all powerful, and perfect in all accounts why then the different accounts he/she either made a mistake   , or he/she gets some kind of enjoyment out of misleading his/her people