Today's Conservapedia Brain Twister

The edit in question was added in the article on December 6, 20007. So it has lasted little over a year. See the dif http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Moon&diff=347574&oldid=342… here. The account which made the edit has few other edits so the comment was likely intended as a parody edit.

However, between December 2007 and now a large variety of other editors have edited the article without fixing this statement. This includes Ed Poor, TerryH and Philip J. Rayment all of whom are sysops on Conservapedia. (Ed Poor is the editor who famously thought that radiation and radioactivity were synonyms). The article was also edited by Roger Schlafly, Andy's smarter and saner brother who took the time to remove the standard misunderstanding that the phases of the moon are caused by the Earth's shadow http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Moon&diff=487956&oldid=477… . Even after this, Philip reinserted it apparently thinking this was actually correct in some form (see http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Moon&diff=next&oldid=487956 )although Roger then explained to Philip why he was being an idiot and Philip corrected that part. So the article has had some attention paid to it.

Also, one other point: when linking to a wiki article you should link to the specific version in question rather than the current version that way the link will still have what you want if it is changed later. This works at most wikis. It works a bit less so at Conservapedia because they are fond of deleting stuff that is embarrassing.

One of my clients (I'm a computer guy, not a hooker as many believe) and I were talking about that chimp what freaked out on that lady, and at some point I mentioned something like "well, we're just primates too", to which he said the dumbest thing I've heard in some time. Ready? No? Well, here it is anyway-
"Scientifically, yes, I guess we're primates"

As opposed to what? Take away science and the word primate loses any sort of actual meaning. I nearly choked myself to death. I like the guy and all, but his religion makes it impossible to have any kind of serious discussion, simply because he enters into any idea with a pre-fabricated level of certainty that's just unreal.

I looked up the reference he gives for the sentence you quoted.(his reference 9) It directly contradicts the conservapedia claim. But it does give a very nice one page summary of the Great Impact theory for those who want to check it out.

I also looked up the next reference in that paragraph. (his reference 10) It discusses 3 tests of the Great Impact theory, and in the very first paragraph the paper says "None of these is supportive of the Giant Impact model, but neither do they disprove it."

So, as usual, the conservapedia claim is not even supported by its own references.

Hmm, looks like my first comment didn't get through the spam filter because it had too many links. Resubmitting with only 1 link:

The edit in question was added in the article on December 6, 20007. So it has lasted little over a year. See the dif
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Moon&diff=347574&oldid=342…
here. The account which made the edit has few other edits so the comment was likely intended as a parody edit.

However, between December 2007 and now a large variety of other editors have edited the article without fixing this statement. This includes Ed Poor, TerryH and Philip J. Rayment all of whom are sysops on Conservapedia. (Ed Poor is the editor who famously thought that radiation and radioactivity were synonyms). The article was also edited by Roger Schlafly, Andy's smarter and saner brother who took the time to remove the standard misunderstanding that the phases of the moon are caused by the Earth's shadow. Even after this, Philip reinserted it apparently thinking this was actually correct in some form although Roger then explained to Philip why he was being an idiot and Philip corrected that part. So the article has had some attention paid
to it.

"creation science" Sucks.

The moon article links to their Philosophy of Science article, which contains the following jewel:

"Materialism has been scientifically disproven; matter has been proven to be merely one configuration of energy among many, and many other configurations of energy have no corresponding material reality."

T-A-R-D, that spells "conservapedia", er, "moon"

A quick skim through Crappopedia's talk page for Moon shows the depths of these people's insanity! It's difficult to avoid dangerous levels of boggling of the minds!

Their arguments are of the form "I am holier than thou, therefore what I say of the moon is true". When that fails it's fingers in the ear and "La La! Can't hear you!".

But this anti-science isn't really about anti-science, it's about the power to bully other people. Arsefly and his Arsefly-lickers don't want to enlighten, they just want to bully even weaker minds. Nasty, nasty turds.

Replying to #2 "Scientifically, yes, I guess we're primates" As opposed to what?

Your friend isn't as silly as you seem to think. In religious terms we're not all primates, you have to be a bishop or an archbishop to be a primate. Show respect to our primate friends.

"The edit in question was added in the article on December 6, 20007."

Is Conservapedia using the Creation Time Calendar, then??

I also read today elsewhere that a public poll was held in Holland on the evolution question in the year of Charles Darwin's 200th centenary.

I imagine the webbed feet and metre-tall elevated nose are finally being recognised as necessary and a blessing in disguise.

I suppose they have solved the problem of falsifying things which are not falsifyably. Incidentally, I have observed an eclipse in which the moon, because it was at one of the more distant points in its orbit, did not completly cover the disc of the sun.