I hope he won’t come back. I really hope that he goes over to Creationwiki and stays there.

Anyway, I might try to put together a page pointing out how the persecution they feel they are experiencing is not an evil conspiracy by the NSF but merely a matter of long-standing Constitutional law.

If only my English or Physics or Astronomy teacher would let me get away with only using one quote…

Among other things, it will be the death of the political right in this country if it is not the death of the country altogether.
It encourages; indeed, institutionalizes; systematic deceit among conservative political candidates.
If asked the usual question, “do you believe in evolution?”, the HONEST answer from most credible candidates would be something along the lines of “What do you think I am, an illiterate peasant? Of course I believe in evolution.” I know this for a fact about certain state and local candidates and I would be surprised if it is not true of most presidential candidates as well. They are, after all, lawyers and high-end business types for the most part.
Instead, though, they have to lie or hedge or tie themselves in knots to avoid offending the superstition lobby. The cumulative effect of this is easily imagined.

http://creationwiki.org/White_Hole_Cosmology

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071211-human-evolution.html

I looked into the literature on redshift quantization some recently and didn’t get the impression that it had been disproven. Could you give at least an outline of how it has been disproven? I didn’t read the whole thread that was your first link, but what I did read showed that there is indeed still a controversy. As I’m sure you must know, there have been many papers showing quantization.

Here is the link if you’re lazy.

It’s really hard to resist, though.

Anyway, if you want to see something funny, check out the discussion on geocentricity.

It’s amusing to see creationists argue with other creationists on basic Physics. =)

Makes me sick. Stupid Creationists, Science is for _smart people_, stop trying to think already and go back to singing your 7-11 praise songs and eating some dead nonexistent Jewish guy.

BTW… go to http://www.metapedia.org if you want to check out something really wrong (think Conservapedia is too pinko, try Metapedia!). The real problem with wiki’s isn’t that anyone can edit them, it’s that anyone can create their own “alternative” for the similarly deranged.

Have you seen the video over at Sadly, No! http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/8114.html ? Must be from the same site. The video would almost be funny except someone seems to believe such stupid things.

“Comments required” is up to the whim of the people administering the wiki, by the way. Somehow I don’t think they’d be averse to deleting any edits, associated comments, etc., they didn’t like from the underlying database.

Getting into a wiki-editing contest on their turf is futile IMHO; your effort is best spent elsewhere.

Far more worthwhile is to critique the published books, public statements and the like of the charlatans, snake oil sales folk, and the truly pig-headed who will never be shaken from their belief, and doing so in a public forum in the full light of day. I think far more folks will be reached and might be influenced by such criticism of baloney than would be by attempting to edit a site which is read mostly by people who are already fully convinced of the “truths” of the content.

While the web is a vast network, it is still out of the mainstream for most of the world. I would like to see a barrage of letters and phone calls to the networks from outraged citizens when they air the views of the frauds
who espouse any whacko idea, philosophy, religion – name it. PBS still puts on Deepak Chopra, for god’s sake!

Will. M

http://creationwiki.org/Anticreation

I think you’re fighting a lost cause if you provide input to this wiki.