|
Also his job has nothing to do with EE. I think his main job is
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 12:13 |
|
|
PhazonLink posted:I think his main job is If even a third of his income is from his own efforts instead of Mommy Dearest’s portfolio/estate/connections, I’d be shocked. He’s drat near the Platonic ideal of a failson.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 06:53
|
|
|
Did you know that if you google for a very specific phrase, you can get very specific results? http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Leading_search_engine_recognizes_that_Richard_Dawkins_lacks_machismo edit: oh dear. Conservative has gone off the rails. http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheists_eat_babies_meme Parahexavoctal fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Apr 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
That has happened a long time ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 09:38
|
|
|
I think you'll find that Conservative is firmly on the rails, they're just different rails than the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:edit: oh dear. Conservative has gone off the rails. I love that whole page of "poo poo I pulled from my rear end" also triple lol at looking up a specific thing on google that cites yourself as the source meaning anything other than google being able to search poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:I love that whole page of "poo poo I pulled from my rear end" Conservapedia sourcing themselves from their own blogs or even other pages has been the standard for years. Probably why this thread is usually so dead. Unlike Freep it's just more pathetic than funny at this point. There's only so many "Atheism and ..." pages to laugh at before the obvious mental illness just makes it kinda sad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 11:48
|
|
|
If you want to see some great apologetics twisting in the wind, check out their article on Slavery in the Bible: http://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_Bible Basically a fat block of text, with links at the end to exhaustive apologetic works, basically saying "sure it's *called* slavery in the Bible but it's more like being a servant, and honestly they were better off that way, so it's not horrible like it sounds."
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, observe User:Conservative's exhaustive list of self-help materials: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/Personal_development_skill_sets_etc
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
Hollow-point bullets: Gold dots, Corbon and Rangers. Jacketed hollow-points from a major manufacturer. Fire 100 rounds to ensure it feeds 100%.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 07:32
|
|
|
Andy knows that Johnny Cash didn't really shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die, right? I aak, because the main page points out that the guy who just killed people in Toronto was, like so many mass murderers, wearing black.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 12:17
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Johnny Cash didn't really shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die, right? Are you open-minded enough to consider that he did?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
Mniot posted:Are you open-minded enough to consider that he did? Open your eyes. The man's entire career was him trying to tell us about a secret illegal Democrat assassination program coordinated by international bankers. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Apr 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Johnny CASH (Rothschilds) was a MAN IN BLACK (Deep State) who shot a man in RENO (Janet Reno) and thus ended up singing the PRISON BLUES (Lock Her Up). I gotta say, that's pretty drat good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Johnny CASH (Rothschilds) was a MAN IN BLACK (Deep State) who shot a man in RENO (Janet Reno) and thus ended up singing the PRISON BLUES (Lock Her Up). But how does "Docs/docks" signing "birth/berth" certificates meaning I am legally a ship and not a person and as such only have to follow naval laws fit into this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Yeah that's the thing that baffles me the most. Electrical engineering literally doesn't function without i. OK they call it j but still it's the square root of -1. You really can't be an engineer of any type without knowing a ton of math. The entirely of the mathematical system literally can only work if i exists. It doesn't exist in any way we can see but without it math just kind of breaks down. Complex numbers are in fact A Thing and they exist for a reason. You'd be surprised how many shithead conservatives there are in engineering (I'm an EE myself). It exists on this space between pure science and the business world, where you can be good at the technial aspect of something while ignoring the larger consequences of it. Medicine is another one. Any applied field really. For those with the engineering mindset, it's very easy to compartmentalize techniques like complex math, to know how they work and how to apply them, and completely reject the underlying proof. I take the tool and use it and just dont think about it. Why certain things bother the fundie set, I don't honestly know. the 1.99999 and the 2.00001 have to do with set theory which upset some people with the idea of different infinities and that being an affront to god. Andy's obsession with general relativity I honestly think is just the fact that it has the word "relativity" and he thinks that it has something to do with moral relativity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Andy's obsession with general relativity I honestly think is just the fact that it has the word "relativity" and he thinks that it has something to do with moral relativity. Yes that is exactly what he thinks, also Obama used relativity as an analogy in an essay once so that just proves it's liberal mind control.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
There's astronomers and geologists that are YECs. There's a nobel chemistry winner that believes in vitamin C mega doses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:the 1.99999 and the 2.00001 have to do with set theory which upset some people with the idea of different infinities and that being an affront to god. I think in Andy's specific case it's simply that he thinks it sounds plausible and is fundamentally incapable of admitting that he's wrong about anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
raminasi posted:I think in Andy's specific case it's simply that he thinks it sounds plausible and is fundamentally incapable of admitting that he's wrong about anything. It was Andy's way of solving the problem of the precession of Mercury's orbit without using relativity (Mercury's orbit not matching up to Newton's predictions was a big clue that something wasn't quite right with Newtonian gravity). Of course, "what if the exponent isn't exactly 2" was like the first thing people tried in the 17th century when they noticed this problem and of course they found that fudging the exponent to fit Mercury's orbit made all the other planets' orbits hilariously wrong. (There was also the problem that it made no physical sense because the 2 comes from a doing a surface integral over a sphere, so if it were different it would mean geometry is incorrect or the universe isn't 3-dimensional.) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Apr 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Andy's obsession with general relativity I honestly think is just the fact that it has the word "relativity" and he thinks that it has something to do with moral relativity. I think his specific beef is that he's a young earth creationist, but in a 6000 year old universe we should only be able to observe things 6000 lightyears away, which is demonstrably false. "Maybe the speed of light isn't a universal constant" must have been the first explanation Andy came up with for this issue, and he's insisted that physics need to change to accommodate his worldview since then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:You'd be surprised how many shithead conservatives there are in engineering (I'm an EE myself). It exists on this space between pure science and the business world, where you can be good at the technial aspect of something while ignoring the larger consequences of it. Medicine is another one. Any applied field really. For those with the engineering mindset, it's very easy to compartmentalize techniques like complex math, to know how they work and how to apply them, and completely reject the underlying proof. I take the tool and use it and just dont think about it. The fundie set has some core beliefs that they're not allowed to question. It varies by sect but a common issue comes from those that believe in Biblical literalism. There are a few passages in the Bible that science has absolutely demolished. Since the Bible can't be wrong and is the 100% true word of God then it must be science that is wrong. So science is a liberal conspiracy led by the devil! It doesn't work as precisely as they say it does and God just fudges everything a bit to make it work the way He wants it. So that number isn't always 2; sometimes it's just 1.9999....9 or 2.00....01 when God needs it to be. He could make it 5 if he really wanted to! But He doesn't. Mercury is right where He wants it and He'll wobble it into place to keep it there if he needs to Which is stupid because the Old Testament is literally the Torah and practicing Jews will tell you that it isn't entirely true. A hell of a lot of it is stories meant to teach you things. It doesn't need to be 100% literally true. Then again these people are also commonly King James Only dweebs that think that only the KJV (though they never seem to agree on which one as there wasn't just one) is the only true and real one and...bleh. Then again the underlying proof is probably part of it; electricity moves the way it does because God decided it should not because of i. raminasi posted:I think in Andy's specific case it's simply that he thinks it sounds plausible and is fundamentally incapable of admitting that he's wrong about anything. So I'm going to razor this one to this simple answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Not understanding what a square is is my favorite part. "Well what the area of a 1 inch square was .9 square inches? Got ya!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
I found a fun one: http://www.conservapedia.com/Similarities_between_Communism,_Nazism_and_liberalism Some of the arguments are quasi-plausible, though cherry-picked to hell, but I love how this one slipped by them: Nazis: "Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels." Communists: "We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately." Analysis: The Nuremberg Laws of 1934 allowed Germany to take Jewish property. Why yes, why do you all of a sudden have trouble finding a "liberal" corollary to "kick people out of our country and keep their stuff"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
Also neat, their article on Hitler has a big quote explaining why abortion and contraception should be promoted for Slavs to keep their population down. While saying nothing about how the Nazis made performing an abortion on an Aryan a capital offense unless the fetus was deformed. EDIT: and I really hope it was a troll that slid this line in: quote:The Nazis believed the woman's body belonged to the state, and they would decide whether a pregnancy would be carried out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
I've posted this itt before but I think relativity does legitimately provide a problem for certain flavors of religion, especially hyper-modernist ones like fundamentalism. The idea that there's no one privileged objective perspective on the universe is challenging to someone like Andy's conception of divinity. Not that relativity necessarily implies atheism or anything, but Andy wouldn't be Andy if he didn't knee-jerk reject any idea that required him to use the slightest bit of thought.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Not understanding what a square is is my favorite part. "Well what the area of a 1 inch square was .9 square inches? Got ya!" Which you'd then have to explain using... relativity.  ToxicSlurpee posted:the Old Testament is literally the Torah and practicing Jews will tell you that it isn't entirely true. They can't be as openly antisemitic since that liberal communist guy with the mustache who was actually anti-gun and pro-abortion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
I'm not trying to be offensive here, and I know that the answer is going to be some shade of "because they're dumb," but why can't they just reconcile stuff like astrophysics and old earth geology with "magic?" Like, God is God, he can turn sticks into snakes and all that good poo poo. Surely he can create a universe with set parameters and then fiddle with the rules while it's all in motion? Like, when God created the Earth 6000 years ago, what's stopping him from making bone-shaped mineral deposits and valleys which look like they were carved out by rivers over Millenia. Or by the time Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden there were already pre-fab Sumerian buildings lying around, etc. Same with the stars; When god created the stars on whatever day, he'd just create it so their photons were already reaching earth, even though the "source" is really really far away?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Some object because that would mean god is deceitful. Others because it would require admitting that the evidence is not in their favor. Try to get any concession out of Andy. Even a really trivial one. Won't happen. He's always right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Because God wouldn't lie to us by planting fake dinosaur bones, is the reason that explanation is rejected. Which really is reasonable, because God creating a faux old-looking universe has a number of problems: 1) If God designed the universe to trick us, how do we know His Word is true and not another lie to trick us. And furthermore how do we know the universe is 6000 years old, if He faked an old universe He could just as easily have created everything last Tuesday and built us with fake memories, fake old bodies, fake scars, etc. 2) Even if His Word is true, why would God want us to believe in Him as the Bible says and then try to trick us into not believing in Him by leaving fake evidence that the Bible isn't true. 3) Even if He does for some reason, how is it just to punish us for not following Him when He deliberately misleads us into nonbelief.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Suspicious posted:Some object because that would mean god is deceitful. Others because it would require admitting that the evidence is not in their favor. Try to get any concession out of Andy. Even a really trivial one. Won't happen. He's always right. I mean god basically murdered an elderly woman via despair-induced heart attack when he was testing if Abraham was a sufficiently heartless bastard in the whole Binding of Isaac debacle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
There actually a few YECs who use the "universe was created to appear old" argument. They don't see it as lying or being deceitful. They see it as a test of faith in one sense, a way to see if people will believe God's word even when it seems the world is against them. They also use the story of Adam and Eve as proof God creates things with the appearance of age, since God didn't create Adam and Eve as infants, he created them as fully grown humans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:There actually a few YECs who use the "universe was created to appear old" argument. They don't see it as lying or being deceitful. They see it as a test of faith in one sense, a way to see if people will believe God's word even when it seems the world is against them. They also use the story of Adam and Eve as proof God creates things with the appearance of age, since God didn't create Adam and Eve as infants, he created them as fully grown humans. He also created them immortal, without knowledge of good and evil, and with apparently painless childbirth for women. According to some of the Midrashim, they were also literally luminous beings - that's where the imagery in Aaronofsky's Noah is from. The Biblical depiction of pre-Fall Adam and Eve were pretty divorced from what we understand as Human, and that's without bringing up how long people lived before the Flood and poo poo. But, yeah. The Bible is full of God testing people and deceiving them, although usually not outright lying to them. I mean, you have Job which is an entire book of God loving with a guy to test him. If anything, God creating fossils and stars that seem to be millions or billions of light years away to gently caress with us and test our faith is MORE consistent with the Bible than it is inconsistent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:There actually a few YECs who use the "universe was created to appear old" argument. They don't see it as lying or being deceitful. They see it as a test of faith in one sense, a way to see if people will believe God's word even when it seems the world is against them. They also use the story of Adam and Eve as proof God creates things with the appearance of age, since God didn't create Adam and Eve as infants, he created them as fully grown humans. A lot of it isn't God being deceitful for trying to trick us but rather letting the devil do it. God is all powerful and doesn't lie but he's totally allowed to let the devil tempt us. That's also part of why hardcore literalists hate science so much; they believe that teaching that the universe is billions of years old is being in league with the devil and tempting souls away from Heaven. The core view there is that Earth is a battleground where souls are tested. You see, mankind is imperfect so we have to prove ourselves worthy. That's why the devil gets to try to tempt us; it isn't that God's a jerk we just need to prove that we're worth of His kingdom. There's a particular passage that says that the Earth doesn't move; it's a stationary thing that never, ever changes in any meaningful way. Biblical literalists believe that every word in the Bible is true and thus teaching that the Earth changes is bad; hence evolution being bad. Same goes for the Big Bang; that insists that there were times the Earth didn't exist and that it grew over time of rocks smashing into it repeatedly. Those ideas go against the passage that says the Earth is a fixed, permanent thing so anybody that believes it has been tempted by Satan. It doesn't cause problems for Christianity in and of itself; the Pope just kind of shrugged and said "well if that's how the universe worse then God must have made it work that way." It causes problems for some religions but no others; depends on the beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:EDIT: and I really hope it was a troll that slid this line in: This is actually quite a popular myth partially fed by propaganda from the time like Disney's Education for Death
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
There's also just a lot of young earth creationists who reat the fact that things look old as being about as relevant as what colors the curtains on a house are. The sky is basically just a decorative treatment for earth, and even if you can go all the way to a planet that doesn't mean there's anything beyond the solar system that's really real!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
Liquid Dinosaur posted:I'm not trying to be offensive here, and I know that the answer is going to be some shade of "because they're dumb," but why can't they just reconcile stuff like astrophysics and old earth geology with "magic?" Like, God is God, he can turn sticks into snakes and all that good poo poo. Surely he can create a universe with set parameters and then fiddle with the rules while it's all in motion? Because Andy and his ilk are trying to fight against the scientific views and know that "magic" isn't an answer that gets them anything but laughs. They have to come up with explanations to both argue against science and at the same time appeal to people because some dolts accept poo poo if it sounds good Liquid Dinosaur posted:I mean god basically murdered an elderly woman via despair-induced heart attack when he was testing if Abraham was a sufficiently heartless bastard in the whole Binding of Isaac debacle. Hell, go read Job, he wipes everything in Job's life out and fucks him over just to win a bet. God is the real fucker in the bible. Even Jesus cursed a tree for daring to not produce fruit out of season. Go read the gospel of Thomas, Jesus was a loving rear end in a top hat in his youth SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Apr 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:This is actually quite a popular myth partially fed by propaganda from the time like Disney's Education for Death I've watched that cartoon, and I do not remember the forced pregnancy sequence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Disney's Education for Death
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 12:13 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:A lot of it isn't God being deceitful for trying to trick us but rather letting the devil do it. God is all powerful and doesn't lie but he's totally allowed to let the devil tempt us. That's also part of why hardcore literalists hate science so much; they believe that teaching that the universe is billions of years old is being in league with the devil and tempting souls away from Heaven. The core view there is that Earth is a battleground where souls are tested. You see, mankind is imperfect so we have to prove ourselves worthy. That's why the devil gets to try to tempt us; it isn't that God's a jerk we just need to prove that we're worth of His kingdom. Haha that's some bullshit and you know it. Show me where the rapture is literally described in the Bible bro
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2018 02:05
|
|
