Conservapedia, the knowledge latrine of the internet takes on Einstein:
The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.[1] Here is a list of 22 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.
Here’s one of the examples:
9. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54.
(via Reddit)
Link seems relatively broken…
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@conservapedia.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
In the link above (Conservapedia, the knowledge latrine of the internet takes on Einstein), there is no “www.”. Add that, and it works. Most websites will assume the “www.”, but apparently not Conservapedia.
The link is not broken, their entire web site is broken. Maybe they should pray to Jesus to have him fix it.
I wish the Rapture WOULD happen and suck all these morons off the planet, so the rest of us could get busy and do things rationally!!
In case you’re not familiar with the correspondence between Andrew Schlafly and Richard Lenski, always a good read: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog
That is one of the most epic verbal beatdowns I have ever read.
Epic indeed. Thanks for the read :).
Albert Einstein vs. Andrew Schlafly in a battle of the minds.
Even easier to pick the winner here than in Godzilla vs. Bambi.
Wow, a litany of bullshit.
The fact that GPS relies on relativistic corrections was added by someone, then removed by the Schlafly himself, justifying it by, uhm…, sheer denial of reality.
Like “Evolutionists”, people who believe in the ‘controversial’ theory of relativity are now dubbed “Relativists”.
Are they just trying to move the Overton window by making up clearly batshit crazy ideas?
As is often said, I couldn’t make this shit up if I tried.
I was raised in a very fundamentalist Christian environment, and I think I know what happened here.
Fundies reject moral relativism because it doesn’t let them tell other people what to do. It is somehow thought of as equivalent to atheism (no god=no morality=its all relative), and humanism.
Moral relativism, I think, is simply the idea that we each do what is right and so morality is determined individually. It definitely does not want to reprimand other cultures for lacking Western ideals. Every sociology class I took in college was saturated with it. As a side note, Sam Harris has made excellent arguments against moral relativism, saying that we really should say that female genital mutilation is wrong, not matter what the culture says.
Then somehow, these krazy konservatives confused moral relativism with physical relativity. And they knew they had to scream and cry about it, otherwise E=mc2 might lead people away from Jesus.
There are different types of moral relativism.
At it’s base (descriptive), it merely acknowledges to given the same facts & likely consequences, different people will make different moral judgements.
The meta-ethical position further claims that there is no objective or universal way to judge moral claims.
The normative position further claims that we should tolerate others’ behaviors.
Sam Harris would appear to be (and I am) at the meta-ethical position: that there aren’t objective morals, yet we may still be justified in opposing some actions.
If you can stomach it, forfeit a few minutes of your life and read the entire discussion at:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter
Tells you everything you need to know about how Schlafly works. He should be embarrassed for himself, but I guess he’s not. Weird.
The “Talk” page of the “Counterexamples to Relativity” page is absolutely stunning. The cycles of denial and the persecution of anyone who dares to bring up objections is really bewildering. One has to wonder why such a page is allowed to be public.
The page is back up, but someone made a lot of changes to it. Notice it says “but none of them actually shows that the theory is incorrect”. Plus there are only four items.
Ha. Less than half of the “references” include links! Most are just arguments and assertions.
In his wild reinterpretation of the Theory, set off by that liberal word “Relativity”, Schlafy fails to realize an important fact: that the Theory of Relativity is a theorem that arises from the speed of light being an absolute value, independent of frame of reference.
It’s actually the Theory of Not-Relativity, overturning Galilean Relativity which had held true until then.