(h/t to Gauss for highlighting this).
Want to see Conservative deceit in action? Here’s a classic example.
A user adds an entry to Conservapedia’s article on “Counterexamples to an Old Earth” (you’ll forgive me if I don’t link to the actual article – I don’t feel like boosting CP’s Google ranking) claiming that: “The Earth’s[magnetism is changing at too fast a rate for the Earth to be old. The Earth’s magnetic field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years.” He even cites a NASA article, which can be found here.
However, the editor in question obviously (or deliberately – actually I’ll go with deliberate – he added a section underneath the bit mentioning the years) didn’t quote the entire article, because in the last infobox, it states the following: “There have been about 170 of these reversals during the last 76 million years according to geological evidence. The time between reversals seems to be growing longer, and is currently about 300,000 years or so. The last one of these happened about 770,000 years ago.” Clearly, if your using this as an example to prove the earth is only 6,000 years old, dates of 76 million years and even 770,000 years sort of fly in the face of that.
Another editor (clearly not planning to edit on CP for much longer) helpfully adds this snippet of information to the article – after all, it does come from exactly the same source. Now, Andrew Schlafly can’t have that, of course. But rather than removing the entire erroneous statement (erroneous in terms of Young Earth Creationism, that is) , Schlafly only removes the portion that flies in the face of what he believes. In other words, he’s quite happy to leave in the bit about the magnetic field weakening, but removes the quoted time frames. blogsurfer.us
Not only that, but the ignoramus cites “removed biased and unprovable speculation” as his reason for doing so, clearly unaware that scientists can track changes in the magnetic field through rock formations. The rest, he leaves in. Thus, although the article does quote what the NASA article says, it only shows half (if that) of the whole picture.
This moves to the talk page, which results in the following hilarious conversation:
User : You are aware that the “biased and unprovable speculation” which you removed is sourced to the same document as the parts you left in the article, are you not? blogsurfer.us
Schlafly: So what? Opinion can often be found in addition to facts in an article, and one should separate the facts from the opinions.
Schlafly: Wayne, I urge you to accept logic with an open mind. Once you insist on illogical thought, there is no end to the false conclusions that you will draw. The Bible is the most logical book ever written. Learn something about it, please, for your own sake and the benefit of those around you. (This is a classic example of Schlafly’s “debating” style – no wonder he never cut it as anything but the legal aid for a bunch of quacks.)
In other words, the opinion (or fact) that the magnetic field is weakening by 5% every 100 years is fine, because Schlafly and his minions can twist that to fit their worldview. However, the opinion (or fact) that this has happened over the last 76 million years is unacceptable.
The “Trustworthy” Encyclopaedia, indeed.