by peur evol

Created on: March 11, 2007   Last Updated: April 19, 2007

Conservapedia.com is a website that claims it is "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust". "TRUST" is a big word that, when used, most often makes you doubtful of the person/entity asking you to 'trust me'. This site is no different. I think the only people that will actually 'trust' conservapedia are the conservative christians that contribute to it. It has only a 'novelty' appeal for skeptical free-thinkers that value visible facts over blind faith.

I'm not trying to degrade this site; it does have potential. I've been looking at it for several weeks and can honestly say that it is improving. In just a short time, certain articles have developed from amateurish three-sentence definitions into some well written respectable articles. Admittedly, some of the entries are *still* ludicrous.
From the site itself:

"The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times."

"Yahweh means "I am who I am". In the Hebrew language, which has no vowels, it is written YHWH. During the encounter at the Burning Bush, God instructed Moses to use the name 'Yahweh' when speaking of Him."

OK, maybe I'm just picking on them, but I find both of these unintentionally hilarious. From the 'unicorn' entry they cite the bible as being more influential to their opinion than any other source. No unicorn bones have ever been uncovered as of yet, but they must have been real because the bible mentions them NINE TIMES, right? Further into it, they speculate that rhinoceroses might have been the biblical animal known as the unicorn (then why do we still not call them unicorns?; despite language differences, most animals are still called by their ancient names).
Secondly, YHWH does not mean "i am who i am". Even a minimal study of Jewish/Hebrew, Kabballah, or even the occult will inform you that YHWH means YHWH. It was the sacred name of the god of Abraham, and as such has no definition as a word (as god was undescribable to the Hebrew people). Even Crowley knew this crucial fact concerning 'the Lord'.

My conclusions:
1) From a very bad start, the site is getting tremendously better.
2) No, it won't ever replace the much-loved Wikipedia.org .
3) Will always be a source of unintentional humor.
4) May never have any value to persons outside of it's target audience.

SOURCES:
http://www.conservapedia.com

Learn more about this author, peur evol.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.