SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + +
Leave it in. I think people need to see the kind of stuff that goes on here.
== Worrisome ==
I'm a bit angry about how the mathematics pages are written here. Things are said to be true, without the mention that they are only scientific THEORIES and not FACTS. For example, in the set theory article, the claim is made that there is only one set with no elements. This is a statement made by secular mathematicians who think they know everything. What if there is some other set out there with no elements? Thus, this statement is only a THEORY, not a FACT. Please amend these pages so that they aren't such a display of man's hubris! {{unsigned|CamelNeedleEye}}
::The preceding comment was written by someone who was blocked shortly thereafter for trolling. It is typical of a type of edit that people come to Conservapedia to make. It is unfortunate that people do this. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 11:21, 8 February 2015 (EST)
This is great, conservapedia has half a page about mathematics, whereas wikipedia has dozens upon dozens of pages devoted to various fields of mathematics. I'm glad to see that conservapedia has no interest what-so-ever in mathematics, a true testament to the intelligence of this fine, fine website. {{unsigned|GroupsAndFields}}
This is great, conservapedia has half a page about mathematics, whereas wikipedia has dozens upon dozens of pages devoted to various fields of mathematics. I'm glad to see that conservapedia has no interest what-so-ever in mathematics, a true testament to the intelligence of this fine, fine website. {{unsigned|GroupsAndFields}}