Wikipedia alternatives

From Hmolpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
An icon visual of the top online alternatives to Wikipedia.

In encyclopedias, Wikipedia alternatives (LH:1) refers to reference alternatives to Wikipedia.


The following is a work-in-progress ranked listing of alternatives to Wikipedia; showing Alexa rank, article count, total words (W), and active editors (last 30 days):

Name Alexa Overview Articles W AU Founders Year
Hmolpedia 7.8M[1] Sep 2020 (65AE) rebooted new edition of the former wiki, each article written anew; articles in this new edition trace word etymologies back through their Latin-Greek-Egyptian isopsephy cipher. 1,600+ 5M+ 1 Libb Thims 2020-
Hmolpedia 2020 1.6M[2] A 2005-launhced glossary of terms related to "human chemical thermodynamics" turned 2007 wiki-format encyclopedia; archived in Aug 2020 (owing to previous wiki-platform decommission); available as one single-file pdf (with images)[3]; or online as individual article text files (without image); and as WB archives.[4] 5,376+ N/A Libb Thims 2007-
Hmolpedia 2016 A 10-volume print set, available in hardcover[5], as 10 pdf files,[6] and described in video overview.[7] 4,050 3.5M N/A Libb Thims 2016
Encyclopedia 3.5K[8] A 28-volume encyclopedia, written in the theme of French atheism-inclining enlightenment. 71,818 20M N/A Denis Diderot
Jean Alembert
Wikipedia 13 A World Book Encyclopedia idea, turned an objectivism debate forum, turned mass-editable wiki-based encyclopedia. 6.4M+ 3.8B 122K Jimmy Wales 2001-
Britannica[9] 857 The British reaction to Diderot's atheism-based Encyclopedia (1749 to 1772). 44M N/A Colin Macfarquhar
Andrew Bell
Britannica 1911 A 29-volume edition of the Britannica, developed during transition from a British to an American publication; many articles were written by the best-known scholars of the time. Available as Wikisource.[10] 40,000 1911
RationalWiki 75K[11] Started as a reaction to Conservapedia's claim that abortion increases risk of breast cancer. Focus is an attempt to debunk pseudoscience and conspiracy theories in a snarky presentation style. 7,400+ 310[12] Peter Lipson 2007-
Citizendium 715K[13] An once-active attempted adult version of Wikipedia, requiring editors to use their real name, be 25-years or older, have a bachelor's degree, and be an "educated, thinking person who reads about science or ideas regularly"; fell off after 2008. 17,000 10[14] Larry Sanger 2006-
Scholarpedia[15] 187K[16] A credentialism-based reaction to Wikipedia. Each article is pretentiously-written by a "Dr so-and-so" (shown at the top of each article), and peer-reviewed[17] by a "Dr so-and-so"[18], so to yield articles written by "expert scientists and scholars". This is categorized as the "appeal to authority"[19] argument. Note: the strict peer-review approach was one of the reasons Nupedia went belly-up.[20] 1,800[21] 8[22] Eugene Izhikevich 2006-
Conservapedia 84K[23] Started in reaction to a student using the Common Era (CE) rather than Anno Domini (AD) dating system. Basically a Bible-friendly version of Wikipedia. 57,000+ 130[24] Andrew Schlafly 2006-

Key terms | Comparison

The "two key articles", which serve as a litmus test for the general integrity of any post-1870s encyclopedia, are entropy (scientific heat) and Jesus (mythical heat)[25], in respect to "reaction" (how humans formed), are shown for each encyclopedia:[26]

Name Date Atheism Atomic theory Biology Chemistry Entropy Evolution Reaction Jesus Founders Year
Hmolpedia BE/AE



Atomic theory
Biology Chemistry Entropy Evolution Reaction Jesus
Jesus Christ
Libb Thims 2020-
Hmolpedia 2020 BCM/ACM


Atomic theory[30]
Biology[31] Chemistry[32] Entropy[33] Evolution[34] Reaction[35] Jesus[36]
Jesus Christ[37]
Libb Thims 2007-
Encyclopedia BC/AD Antitheist[39] Atomism[40] N/A Chemistry[41] Fire[42]
N/A N/A Christianity[44] Denis Diderot
Jean Alembert
Wikipedia BC/AD Antitheism[45] Atom[46]
Atomic theory[47]
Biology[48] Chemistry[49] Entropy[50] Evolution[51] Reaction[52] Jesus[53] Jimmy Wales 2001-
Britannica[54] BC/AD Atheism[55] Atomic theory[56] Biology[57] Chemistry[58] Entropy[59] Evolution[60] N/A[61] Jesus[62] Colin Macfarquhar
Andrew Bell
Britannica 1911 BC/AD Atheism[63] Atom[64] Biology[65] Chemistry[66] N/A[67] Evolution[68] N/A Jesus Christ[69] Hugh Chrisholm
Walter Philips
RationalWiki BC/AD Atheism[70] N/A Biology[71] Chemistry[72] Entropy[73] Evolution[74] N/A Jesus[75] Peter Lipson 2007-
Citizendium BC/AD Atheism[76] Atomic hypothesis[77] Biology[78] Chemistry[79] Entropy[80] Evolution[81] Reaction[82] Jesus[83] Larry Sanger 2006-
Scholarpedia[84] BC/AD N/A N/A N/A N/A Entropy[85] N/A N/A[86] N/A Eugene Izhikevich 2006-
Conservapedia BC/AD Atheism[87] N/A[88] Biology[89] Chemistry[90] Entropy[91] N/A[92] N/A[93] Jesus Christ[94] Andrew Schlafly 2006-


Hmolpedia is the only encyclopedia to use a non-Christian dating system. Conservapedia, a Christianity-themed Wikipedia, of note was launched in reaction to a student Andrew Schlafly using the Common Era (CE) dating notation, they had learned from Wikipedia, rather than Anno Domini (AD) dating system notion.


In Diderot's Encyclopedia, the term "atheism" was publishable by burning at the stake. Hence, the article "antitheist" article is used, who they describe as "evil genies invoked by sorcerers".


The existence of atoms was not accepted until Jean Perrin was awarded the 1926 Nobel Prize in physics for proving the existence of atoms, using three different methods; and atoms were not seen until 1955 when Erwin Muller saw individual tungsten atoms with his field ion microscope. Hence, in the 1751 Diderot encyclopedia, the word "atomism" is the name of the article, eventually becoming "atom" and "atomic theory", the later being the history of the theory of atoms, after the proved existence of atoms.


All encyclopedias, except for Hmolpedia and RationalWiki, the article "biology", run in a click-through-circle, when one reads the definition of biology, then clicks the next key hyperlinked term, and tries to find the root of the term. Hmolpedia decodes the term down to its Greek isopsephy meaning and solar magic square roots, and defines "life" as nonexistence, then directs the reader to "life terminology reform"; then links to a full book detailing the situation, historically and in modern term.[95] RationalWiki guides the reader to the "life" article, which then states frankly that "life" has no understood definition, albeit with reference to a mix of viruses and the "life is like a box of chocolates" (Groom, 1986) quote.


Voltaire on fire and genius, form his 1756 article "Fire" in Diderot's Encyclopedia.

Hmolpedia gives the reader the matter of fact "keme" etymology of chemistry, then directs readers to articles such as "human chemistry" (E.B., 1851), "social chemistry" (Pelletan, 1863), "moral chemistry" (Lecky, 1869), "sociochemistry" (Fores, 1976), "human chemical thermodynamics" (Thims, 2007), which are all non-permissible articles at Wikipedia.[96]

Entropy | Fire | Heat | Love

In the 1750s, "entropy", was not yet an invented concept, but instead was bound up in the concept of "affinity", heat, fire, and phlogiston, which we see Diderot talking about in his chemistry[41] article. To clarify, in 1882, Helmholtz proved that "entropy", in the form of "free energy", is the true to the measure of chemical affinity. Thus, when we see Diderot, in his 1759 "Affinity Letter", Goethe, in his Third Lecture on Anatomy (1796) and Elective Affinities (1809), and Percy Shelley, who, after developing his own human affinity theories, married Mary Shelley in the "Church of Elective Affinities" (c.1819), among others, speaking about love, affinity, fire, and morality, all in the same context, this is equivalent to post-1882 discussion of Gibbs energy, heat, love, fire, and morality in modern terms.

Hence, as entropy was not yet invented, Diderot has "phlogiston" (Stahl, 1703) article, redirect to a see entry: "fire". Now, to clarify, phlogiston became "caloric" (Lavoisier, 1787), which then became "entropy" (Clausius, 1865). Hence, when Diderot was editing all these heat-related articles, while thinking about love, relationships, and morality at the same time, and having already studied chemistry for four years, from 1754 to 1757 under Guillaume Rouelle (1703-1770), we but note that he is in a period between phlogiston and entropy (or rather caloric). All three of these, to clarify are but different models of heat.

Thus, Diderot has Voltaire write the article on fire, which digresses on love and flames in literature:

Voltaire (1756) [97] Theodore E. D. Braun (c.2018)[42] Google (66AE)
FEU, (Littérat.) après avoir parcouru les différentes acceptions de feu au physique, il faut passer au moral. Le fort, sur-tout en poésie, signifie fouvent l'as:our, & on l'employe plus élégamment au pluriel qu'au singulier. Corneille dit souvent un beau feu, pour un amour vertueux noble: un homme a du feu dans la conversation, cela ne veut pas dire qu'il a des idées brillantes & lumineuses, mais des expressions vives, animées par les gestes. Le feu dans les écrits ne suppose pas non plus nécessairement de la lumiere & de la beauté, mais de la vivacité, des figures multipliées, des idées pressées. Le feu n'eit un mérite dans le discours & dansles ouyrages que quand il est bien conduit. On a dit que les Poëtes étoient animés d'un feu divin, quand ils étoient sublimes: on n'a point de génie fans feu, mais on peut avoir du feu sans génie. “Fire. After examining the different meanings of fire in the physical sense, we must examine its metaphorical meanings. Fire, especially in poetry, often means ‘love’, and it is used more elegantly in the plural than in the singular. Corneille [1641] often says a beautiful fire for a noble and virtuous love, e.g. “remember the beauty of the flame [“le beau feu”] ignited in us’ (Cinna, 1641), a man has fire in his conversation, this doesn’t mean that his ideas are brilliant and full of light, but rather that his expressions are vivid and animated by gestures. Similarly, ardor or fire in writing does not necessarily mean light and beauty, but rather vivacity, a multitude of figures, urgent ideas.  Fire has value in speech or in written works only when it is used properly. You say that poets were animated by a divine ardor, when they were sublime; there is no genius without fire, but there can be fire even when genius is absent.” Fire, (Literature) after having gone through the different meanings of fire in the physical, we must move on to moral. The strong, especially in poetry, means fouvent the ace: our, and it is used more elegantly in the plural than in the singular. Corneille often says a beautiful fire, for a noble virtuous love: a man has fire in the conversation, that does not mean that he has brilliant & luminous ideas, but lively expressions, animated by the gestures. The fire in the writings does not necessarily suppose either light and beauty, but liveliness, multiplied figures, hasty ideas. The fire has a merit in the speech and in the works only when it is well managed. It has been said that the Poets were animated by a divine fire, when they were sublime: we have no genius without fire, but we can have fire without genius.
A visual summary of how the article on "entropy", since the 1870s, has been the key card, of all the articles of any house of encyclopedia articles. The new house will rebuild, invariably, on Newton's Query 31 (1717), or similar query on another planet.

The first "red flag" we note here, is that Theodore Braun[98], who completed his BA in French education, MS in French, and PhD at University of California, Berkeley, on Romance Languages and Literature, while doing research in Paris, in 1963-1964, for his 500-page dissertation on Jean Pompignan (1709-1784) and Voltaire, mis-translates Voltaire's "we must examine both the physical and moral meaning of fire" into we must example the "physical sense of fire and its metaphorical meanings". In short, Voltaire's mention of "moral fire", which in his mind was a real concept, albeit believed in some sort of deistic theory, has been rendered into a meaningless metaphor. For whatever reason, this division of once-former "real" beliefs, after about the 1820s.

This is where Hmolpedia is singularly unique among all encyclopedia's since Diderot's. When Voltaire says, e.g. that "there can be fire even when genius is absent", where we can directly cite the various "social combustion"[99] theories of history, e.g. Henry Carey (1958), Malcolm Gladwell (2000), Mark Buchanan (2002), and Wenyuan Niu (2001), with respect to say WWII alone, not to mention theories on "moral fire" or interpersonal flame theories. All of this hold in the "real world" theory of human chemical thermodynamics (Rossini, 1971). In the metaphorical world of Wikipedia, Britannica, and the rest, a Voltaire's "moral fire" will either be banned, or get whitewashed into metaphor, via translation, and edit re-write.

Information theory
See main: Entropy (Wikipedia)

In 1940, John Neumann confusingly convinced Claude Shannon, as a joke, as he put it, to call telegraph signal data transmission mathematics, measured in the form of numbers called "bits", but the name of "entropy", on the more confused logic that his friend Leo Szilard's "demon" needs consume mental energy as he gets "information" about particle movement in a system so to lower the entropy. Shannon did this, in 1948, but later had to publicly recant this name choice in his 1956 "The Bandwagon" article. By this time, however, the false belief had spread so fast and so far, that it had become assumed scientific fact, in a Sokal affair sort of way, to the lay public. The Neumann joke invented a "bit god", in short.

Hmolpedia and Britannica are then only two encyclopedias not infected by the bit god, and completely separate misnamed computer science "bit entropy" of Claude Shannon and the heat-based entropy of thermodynamics. The Wikipedia article sells the two concepts as the same thing, right in the opening paragraph. In the Citizendium article on entropy, we see a confused disambiguation between the misnamed computer science "bit entropy" of Claude Shannon and the entropy of thermodynamics. The John Neumann bit god joke, in fact, has infected ever language edition of Wikipedia.


Evolution is the most tightly-guarded article in Wikipedia, presumably the Jesus article (and maybe some political articles). Anything beyond standard "Darwinian status quo", will be deleted from the article (and the editor eventually banned); and we are not talking about trivial "theological" objection models, but non-Darwin atheist evolution models, by thinkers before and after Darwin. Specifically, to explain how humans morphed or chemical reacted over time from the the hydrogen atom, whatever theory is used must, by default, include the world "entropy". The word "entropy" is discussed on 28 different evolution archived talk pages, but is not mentioned one time in the evolution article?[100] Darwin introduced "evolution" in 1859. Clausius introduced "entropy" in 1865. These two E-terms, have not been reconciled, in mass public discourse, to date. They have been partially reconciled, by those in the known, but these views are little known.

To explain, in 1923, Gilbert Lewis, in his so-called tables of formation energies of the chemical species, constructed via two decades of experimental laboratory work, the "formation energies" of ALL chemical species, hydrogen to human, from the elements at STP, can be measured, defined, and tabulated, and also used to predict theoretical reactions that have not yet occurred. Harold Blum (1934) and Norman Dolloff (1975) were the first to get handle on this idea. In terms of "affinities", the precursor model to formation energies, this had already been worked out by: Diderot (1759), Goethe (1809), and Shelley (c.1819).


Any reality based encyclopedia, in modern terms, needs to have an article entitled "reaction", that defines how, say, the British Britannica, was a "reaction" to the French Encyclopedia, in a way that does not use the term "reaction" as a metaphor.


Over 5,220-years ago, Pharaoh's of Egypt, has the term "Hor" as part of their name, in reference to the sun god "Horus", who Wallis Budge defines as the "oldest god of all". About 200-years ago, we deciphered the Rosetta stone, enabling us to read Egyptian hieroglyphs. From 1860 to the pre WWII era (1940s), about 130+ religio-mythology scholars showed that Jesus is a rescript of Horus, mixed in with Osiris motifs. The modern world, a few recent brave thinkers, e.g. Dorothy Murdock, aside, have not yet caught up to his knowledge. Subsequently, the Egyptian origins of Jesus is presently a banned topic on ever major encyclopedia in the world, Hmolpedia, the French Wikipedia, and RationalWiki aside.

Editorial censorship

In respect to editorial censorship, Hmolpedia, Diderot's Encyclopedia, RationalWiki, and Britannica 1911 are the least censored versions, in respect to the controversial topics. We do not that Diderot did do jail time while publishing, and that Jean Alembert had to resign as co-editor in 1757, after offending some Geneva Calvinist theologians.

While Wikipedia is fairly open to publishing controversial topics, when it comes to publishing "key term" hotbed topics, censorship works behind the lines, using a milieu of red tape rules.

Vexorg (user badges).png
The Jul 2007 version of the Wikipedia "Jesus" article, added by user Vexorg[101], whose user badges are shown adjacent, quickly became deleted, following an edit war.[102] The mention of the name "Horus", in fact, is banned on every language version of Jesus of Wikipedia, except the French version; the French nation having the highest rate of disbelief in god, spirit, or life force in the world.

If one tries, to cite a powerful example, to add the name "Horus" to the "Jesus" article, based on the fact that 100+ religio-mythology scholars have, over the last two-centuries, evidenced that Jesus is based on Horus, it will quickly be removed, as can be seen from the ten talk page archives where this was attempted.[103] This is basically how Wikipedia operates.

Likewise, to cite another example, inchemistry article, in 2007, Thims, then an editor at Wikipedia, added a section on "human chemistry"[104], citing William Fairburn's 1914 Human Chemistry book, and Charles G. Darwin's 1952 definition of people as "human molecules", whose future evolution, Darwin argued, could be predicted by thermodynamics. This, however was quickly removed, by an editor named Michael Hardy[105], a mathematician. Thims, shortly thereafter, owing to these two article attempts, was permanently banned from Wikipedia, without warning.[106] In other words, a mathematician, or whoever, can quickly become an expert on "chemistry" or "thermodynamics", or any other topic for that matter, on whim, if the edit conflicts with their "beliefs", regardless of historical citation.


In 2005 to 2007, Libb Thims, prior to launching Hmolpedia (Dec 2007), was an editor and writer at Wikipedia, for two years. Wikipedia, which has its benefits, with respect to a general mayonnaise level of understanding, however, is knowledge-controlled, with respect to key term topics.

Hmolpedia, to clarify, in respect to "topic-focused Wikipedia", is an encyclopedia biased with respect to "reality", and that's it.[107] This motto can be compared to encyclopedias such as: Britannica (Macfarguhar, 1769), the British reaction to Diderot's atheism-based Encyclopedia; Wikipedia (Wales, 2001), Jimmy Wales' brainchild of a World Book Encyclopedia turned an objectivism debate forum turned mass-editable encyclopedia; Scholarpedia (Izhikevich, Feb 2006), a credentialism-based reaction to Wikipedia; Conservapedia (Schlafly, Nov 2006), an encyclopedia started in reaction to a student using the Common Era [CE] rather than Anno Domini [AD] dating system; or RationalWiki (Lipson, 2007), a snarky atheism skeptic reaction to an attempt to edit a Conservapedia article on breast cancer.

All of these reaction-formed encyclopedias, Diderot's Encyclopedia aside, were or are controlled by special interest groups, whose exchange forces are mediated by a confused mess of powerful belief system biased red tape. None of them, however, are willing to address, in their own encyclopedia article on "reactions", how, their own encyclopedia, was formed or came into being or existence, according to reactions? It is kind of like a backwards absurdity, swept under the rug, to say the least. A loophole of ignorance avoided.

This, to clarify, is not necessarily the fault of those who defend each article, but rather that human minds in general have been culturally predisposed to certain believed childhood "truths", culturally passed along for six+ millennia.[108] It is kind of like defending history, in the face of experimental evidence that refutes "established" history. Hmolpedia presents articles in the Baconian method style of facts presentation, based on evidence, with no bias what soever, other than the reality of the bias of "first principles", as they are presently evidenced to the mind.

End matter

See also


  1. –
  2. –
  3. Hmolpedia 2020 (one html-to-pdf file) (14,683-pages) –
  4. Hmolpedia 2020 ( –
  5. Hmolpedia (print set) – Hmolpedia 2020.
  6. Hmolpedia 2016 (ten formatted word-to-pdf files) –
  7. Thims, Libb. (2016). “Hmolpedia” (YT), Human Chemistry 101, Mar 30.
  8. Diderot Encyclopedia English (online) – Alexa.
  9. Home –
  10. Britannica 1911 – Wikisource.
  11. RationalWiki – Alexa.
  12. User Stats – RationalWiki.
  13. Citizendium – Alexa.
  14. User Stats – Citizendium.
  15. Scholarpedia –
  16. Scholarpedia – Alexa.
  17. Peer review – Hmolpedia 2020.
  18. Note: as a general rule-of-thumb, whenever you see a "Dr" abbreviation on the cover of a book or article, or when you see "Nobel laureate" or Nobel Prize winner cited, or Fields Medal winner mentioned, next to an author's name, so to back up a claim or argument, its tends to be sign of intellectual insecurity of the author.
  19. Appeal to authority – Hmolpedia 2020.
  20. The strict “peer-review”, for-profit, articles written-by-experts, envisioned Nupedia, prior to going “went belly-up” (Ѻ) in 2003, managed to produce, in its 36 month existence span, only 24 articles, a rate of 8 articles/year; which, in the Wikipedia version, jumped to a rate of 5-million articles being written in a 10-year span, a rage of 500,000 articles per year, in the decade to follow.
  21. Scholarpedia – Wikipedia.
  22. User Stats – Scholarpedia.
  23. Conservapedia – Alexa.
  24. User Stats – Conservapedia.
  25. Note: Jesus is a Horus god character rescript.
  26. Integrity rule: since the time of Darwin (1859) and Clausius (1865), we have come to learn that humans have evolved, or reactively morphed (Ovid, 8AD; Goethe, 1809), over time from chemicals, the hydrogen atom in particular, via a 4.5-billion year mechanism involving reaction and heat. The intellectual integrity of the editor of both articles, will shown through in the result.
  27. Atheism (21 Feb 2020) – Hmolpedia 2020.
  28. Anti-theism – Hmolpedia 2020.
  29. Atom (16 Aug 2021) – Hmolpedia 2020.
  30. Atomic theory – Hmolpedia 2020.
  31. Biology – Hmolpedia 2020.
  32. Chemistry – Hmolpedia 2020.
  33. Entropy – Hmolpedia 2020.
  34. Evolution (21 Feb 2020) – Hmolpedia 2020.
  35. Reaction – Hmolpedia 2020.

  36. Jesus – Hmolpedia 2020.
  37. Jesus Christ (6 Feb 2020) – Hmolpedia 2020.
  38. Christ – Hmolpedia 2020.
  39. Antitheist (1751) – Diderot Encyclopedia.
  40. Atomism (1751) – Diderot Encyclopedia.
  41. 41.0 41.1 Chemistry (1753) – Diderot Encyclopedia.
  42. 42.0 42.1 Fire (1756) – Diderot Encyclopedia.
  43. Phlogiston (1765) – Diderot Encyclopedia.
  44. Christianity (1753) – Diderot Encyclopedia.
  45. Antitheism – Wikipedia.
  46. Atom – Wikipedia.
  47. Atomic theory – Wikipedia.
  48. Biology – Wikipedia.
  49. Chemistry – Wikipedia.
  50. Entropy – Wikipedia.
  51. Evolution – Wikipedia.
  52. Reaction (disambiguation) – Wikipedia.
  53. Jesus – Wikipedia.
  54. Home –
  55. Atheism – Britannica.
  56. Atomic theory – Britannica.
  57. Biology – Britannica.
  58. Chemistry – Britannica.
  59. Entropy (physics) – Britannica.
  60. Evolution (scientific theory) – Britannica.
  61. Reaction (search) – Britannica.
  62. Jesus – Britannica.
  63. Atheism – Britannica 1911.
  64. Atom – Britannica 1911.
  65. Biology – Britannica 1911.
  66. Chemistry – Britannica 1911.
  67. Entropy (search) – Britannica 1911.
  68. Evolution – Britannica 1911.
  69. Jesus Christ – Britannica 1911.
  70. Atheism – RationalWiki.
  71. Biology – RationalWiki.
  72. Chemistry – RationalWiki.
  73. Entropy (section) – RationalWiki.
  74. Evolution – RationalWiki.
  75. Jesus – RationalWiki.
  76. Atheism – Citizendium.
  77. Atomic theory (redirect) – Citizendium.
  78. Biology – Citizendium.
  79. Chemistry – Citizendium.
  80. Entropy – Citizendium.
  81. Evolution – Citizendium].
  82. Reaction (disambiguation) – Citizendium.
  83. Jesus – Citizendium.
  84. Scholarpedia –
  85. Entropy – Scholarpedia.
  86. Reaction (search) – Scholarpedia.
  87. Atheism – Conservapedia.
  88. Atomic theory (search) – Conservapedia.
  89. Biology – Conservapedia.
  90. Chemistry – Conservapedia.
  91. Entropy – Conservapedia.
  92. Evolution (search) – Conservapedia.
  93. Reaction (search) – Conservapedia.
  94. Jesus Christ – Conservapedia.
  95. Thims, Libb. (66AE). Abioism: No Thing is Alive – on the Defunct Theory of Life, the Non-Existence of Life, Life Terminology Reform, and Concept Upgrade (pdf). Publisher.
  96. See: Two-cultures disciplines.
  97. Diderot, Denis. (1756). Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, Volume 6 (§:Fire [author: Voltaire], pg. 448). Paris.
  98. Theodore Braun (faculty) – University of Delaware.
  99. Social combustion – Hmolpedia 2020.
  100. Talk:Evolution (search: entropy) – Wikipedia.
  101. User:Vexorg – Wikipedia.
  102. Jesus (4 Jul 2007) – Wikipedia.
  103. Jesus (Talk page) (search: Horus) – Wikipedia.
  104. Human chemistry (section) (24 Sep 2007) – Wikipedia.
  105. User:Michael Hardy – Wikipedia.
  106. Human molecule (banned) – Hmolpedia 2020.
  107. See: Katherine HepburnInterview” (1991).
  108. Think: of Anaxagoras (467BC), who, based on the "evidence" of examined fallen meteors, argued that the sun was not a god but a "fiery stone", after which he was charged with the "crime of atheism", banned from the community, after which laws were passed against the use of "Anaxagoras like thought" in public discourse.

External links

Theta Delta ics T2.jpg