More conservapædic foolishness

I have just read the Conservapædia article on me. It is a marvel. Let me single out one jewel of misdirection among many.

In January 2008, Myers participated in a debate with Discovery Institute fellow Geoffrey Simmons on KMMS. He was unable to counter criticisms of the fossil record, in particular the absence of transitional forms in the whale fossil record. Geoffrey was invited back for an hour long talk the next week. PZ Myers now refuses to debate creation scientists.

The first sentence is harmlessly wrong: the station call letters are KKMS. It’s a nice indicator of their quality control, however.

The second sentence is completely wrong. This was the radio debate in which Geoffrey Simmons made claims about the absence of transitionals in the fossil record, was utterly bewildered when I rattled off a long list of well-known species names, and then admitted that he got all his information from an apparently cursory reading of a Scientific American article. Mr Simmons was the one lacking any counters of substance, not me.

I love the next two sentences. Simmons was invited back, Myers wasn’t…ah, the delicious implication that I had flopped, when the truth is that I had embarrassed the Christian radio station’s position by crushing Simmons so thoroughly. And then to state that I no longer debate creationists, as if I’d run from a humiliating defeat! That was a debate in which even the creationist onlookers were averting their eyes and whining that Simmons had been pwnz0red.

Sorry, Conservapædians, if that’s an example of the way you guys slant your articles, I have to laugh.


  1. says

    Are you criticizing the ‘pedia because of their atrocious slant? Are you kidding? They revel in it. That’s the only thing they’ve got going for them. If there were no idiots in this world they wouldn’t have a website.

  2. Janine ID says

    Huuummm, I think the person who wrote the entry did not listen to the broadcast. But what kind of an idiot lets stupid little facts stand in the way of THE TRUTH? Also, I thought Simmons was back on the next week so that he could have a debate against an opponent he could beat in an intellectual contest, thin air.

  3. says

    Unsurprisingly, Myers’ radical, hateful views on religion and religious people are whitewashed from the Wikipedia article about him by pro-evolution/anti-Creationism/anti-Intelligent Design editors who are his fans.

    Hey, Conservapædians, have you ever noticed how Wikipedia articles never consider what YOUR says about someone to be notable information. This means there fish is eating your fish. NOM NOM NOM

  4. says

    I agree with the Reverend Big Dumb Chimp. They neglected to mention that you are an avid baby-eating atheist-heathen hell-bent on the destruction of all that is good and holy.

  5. BaldySlaphead says

    PZ, that Simmonds debate was the first I’d ever heard of you.

    I listened to it with my mouth open at the embarrasing litany of shite that rolled out of Simmond’s flapping maw with mounting astonishment. I know you hated it, but it was genuinely hysterical stuff, and I’ve kept it to play to other people as an indicator of how cataclysmically thick the creationists can be.

    If I didn’t know Conservapedia had people who genuinely believed in it as a resource, I’d think it the best comedy site on the web.

  6. Bob Vogel says

    Wow. I think I listened to this debate – isn’t this the one you answered his question without hesitation with recent discoveries of transitional whale fossils (and actually naming them, if I recall), clearly demonstating the evolution of the blowhole and fins? How could they get this wrong? If this is the same debate I’m thinking of, you creamed the guy – you stated facts and he could only come back by changing the subject.

  7. says

    I agree with the Reverend Big Dumb Chimp. They neglected to mention that you are an avid baby-eating atheist-heathen hell-bent on the destruction of all that is good and holy.

  8. says

    Ah, so that’s why Simmons wouldn’t debate you again, but babbled on alone. Apparently he was being compassionate, not wishing to defeat you again.

    Weather report for Simmons-land/Conservapedia: No UV rays, beneficent beams radiating from Geoff, temperature perfect all of the time.

    Current events: Waterloo for evolutionists now occurring.

    Glen D

  9. Janine ID says

    According to Evolution News, he opposes democratically-elected school boards deciding how evolution should be taught; feeling that it should instead be done by “Scientists with years of training in the subject, and qualified science teachers who understand the fundamentals of the theory.”

    Wow! I had no idea that facts were up for elections? If something is elective, does the truth get changed. Can we change history and science? I had no idea that existence was so mutable.

  10. says

    GRR! Stupid comment system double-posted My Divine Comment! Ah well, it was so good it deserved being repeated: you don’t believeth in Me, which means you eat babies for their life-force.

  11. says

    You would think that the people who read Conservapedia can’t.

    Give a fundamentalist a fish and you feed him for a day. Give a fundamentalist a book and he will misquote it and set it on fire.

  12. Fason Jailes says

    Me am Bizarro world creationist.

    You am find fossil? Ha, two more gaps!

    You act know so much diploma; You am elitist!

    You am admit know not everything; Ha, must be God!

    Me have no facts; Ha, win debate!

  13. Fez says

    To go along with the, “Someone is wrong on the Internets!” panel from xkcd needs to exist a “A creationist is lying!” sibling. No offense intended to PZ or (sympathetic) readers here but given the SOP nature of bullshit flowing from the IDiots it’s just not all that newsworthy anymore.

  14. DaveH says

    God at #6 and #10?

    I’m beginning to doubt it’s really Him. Everyone knoweth that when He repeateth statements of His inviolable scriptural Truth (eg the 2 Genesis accounts, or the ancestry of His Son from King Dave) He liketh to alter a few facts; a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds after all, and no mind existeth that’s bigger than His (apparently).

  15. says

    Actually ‘Dave,’ which is not your real name, I am The LORD and I AM REAL. You can tell because I am always very angry and always capitalize My Name. You’re right though, I do enjoy an amusing inconsistency as no mind is bigger than Mine. However, in this instance I was betrayed by a comment system attack perpetrated by Satanus.

  16. Pockmark Notorious says

    The very BEST thing about those 4 sentences, is the reference.

    It’s a link to a Youtube video called “PZ Myers destroys Simmonds in evolution debate”


  17. says

    This is hella funny.

    The best thing about Conservapedia is its complete disregard for the truth. Just prove that the old adage about “truth is stranger than fiction” is complete bull.

  18. Holbach says

    I wouldn’t waste my time debating morons. What the hell are they going to reveal that we have not heard before, ad nauseam? What the crap are we going to learn from ranting religionists other than the incessant demand that we give them part of our brain to deaden with demented crap? It may be interpreted as facetious, but when you dwell on it, it just may be the ploy (?) needed to gag the morons with. When you set a potential debate with a moron you must stipulate one qualifying factor; they must have their imaginary god present for the debate to take place. No god, no debate. This is the method I maintain with that bug-eyed lizard of religious dementia, Dinesh D’Crapa.
    I wish you would employ this condition for debate, PZ. Try it once, just for the silly reaction it engenders.

  19. says

    I don’t know why, but this really does piss me off quite a lot. I don’t know if it’s because Conservapædia is pimped to be a source of truth by these god-soaked, homeschooled fuckwits or what, but this really makes me angry.

    It’s like they don’t even try to broadcast a single fact anymore. It’s just a constant stream of lie after lie after lie. Most people would be embarrassed to be associated with such blatant dishonesty.

    And they wonder why no one takes them seriously…

  20. says

    The random quote generator spit out the following when I looked at the comments section:

    The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.

    [Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936)]

    I think that “asserts and thinks that he has found” pretty-well sums up Mr. Schlafly, don’t you?

  21. Martin says

    I’m beginning to seriously doubt that the person Andrew Schlafly actually exists. I know, we’ve got pictures, and he’s the son of a famous conservative old hag, but I’ve got to go where the evidence points. He probably get’s this a lot, but I genuinely (really really) think he’s a better self-parodist than any parodist on Conservapedia (and god knows, half the editors are) could ever be.

  22. LeStig says

    As a Dane I must protest that you write the site’s name as Conservapædia, using an “æ” instead of the correct “e” could somehow lead people to believe that they had something to do with Denmark and we most certainly want nothing to do with them!

    Other than that, shame that those that need these lies exposed the most will never get around to actually reading about it here.

  23. Quiet_Desperation says

    Not that I’m a conservative, but I really miss the days when religion hadn’t infected conservatism.

    Instead of a healthy, continuous public debate on the level of government intrusion and regulation, our choice at the polls is now Big Government versus Big Religion, and anyone who thinks either choice is just a great thing is *NOT* paying as much attention as they think they are. I know some of you ideological types have your deep, burning love for your [golem voice]precioussssssssss[/golem voice] Party, but it’s really just a choice of exactly how and where you want to be forcibly buggered.

    I know an increasing number of people these days who are planning overseas retirements, or even pursuing their careers in another country. That L5 colony idea looks better every day.

    “Well, I’ve spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the ‘Old Conservatism.’ And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength.” — Barry Goldwater, the Godfather of Conservatism, in 1994

  24. says

    As a Dane I must protest that you write the site’s name as Conservapædia, using an “æ” instead of the correct “e” could somehow lead people to believe that they had something to do with Denmark and we most certainly want nothing to do with them!

    Other than that, shame that those that need these lies exposed the most will never get around to actually reading about it here.

    It is written that way because they hate it.

  25. Holbach says

    “god” @ 20
    Since I relegated your name to lower case, will you now smite me down and prove that you don’t exist?

  26. bernard quatermass says

    “GRR! Stupid comment system double-posted My Divine Comment! Ah well, it was so good it deserved being repeated: you don’t believeth in Me, which means you eat babies for their life-force.”

    This is so ridiculous. Life force?

    Criminy. We eat babies because they are darned good eatin’, and besides, what with the upcoming BBQ if we didn’t eat them, that’s an awful lot of really, really good cole slaw that’s just going to go to waste.

    Let’s be rational about this.

  27. Mena says

    Captain Dan, the lies are working for McCain, why would people with a “conservative” (quotes and lower case because QD has a good point) want to change a winning formula? This should really be a repeat of the Obama-Keyes senate race of 2004.

  28. Brian says

    “misdirection”? More like a bald faced lie. As others have said, too many people will read something like this and take it as the truth.

    No transitional forms. Gate crashing. Both thoroughly debunked.

    I also like how they complained about how the UM Morris hasn’t disciplined P.Z. While factual, it borders on editorializing, which encyclopedia entries aren’t supposed to do…wait a minute…never mind.


  29. Nick Gotts says

    Barry Goldwater, the Godfather of Conservatism raving nutcase who wanted to nuke Hanoi, in 1994 – Quiet_Desperation

    There, fixed it for you.

  30. Russell says

    I cant even create an account over there, they are to amazingly stupid to diferenciate between Create and account and Login to an existing account.

  31. says

    As a Dane I must protest that you write the site’s name as Conservapædia, using an “æ” instead of the correct “e” could somehow lead people to believe that they had something to do with Denmark and we most certainly want nothing to do with them!

    Don’t worry. The æ ligature used to be used a lot more in English and is associated with Latin origins, rather than Danish. The Americans seem to have gone with “dropping the ‘a'” and the rest of us with “separation”. I’ve always rather liked it, though: that it irritates Schitfly just gives me one more reason to use it.

  32. tyaddow says


    The “KMMS” error has been corrected; “Myers” continues to be occasionally misspelled; all other content continues to be a heinous violation of all that is right and true.

  33. Aaron Baker says

    Here’s another Conservapaedia article, which, I believe, is more disturbing the more you think about it:

    “Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is a panel of 10 so-called experts who make recommendations on the use of vaccines in the United States. The panel is advised on current issues by representatives from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Medical Association and others. There have been many complaints of conflicts-of-interest by members of this committee with the vaccine manufacturers.[1]

    The recommendations of the ACIP guide immunization practice at the federal, state and local level, and in some states automatically trigger vaccination requirements.[2]”

  34. Robert Kimbro says

    Just a few more revelations like this and I’m moving to Mexico. The fact that people believe these Conservapedia fools makes my brain feel like a spike is being driven through it. The fact that the polls say McSame and Obama are “neck and neck” is enough to make me want to seek electro-shock therapy. Apparently IQs have been dropping in this country at a breakneck pace. Is it the growth hormones in the beef? Television? Popular culture? My high school class (’72) had 15 national merit scholars. I don’t think they’ve had 15 since.

  35. Quiet_Desperation says

    raving nutcase who wanted to nuke Hanoi, in 1994. There, fixed it for you.

    In 1994, huh? Whatever. He still predicted this mess. That was the only point of the quote.

    What nuking the Ho Chi Minh trail to deforest it (which was the *actual* raving nutcase suggestion) has to do with predicting the damage to the democratic process caused by the Religious Right in the 21st Century escapes me, I’m afraid, unless it was *intended* to be a random non sequitur.

  36. Nick Gotts says

    Fairly random. I admit to a lasting animus against those who’ve tried to get me killed – like Goldwater and Castro.

  37. Sastra says

    I like this, placed under the label Militant Atheism:

    Myers is an outspoken atheist who has openly advocated the elimination of religion, likening it to illiteracy.

    Yes, he is just like those Militant Literacy Advocates, who want to teach children to read through force, reprisal, and violence.

  38. Quiet_Desperation says

    Just a few more revelations like this and I’m moving to Mexico.

    That’s one of the destinations people I know are looking at. There’s some scary crime going on, though. There’s real live actual stinking badge not needing banditos harassing the folks in Baja, which is one of the main retirement destinations.

    The fact that people believe these Conservapedia fools makes my brain feel like a spike is being driven through it.

    Huh. I find willful stupidity makes me sad and despair the future, but a physical pain like that you might want to get checked out. ;-) Are you sure there’s not an actual spike?

    The fact that the polls say McSame and Obama are “neck and neck” is enough to make me want to seek electro-shock therapy.

    Whereas a clearer minded thinker would wish electro-shock therapy upon the rest of the voters. :-)

    Apparently IQs have been dropping in this country at a breakneck pace.

    Nonsense. I hear the average is a steady 100. :-)

  39. Quiet_Desperation says

    Fairly random. I admit to a lasting animus against those who’ve tried to get me killed – like Goldwater and Castro.

    OK. So word it this way: “Even that raving nutcase Barry Goldwater was opposed to mixing religion and politics!” :-)

    Geez, Goldwater *and* Castro? I’ve *never* been that popular. :-(

  40. Nomen Nescio says

    You can only register -or edit articles- during daylight hours in the US. Other times the register button will not work and redirect to a login page.

  41. says

    What, they’ve left out you and your prize wife’s assistance of Richard Dawkins vicious attack on a bunch of innocent movie goers! Were is their Love of Jesus®? The Conservapedia clowns are a bunch of wishy, washy pretend Christians if that is the best they can make up about you Myers! .

    Jesus has His loving eye on all of you godless sinners. REPENT™ before it is too late and He has you all killed!

  42. says

    I confess to fixing the radio station error on Conservapædia — I immediately thought better of it after having done so, but it would be worse to go back and deliberately re-introduce an error once fixed (taking the high road here).

    On further thought, though, it may be useful; there are indications that they ban people for having too high of a talk-to-article edits ratio (they don’t phrase it as concisely, of course), so maybe this will add to my appearance of legitimacy over there (and appearance is all that matters to them, right? Facts are irrelevant. You too will be assimilated by the Christoborg.).

    Any suggestions for what other errors I should try to correct? Yes, there are many… but you have to be careful, and some things are locked (e.g. the page on atheism). I’ve had edits reverted without explanation twice now, simply for mentioning RationalWiki: once on a talkpage (i.e. not the actual article; I was just asking about it) — and, as if that weren’t bad enough, it happened again on a user’s page where I was asking for an explanation of the previous revert. The word “rationalwiki” even triggers their spam filters, if you don’t obfuscate it somehow (not hard to do, with a little basic HTML).

  43. Michaela says

    Has anyone else been to Conservapædia and been unable to create an account?
    Is there a secret I’m missing? I could log in, *if* I had an account, but apparently I can’t make a new one.

  44. The Chmip's Raging Id says

    I remember that radio debate well. Simmons displayed little ability to assemble anything even close to an argument. PZ pretty much destroyed him on every point (Simmons’ attempt at poking holes in the fossil record was particularly laughable). Conservapedia’s reporting of the debate speaks volumes about the level of intelligence and integrity to be found on that site.

  45. Dave says

    It’s interesting that while Andrew Schlafly doesn’t rate a biography on Wikipedia, Bozo the Clown does.

  46. CSBSH says

    W H A T T H E F U C K?! I listened to that debate, and I’m honestly amazed that that Schlafly guy can look himself in the mirror without a feeling of disgust. I mean, the best part of the debate was when Myers DID counter the claim about the whale fossils. Schlafly must lack a conscience. That’s the only reasonable explanation for this bizarre Conservapaedia entry.

  47. BobbyEarle says

    It’s interesting that while Andrew Schlafly doesn’t rate a biography on Wikipedia, Bozo the Clown does.

    Ah, yes…that evil Bozo.

  48. Roger Scott says

    Whoever wrote the part quoted above is either a fool or a liar. I downloaded that debate and cut up parts to place in a PoewrPoint file for use in schools. It is used as an example of creationist ignorance and incompetence.
    Maybe the Schlafly stuff above could be used as an example of creationist inability to follow an argument.

  49. Longtime Lurker says

    Woozle, you’re an editor at Conservapaedia? Please, please do a biography of Abdul Alhazred, claiming that he was a captured “number three” al Qaeda operative!

  50. SC says

    In case anyone’s curious – Suspecting it would be deleted (as it was), I saved the comment about the PNAS response by DinsdaleP on the PNAS talk page yesterday. Here it is:

    Okay, let’s get back to basic, substantive comments. When I read the PNAS response, I don’t see it being a “non-responsive explanation” or a “failure to address the five errors identified in the Letter to PNAS”. What I see is a refutation of the objections raised by Aschlafly in his letter with regard to the statistics-based issues he raised. The PNAS response devotes seven sentences to explaining why the underlying statistics in the published experiment were sound, and following accepted practices. A follow-up point in the second paragraph states that the statistical misunderstanding by Aschlafly is of such a basic level that the PNAS journal is not the appropriate forum to respond with a lesson in experimental statistics to explain his misunderstanding in detail. In short, they are stating, professionally, that Aschlafly needs to learn more about experimental statistics and then re-examine his issues to see if they are, in fact, issues (which PNAS says they are not).
    The PNAS response also states that their letters forum is not the appropriate place to raise objections about whether Lenski has disclosed his data or not to the public. That is a professional response as well.
    What I’d suggest then, is that the appropriate response is for Aschlafly to defend the statistical analysis he used in identifying his issues, to respond to the PNAS assertion that it was erroneous. To summarize, PNAS didn’t dodge a response – their response is that the analysis was flawed. Any response by Aschlafly to that assertion is up to him. –DinsdaleP 11:39, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

  51. says

    The sad thing is, that is probably the most accurate article on Conservapedia. Every page I’ve ever seen is not even a distortion of the truth; it’s wrong by a long way.

  52. says

    @Robert Kimbro, 46:

    You’re all wellcome in Mexico. If you need a tour guide, temporal housing, etc., just say so. Be warned, though: the conservative/tecnocrat bunch of people that are within the present ruling party is quite crazy.

    After some 70 years of a corrupt party and pacifist ideals, came “Acción Nacional” (National Action). Big marketing campaining, dirty fighting, stupid slogans, zero possitive changes save for those who already have money. Oh. And they are Catholic-church backed.

  53. Patricia says

    God – So here you are. You BASTARD! Just what part of your divine plan for my life was last nights little episode of Bulldog captures skunk?
    Be sure that everything I said to you after the banshee wails was totally heart felt. *Shakes fist*

  54. says

    @Dave, 60:

    Yes! even the satiric, Mexican version of “Brozo, El Payaso Tenebroso” (Brozo, the Creepy Clown) is cited within the Bozo article!

  55. Ramases says

    Can some Americans here answer a question from an Australian atheist and rationalist?

    How representative is Conservapædia of conservative thought in the US?

    I had a browse through it, and wackiness does not even begin to describe it. Just about every reference I looked at, from science to history to politics contained either straight out lies, gross and demonstrable misrepresentations or demonstrated that the writer did not understand the subject matter.

    Is this broadly representative of conservatism in the US?

    I have never voted conservative in my life, but I am aware that most conservatives here in Australia would not identify with this rubbish – if they tried to run on it during an election they would be laughed at.

    Would there be many conservatives in Congress the Senate or state houses that would believe the wacko stuff in Conservapædia?

  56. Falyne says

    I. Love. Conservapedia.

    So, soooo much.

    Then again, I’m like the biggest fan of all Hidden Internet Crazy. And this is the tame stuff, of course. Then again, it’s potentially more dangerous since more people believe it, and the people that believe it have more influence.

    I mean, the folks that put up copper tubes with orgone crystals to help the cloud beings fight off the evil Illuminati/Satanist/Reptilian chemtrails don’t exactly comprise much of the electorate, thankfully….

    ( )

  57. Quiet_Desperation says

    How representative is Conservapædia of conservative thought in the US?

    I honestly doubt anyone knows for sure. My feel based on just life’s observations is that most people simply don’t give a damn about much of this stuff. The ones that vote go the party line without really knowing what they are voting for, and that applies to both parties.

    To be honest, I have a hard time blaming them. Here in California, the districts are go gerrymandered, we just get dim bulb extremists in the legislature. I think it’s pretty much the same across most of the country. The way districts are drawn, IMHO, is the single most broken thing about the whole system.

    It leads to a feeling of having no power or say, that there is a Politician Class that just does what it wants and seems to get a pseudosexual thrill from fucking with our lives, be it morally or financially.

    Look at the current mayor of Los Angeles for a prime example. He just drifts from photo op to photo op, going to media events and holding fundraisers where the rich local developers give him his marching orders.

    The L.A. Weekly just did an expose on him after getting his official calendar under some sort of state level freedom of information law. The guy does NOTHING for the city. He also totally racist in that he only personally meets with groups dealing with Hispanic issues. Have a group dealing with Black, Asian or something not divided by race at all? Oops! Sorry. The mayor is too busy to see you. :-P

  58. says

    I listened to that radioshow and remember it fairly well. I laughed aloud when Simmons himself brought up the whale fossil record. Would have called him a Poe if that were a forumer or commenter.

  59. co says

    Ramases, at 74:

    Can some Americans here answer a question from an Australian atheist and rationalist?

    How representative is Conservapædia of conservative thought in the US?

    I can’t entirely say, knowing some conservatives (all of whom are quite bright, if a little addlepated), some who call themselves conservatives (but would probably be denied such a label by the freaks on Conservapaedia), some *I* would call conservative, but who would deny it, and so on.

    Some of my relatives would label themselves political conservatives, but most would quail at ever being associated with someone as representative of dumbfuckery as Schlafly. I *suspect* that most would want to distance themselves quite far from most of the thought patterns (a term used loosely here) evidenced by Conservapaedia entries, though they might agree with some of the less realism-challenged things stated there.
    It’s rather unfortunate that those wackos have declared themselves to be the True Bastion of Conservativism. My father, for instance, is a political, fiscal conservative, but also an atheist. Though I disagree with some of his statements about (e.g.) McCain, I wholeheartedly endorse his continued rejection of Bible-babble. We’re a mixed bag here.

  60. Mena says

    Ramases, I’m not familiar with Australian politics at all so all I can use to describe what is going on there is based on being an American with close ties to Canada.
    They are fairly representative of the extreme end of conservatism here, but there are a lot of people at that level. There isn’t much middle ground these days. The Canadian Conservative party is no where near that. Even their extremists, people like Stockwell Day, would be considered to be “liberals” with a pejorative meaning being implied to that word. We have a lot of stupid people (known as “low information voters”) who think that they are the most patriotic and intelligent people who have ever walked the Earth because they have been given a definition of conservative that really doesn’t have any meaning in the real world. All it boils down to is a crazy, almost rabid, fervor based solely on jingo, jesus, and jihadis. As in flag burning being used as an important issue in the 2006 election, jesus needing the good and decent (ha!) real Americans to protect marriage from people who want to destroy it by participating in it (I know, but they never make sense so don’t even try), and we can’t forget how the islamist militant extremists are hiding under our beds and will kill us all at the first opportunity.
    They have been told that anyone who disagrees with them is “angry” and lately that we are “afraid” of Sarah Palin. The funny part is that a lot of them seem to have anger management issues. Do a YouTube search for Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh. They are always contrary, no matter what the issue, they are always angry, and they are always wrong. It never fails. The only anger that we really have for them is that nothing ever gets through, or if they know that it’s a lie, they don’t care. Whoever is most likely to destroy the Constitution is their biggest hero, yet we “libruls” are the traitors to the country. For example, look at how many people still think that the presidunce is the second coming (not always in the literal sense but I wouldn’t doubt if some do).
    Sorry that this is so long but by any chance can you guys take Rupert Murdoch back? He seems to be one of the biggest culprits in the disinformation/entertainment that passes as news these days.
    I’ll leave you with something fun. We should be asking John McCain the same question that Jack Layton asked Stephen Harper:

  61. says

    I realize that this exposes me as someone with a puerile sense of humor (guilty!), but one of the most amusing things about Conservapaedia is “Aschlafly.” Not just Andy himself (although, of course, he is hilarious), but his name. Every time I see “Aschlafly,” it looks like someone is insulting him by mocking his name, but that is Andy Schlafly’s own chosen handle for identification on Conservapaedia. He may think it’s pronounced “A Schlafly”, but I’m pretty sure the correct pronunciation is “Ash la fly.” Perhaps a faux-French cartoon character à la Pepe Le Pew.

    Surely none of the more mature adults on this blog ever react the same way that I do. Right?

  62. says

    I have never voted conservative in my life, but I am aware that most conservatives here in Australia would not identify with this rubbish – if they tried to run on it during an election they would be laughed at.

    There are a few conservatives like that: Tony Abbott, Dana Vale, even Howard himself to an extent was the social conservative that we see on the likes of Conservapedia. Who was the last Lib candidate in NSW? Peter Debnam from memory. He was a massive social conservative.

    Though our social conservatives here seem to stem from more traditional religious sects (Catholicism / Anglican) than the fundamentalist sects. When Hillsong takes a hold, we are screwed.

  63. Sastra says

    Falyne #75:

    Whoa, that link of yours really brings in the crazy. Usually, when I read religious or spiritual rants, I have an accompanying sinking sensation that the wider culture would still consider the person who wrote it more “mainstream” and acceptable than they would an atheist. This time … not so much.

    A technical discussion of the evidence for and differences between Sylphs, Brownies, Salamanders, and Undines (or Sprite/Dryads)? Also some good info on how to summon them? Ok. Even a Southern Baptist would consider scientific naturalism comparatively normal.

    I think.

  64. Falyne says


    I loooove, more than pretty much anywhere else on the internet. Time Cube’s fun, but sad when you realize how a by all accounts brilliant man was stolen away by paranoid schizophrenia. :-/, though, is all chewy gooey cuckoo goodness, with no unpleasant moral aftertaste. They start with your classic “allopathic doctors will kill us all with vaccines and SIDS and hoaxes”(1), then take a sharp turn through MKUltra Illuminati mind-control sex slaves(2), pass by your usual shapeshifting reptilian overlords(3), and wind up with the aforementioned chemtrail-eating cloud people.

    Oh, and also the gay men sent by the CIA to take over Ojai (a veritable mecca of woo-woo in So. CA, and also the town my high school was in).

    Ok, I need to stop. I could wander around that site for HOURS. It’s full of beautiful beautiful whackjobbery…. ^_^

    (1)Most of the front page ( (scroll down)) is quotes about this, as are most of the direct links.

    (2) Also, somewhere on the site (I can’t find it right now) is a loooooong book documenting how the Illuminati use demonology to do their mind control thing. Number (3) has some stuff related to it.


  65. Sastra says

    Falyne #84:
    Very interesting — thanks. I knew about from reading Orac’s site, but thought it was basically confined to alternative medicine. Taking a look around the place helps me understand why he always refers to it in tones of loathing and horror so thick it drips off my monitor.

    Metaphorically speaking, of course. No reason to give anyone any ideas for new phenomenon to discuss.

  66. Falyne says

    And oh, Ceiling Cat! I hadn’t seen their bit about atheists before!

    Richard Dawkins is our high priest, of course, and he’s called upon to explain how a trilobite fossil is smushed in a sandalprint (stop me if you’ve heard this one before).

    Standard creationist boilerplate gets that special treatment when it’s pointed out that reducing humans to think they are animalistic is a key step in the process of mind control programming, so the elites want Darwinism to spread so that humanity will be more vulnerable.

    Oh Ceiling Cat, I <3 this site! ^_^

  67. Falyne says

    ….use a forward alligator brace to make a heart symbol and get my comment cut off. Silly HTML. Ahem.

    I love that site. ^_^

  68. Sastra says


    Yes, indeed. This is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone claim that Billy Graham and the Jesuits are part of a deep plot to spread atheism.

    Damn. They found out that we’re responsible for the Jesuits.

    Who talked?

  69. Falyne says

    Yeah, the woo-woo crowd there are NOT fans of organized religions at all. Most of them are fronts for the reptilian demon Illuminati, after all.

    It’s kinda like watching /b/ take on Scientology; I’m not sure who to root for…. ;-)

  70. LisaJ says

    Man, I just saw a clip of these conservapaedia loons the other day on the Hour, the teacher and his poor brainwashed homeschoolers in all their ignorant glory. I just wanted to reach through the TV and give them all a good punch to the face to knock some sense into them. This guy should be locked up and kept a safe distance away from all children.

  71. Falyne says

    Although you WILL find the “Jesuits as underminers of faith” among the fundangelical crowd, too. Jack Chick has full comics, not just tracts, that detail how the Jesuits used Mohammed’s wife Khadijah to found Islam to draw away Bible-Believing Christians, and how Jesuit agents enter Bible-Believing Bible Colleges to corrupt future pastors or infiltrate protestant churches to report on all attendees (and record them in a giant computer database in the Vatican).

  72. Patricia says

    #78 – co – That’s just beautiful! There is a certain ring to “Representative of Dumbfuckery”. Makes me want to order stationary, re letter the mail box, check catalogs for embossed holiday cards and get embroidered blazer pockets.

  73. Arnosium Upinarum says

    “The TRUSTWORTHY Encyclopedia”

    To paraphrase Obama: there’s a Bridge to Nowhere I can sell to those folks too.

    It’s a toss-up: either they idolize deceit, or they idolize stupidity.

  74. Rowan says

    PZ Meyers is absolutely right. I’ve listened to that tape several times. He did name several specific examples of fossils Simmons said weren’t there and all Simmons could do was say (in what sounded a rather shaky and somewhat slurred voice) “He’s very wriong about that, I don’t know where he’s getting his information from.” It did sound exactly like a debate between a well-informed professor and a failing but belligerent student.

  75. says

    I haven’t gone through all the comments to see if anyone else has noticed, but when I went to look at the conservapedia entry now it had been altered. It ends after the first sentence.

  76. Dairen says

    Shall we go drop a few code bombs in there, the whole thing is a load of trash that requires years of re-editing…

  77. Falyne says

    It’s Conservapedia. Lying is like masturbation to them.

    Then what’s their masturbation to us?

    A distinct need for brain-bleach, that’s what…

  78. salix says

    A humble request (only slightly off-topic):

    Please please PLEASE try to (at least) minimize the use of the word “homeschooled” as a synonym for wackaloonery. I’m homeschooling our son, in a religion-free, science-heavily-weighted way, and here’s one of the reasons why: my own public school science education was a complete crock. Our high school (in the relatively enlightened province of Ontario) was infested with religious nutcases. (The only biology teacher was a rampant Jehovah’s witness; the only chemistry teacher was the pastor at the church my family attended. You can imagine how little actual knowledge, and how much bald-faced misinformation, was imparted in those classes.)

    But I loved science, and I read voraciously — so there was no way I was going to fall into that ignorance-trap.

    Years later and my research showed many schools still horrendous at passing on (especially) science — teachers shoved into science teaching positions without the slightest clue about the subject, for example. And so, we homeschool (that’s only one reason out of many, of course…)

    I’m now the (sporadic) science instructor for over a hundred homeschooled kids. My students, some as young as four years old, have covered some basic ideas in particle physics, cosmology, general relativity, the history of science, genetics, and yes, lots about evolution. And the kids (and the parents) love it.

    Homeschooling (when it’s not simply indoctrination into some religious craziness) rocks!