Searching for Pharyngula, I came across Conservapedia. You must forgive my naivete; I had not seen this site before. What a hilariously well-constructed spoof. Eat your heart out, Onion!

New atheism leadership's problem with being overweight
During a visit to the Creation Museum, the evolutionist and atheist PZ Myers had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape

3 out of a random list of 5 atheists have had issues with their weight, apparently.

More at http://www.conservapedia.com/Pharyngula_(blog), including the detailed examination of such headlines as:

"The claim that PZ Myers' blog audience tends to be quarrelsome and socially challenged men"
"Blog post featuring a photograph with a high percentage of overweight PZ Myers fans"
"Evidence that atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women" ***

All very valid points.

***Edit - I wonder if that is as a philosophy or as a trait in prospective partners?

Conservapedia's idiocy is only out-competed by its depravity.

Of course American Christians aren't largely overweight at all.

To be fair, the few times I went over to pharyngula, the crowd there wasn't the brightest bunch basking in rationality.

yes, to be fair you ought to acknowledge that.

Lion IRC wrote:yes, to be fair you ought to acknowledge that.

I don't find PZ Myers very interesting either.

I had Guinness with PZ in Dublin. Sound bloke.

That said, I don't read his blog at all

babel wrote:To be fair, the few times I went over to pharyngula, the crowd there wasn't the brightest bunch basking in rationality.

This.

Paul G wrote:

babel wrote:To be fair, the few times I went over to pharyngula, the crowd there wasn't the brightest bunch basking in rationality.

This.

Your thread indeed was one of those occasions.

james1v wrote:
"Valid points"?

Sarcasm!

babel wrote:To be fair, the few times I went over to pharyngula, the crowd there wasn't the brightest bunch basking in rationality.

Lion IRC wrote:
yes, to be fair you ought to acknowledge that.

OK, I acknowledge that the few times babel went over to pharyngula, the crowd there wasn't the brightest bunch basking in rationality. I dunno, I'm not sure if our visits have coincided.

Shrunk wrote:If you're new to Conservapedia, than you might not be aware of what must be their finest moment: The Lenski Affair.

Marvellous! And to admit of beneficial mutations even in a culture of gut flora is too much for the die-hard?

I do think that the dino quote must be knowing mockery of Conservapedia itself ... surely? Evolutionist, creation museum, dinosaur, and the salient point is a difficulty in mounting/dismounting said exhibit? It's just too rich. But then again, perhaps this is the phenomenon of Increase in Unspecified Ribticklosity (paper in preparation) in action.

As Ben Goldacre says, "even the people who run Conservapedia find it hard to tell whether the edits are being made by god-fearing Americans or naughty satirists. ".

Conservapedia is so obsessed with these "15 questions evolutionists can't answer?".

We need a campaign: "15 responses to the '15 questions evolutionists can't answer' that creationists can't refute".

It might be the only way to draw their attention to the hundreds of responses offered to their fucking stupid questions.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Conservapedia is so obsessed with these "15 questions evolutionists can't answer?".

We need a campaign: "15 responses to the '15 questions evolutionists can't answer' that creationists can't refute".

It might be the only way to draw their attention to the hundreds of responses offered to their fucking stupid questions.

That's quite an interesting idea... It probably needs its own thread, though. And I figure it deserves its own thread, too.

Lion IRC wrote:yes, to be fair you ought to acknowledge that.

Compared to the dumbfucks at Conservapedia, PZ's audience are Nobel Laureate level. But then Schlafly's mob would have trouble out-competing prokaryotic life forms in the intelligence stakes. Shrunk has already linked to the Lenski Affair, where Schlafly had his arse cheeks handed to him on a plate, sautéed in rationalist napalm and stir-fried with a reality-based hoy sin sauce.

Meanwhile, here's an example of a Pharyngula thread within which relevant standards of discourse are maintained. Please, do tell us all what's wrong with the content of that thread. It'll be an instructive exercise for you to attempt.

EDIT: You can also have fun trying to tell us why, in this thread, the actual research scientists studying the fossils mentioned therein are purportedly "wrong", and professional liar for doctrine Casey Luskin is purportedly "right". If you rise to that challenge, I'll have fin bringing relevant papers in here demonstrating in detail why Luskin's assorted crypto-creationist vomitings are about as much use as a blast furnace made from blancmange.

Calilasseia wrote:
Shrunk has already linked to the Lenski Affair, where Schlafly had his arse cheeks handed to him on a plate, sautéed in rationalist napalm and stir-fried with a reality-based hoy sin sauce.

Careful now, Lion will probably read this as you inciting violence.

Animavore wrote:I had Guinness with PZ in Dublin. Sound bloke.

That said, I don't read his blog at all

Same here, except in Syracuse. My organization had him.

To be fair though, I do not read many blogs at all!