Never heard of “Conservapedia” before, so I clicked the link in the OP.
I immediately went to the “dinosaur” page to see how far the lunacy went. Under a photograph of an event at a creation museum, there was the following caption:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur#Evolutionary.2FOld_Earth_Perspective
What is it with these guys and “fat atheists”?!
So much unintentional comedy. I think Conservapedia is probably the biggest comedy-themed website out there 
Some of them really make no sense:
"Independence Day" is now “The Fourth of July.” What exactly is being secularized here? Both terms have been in use for centuries. None of them are particularly religious in nature.
"Drunkard" is now “Alcoholic.” Same thing. I guess they’re saying that alcoholism is considered a disease, thus removing moral responsibility, maybe. Who knows?
"Golden Rule" is now “Altruism.” This one isn’t even true. There is a strong distinction between the golden rule and altruism. One is being nice to others in the hope that they’ll be nice to you, and the other is being nice to others whether you get anything from it or not. Also, both ideas predate Christianity by a long, long way.
"Harlot" is now “Empowerment.” These aren’t even synonyms: “That girl is pretty slutty. I think she’s an empowerment.”
"Mankind" is now “Humankind.” Not sure how this is secular, either, but apparently the Christian viewpoint is that half the species doesn’t belong. I do agree that “humankind” is an ugly word, which is why I use that old standby “humanity.”
I want to visit the Creation Museum. THAT sounds like it would be a blast.
SciFi writer John Scalzi visited once as reported on his blog.
Bill Hicks died for their sins.
Conservapedia is, well, crazy.
No blunt way of saying that.
Rationalwiki’s article.
My favorite ‘incident’ was when Andy was trying to take on an actual scientist, with regard to the mutation of e.coli.
Has it been determined that Conservapedia is on the level and not one big massive Poe’s Law troll?
Doesn’t surprise me. I’ve long suspected adverbs of having leftist sympathies.
And Jerry Falwell and Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie.
Someone once made a comment that Free Republic is probably 90% people trolling each other and 10% actual conservatives. I think Conservapedia is probably 99% trolls. Poe’s law in action baby!
From the “Essay:Best New Conservative Words”: First, I did not know that the King James bible used all the words available in the early 1600s - “The King James Version of the Bible contains only about 8,000 different words;[1] many good words have since developed” - this is especially interesting as I searched for the word ‘catapult’, ‘lung’, ‘artery’, ‘prism’ using an on-line KJV bible web-site, and none of those words were in the Bible, even though they were in use by 1600…
And This one:
coolant - 1926 a fluid, typically water, that facilitates efficient energy production, especially nuclear energy to cool a reactor and slow down the fission of neutrons
Hmm, especially nuclear energy? What about the billions of internal combustion engines out there in the world - what do they use? Wouldn’t that usage be more common?
As for the whole essay premise, well, I guess if any word that has a positive or even neutral connotation is considered ‘convservative’, regardless of whether it’s political or not, then yes, obviously the number of conservative words is doubling per century…
You’d think some conservaties would be smart enough to realise that the convervapedia articles sound silly, whiney, and are often incorrect - why don’t they correct them? Why would you want embarrassing trite on such a convservative style wiki? Can anyone explain, and make the Moe Howard voice in my head saying “Are they THAT dumb?” go away?
His mother’s Phyllis Schafly. I’d love to think it’s just a joke, but considering how he was raised, I doubt it.
The only conservative who consults Conservapedia is Schafly. That’s it. Every other contributor is a troll (well, so is Schafly, just not coming from the same angle I suppose)
It’s also Andy Schafly’s personal sandbox. If anyone, or any group, tried to go in and take the project in a direction contrary to Andy’s wishes, they would not succeed. Andy and his followers (and he apparently has some) would ban, delete, and otherwise prevent the invaders from having a noticeable impact.
The only thing a group of anti-Schafly conservatives could do is to start their own conservative wiki project. I haven’t heard of any such project so far.
I think only Schlafly-level whackjobs really think Wikipedia has liberal bias, so the more sane conservatives don’t see the need.
You mean Schafly personally approved this? :
Has it ever occured to anyone that this Schafly guy might be trolling from day one?
Liberal word: “a” Implies one of something is as good as any other.
A better conservative alternative is “the” which pictures a specific individual, standing proud and tall in a field of mediocrity.
Somebody who coincidentally has the same username as me (weird!) started a Wiki for the people who feel Conservapedia also has too much liberal bias:
http://therealconservapedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_REAL_Conservapedia_Wiki
http://therealconservapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Examples_Of_Conservapedia's_Liberal_Bias
Likely not, he’s the son of Phyllis Schlafly