Talk:Main Page/archive37

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Interesting Article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7124969.stm

Further evidence that may indicate that Dinosaurs aren't as old previously believed.

Jose83

Did you read the article? It said nothing about bringing into question when dinosaurs existed, and it pointed out that the fossil in question is that of a "67 million-year-old dinosaur." Claude 22:53, 3 December 2007 (EST)

You gotta read the facts, and not be misled by the liberal gloss put on the facts to satisfy a liberal audience. How long do you think soft tissue can survive?--Aschlafly 22:56, 3 December 2007 (EST)

I have no idea. Maybe I should write a book on the topic. But in the meanwhile, I'll try to avoid reading into the evidence that which is not there. Claude 22:58, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Claude, aren't you as interesting in learning the truth as we are? You don't really think soft tisse survives for 67 million years, do you? I'm sure there is an average age for soft tissue, but I don't know what it is. I do have an open mind to learn what it is.--Aschlafly 23:07, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Interested in learning the truth, sure. Fishing expeditions less so. You offer me no convincing evidence as to why soft tissue - given the very specific and exceptional circumstances outlined in the article - could not survive that long besides a "you don't really think" and a "how long do you think." You'll have to do better than that. Claude 23:11, 3 December 2007 (EST)

I have no idea how old the dinosaur is, but before this conversation goes completely off the rails can I point out that the soft tissue isn't actually, at this point, soft? It's fossilized. The whole thing is a big rock. (Yes, simplified. Sue me.) Aziraphale 23:26, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Claude, you act like it's my job or duty to try to educate you about why soft tissue doesn't last for 67 million years, after which you have free will to insist it must anyway. If you want to cling to a belief that soft tissue lasts for 67 million years, so be it. It's not my job to open your mind. It's your loss, and your loss alone, if you avoid, as you put it, "fishing expeditions" to learn the truth.--Aschlafly 23:27, 3 December 2007 (EST)

1. Read Azi's comment. 2. It is your job. You run an encyclopedia, you claim to be an educator, and you're the one who's contesting what's in the article. Contest it with evidence, man. And you haven't addressed my argument re: the specific circumstances of this case. Claude 23:30, 3 December 2007 (EST)

Further reading for anybody interested: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/12/dino_mummy The thing about the vertebrae was interesting to me, at least... Aziraphale 23:42, 3 December 2007 (EST)
Even its skin tissue is intact! I can't believe skin can last a million years.
Claude, suit yourself. Sorry, it's not my job to open your mind. I'll be the first to admit you have a free will. I can tell you, though, that you'd be happier, more productive, and more insightful if you accepted the possibility of the truth of long-held views that you currently reject out of hand.--Aschlafly 00:05, 4 December 2007 (EST)

A lot of confusion can be avoided by reading the quoted article carefully. It says While it has been dubbed a dinosaur "mummy", the dinosaur is actually fossilised into stone. The fossilization must have been fast, but ever since the fossilization was complete it has the same durability as stone, since it is as a matter of fact stone. Feel free to argue how old stone can be. Order 01:48, 4 December 2007 (EST)

The first thing I read about it (in a Melbourne paper) made it sound like unfossilised (mummified) tissue, but it does appear that it is fully mineralised, so you can't argue for it being young on the basis of it having unfossilised tissue (but if it did, that would make a good argument, as Aschlafly points out). If someone wants to argue the age of the fossil/stone, I'm willing, but I won't start that argument. Philip J. Rayment 03:34, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Andy, it's not your job to open my mind - but it is your job to open your own - to the possibility that the dinosaur in question has fossilized soft tissue that is older than a YEC worldview might allow. Claude 09:35, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Or perhaps you could open your mind to the possibility that the YEC worldview is correct? Philip J. Rayment 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
Sorry - the idea of big invisible men in the sky is completely irrational in my books - no God, no "soul" no "spirit" or whatever you want to call it...Claude 21:39, 4 December 2007 (EST)
Do you know what seems completely irrational to me? The idea that you can dismiss belief in God as "irrational" by mischaracterising it and providing no logical argument whatsoever. Simply saying that it is, in your opinion, "irrational", does not make it so, and provides no reason for anyone else to think that you have any cause to think so. Philip J. Rayment 00:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Claude, I've always been fully open to an old-earth view, and accepted it for most of my life until reexamining it with an open mind. But I doubt you can say the same about a young-earth view, including the Flood, which was taught by Jesus, taught by the first pope and accepted by a majority of Americans today, and supported by much evidence.--Aschlafly 09:46, 4 December 2007 (EST)
Not in that sense… --SimonA 21:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Taught by Jesus? Irrelevant to me as I'm no Christian. The first Pope? I'm not a Catholic; means nothing to me. Accepted by a majority of Americans? So was slavery, Jim Crow and witch burning - appeal to the masses is a poor substitute for an argument. Evidence? There's enough evidence to satisfy me that the Earth is way older than the YECs claim - like the 67 million year old fossil in question - about which you've yet to say anything meaningful besides "I can't believe it."? Claude 10:11, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Soft tissue does NOT last for millions of years. Period.
This isn't even the first time evidence such as this has surfaced..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm
Why are evolutionists so unwilling to accept the possibility that these creatures AREN'T millions of years old? Especially when proof such as this is presented time and time again?
Jose83
Can't tell you why evolutionists are unwilling to accept, well, anything, but what's soft tissue got to do with it? Nobody found "soft" soft tissue. Aziraphale 11:46, 4 December 2007 (EST) <-watches conversation de-rail regardless, waves "bye bye!"...
It's not exactly new for people to come in here and "teach" us as if we've never considered anything else. Fossilization is accepted in both evolutionary and creationist theories. Soft tissue in dinosaurs, at least until recently, would only be expected to be found within a creationist world view. Learn together 11:05, 4 December 2007 (EST)

REPLY TO ABOVE First, as to Claude, his hardened attitude now resorts to smearing the majority of Americans. A majority of Americans never accepted witch-burning, "Jim Crow" (which I doubt Claude even understands) or even slavery. And if the teachings of Jesus are irrelevant to Claude, then whose teachings does he recognize? Even many atheists recognize value in Jesus's teachings, by the way. Claude, you have free will, but I again urge you to do yourself a favor and view Jesus and theories about origins with an open mind.

As to the soft-tissue issue, saying that it has fossilized only pushes back the mystery. Atheists insist that fossilization is a very slow process, taking millions of years. Under that theory, the fossilization of soft tissue is impossible. Yet there it is in the article.

As to the claim of 67 million years old, that depends on an assumption known to be false: that decay rates somehow remain constant at levels observed today. Nothing remains constant in that manner, not magnetism, not the speed of light, and not anything else. Also, scientists candidly admit that the closer one gets to the point of origin of the universe, physical laws must have been different.--Aschlafly 12:58, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Andy, have you ever heard of "special circumstances"? Perhaps this dino died in a particularly dry, salty environment, which might (in theory) allow for soft tissues to last long enough to be fossilized. --transResident Transfanform! 14:25, 4 December 2007 (EST)
Then if the special circumstances are correct, these scientists who state that the animal in question died in a particularly dry, salty environment which might (in theory) allow for soft tissues to last long enough to be fossilized need to experiment with their theory to see if it is correct. Place an dead animal exactly as described in a dry, salty environment and let's see if it: a.) fossilizes into stone; or b.) just rots away into nothing within the space of 6 months to a year; or c.) gets attacked and eaten away by scavengers to the point that it is totally gone in less than 6 months. It's probably going to be one of the last two. Karajou 14:48, 4 December 2007 (EST)


REPLY TO Aschlafly: You stated "Also, scientists candidly admit that the closer one gets to the point of origin of the universe, physical laws must have been different." I assume you're talking about modern theories in which different forces of nature are really different expressions of the same force, which unify at higher energies.

The thing is, that doesn't really have any bearing on what happened 67 million years ago. The physics involved then (that which is responsible for chemical reactions) would have been the same as that which applies now, since a life-bearing earth wouldn't exactly replicate such extremely-high-energy conditions. In any case, stating that the laws were different then isn't accurate. A more correct statement would be that the laws predict different behavior at higher energies, and 13 billion years ago the universe hadn't yet cooled to the point where these energies were as unusual as they are now.

I don't know why you're saying "Nothing remains constant in that manner" either. If you have evidence that, say, the speed of light changes, by all means, please share it. Decay rates are a result of known physics. There's nothing in our current understanding of physical law which would indicate that they would change--so where does your assumption that physical law changes over time come from? Koalitis 14:37, 4 December 2007 (EST)

The assumption underlying claims of "millions" and "billions" of years in age is that observed physical phenomena, such as decay rates, do not change over time. That is demonstrably false. Magnetism on earth has demonstrably changed. The weight of the closely watch kilogram standard has changed in a mere century, as explained in an article we recently had on our front page. The speed of light has changed. It's silly to think any of these would be invariant. They aren't invariant. Neither are decay rates.
It's also circular logic to assume what you're trying to prove. In trying to prove things about the past, it's illogical to make unobserved assumptions about it. I realize circular logic can fool some people. But it's not going to fool people here.--Aschlafly 15:19, 4 December 2007 (EST)
For my edification, has the evidence of non-constant "constants" demonstrated any clues as to the RATE at which these changes occur? Aziraphale 15:37, 4 December 2007 (EST) <-drops all pretense of having left... :p
Are you assuming that the rates of change are constant? No reason why they would be.
If anyone insists on assuming what he's trying to prove, he has free will to do so, but it isn't logical and it's not going to persuade anyone who maintains an open mind and logical approach to the issues.--Aschlafly 18:00, 4 December 2007 (EST)
1. The "open mind" card doesn't work on me, I have taken your test and will take any revised version you'd care for me to take. I won't even ask the same of you, can't ask for a better deal than that.. 2. I didn't assume anything. I asked for some further information about the non-constant constants. I understand you get a lot of leading questions around here, but I'm just asking.
I know you see a lot of people around here and can't tell us all apart, but you've got no reason to think I'm one of your snipers. If you still want to feel that way, knock yourself out.
Can anyone ELSE tell me more about what the people (scientists?) who are in FAVOR of non-constant constants have to say about the rates of change? Aziraphale 19:23, 5 December 2007 (EST)
All I'm aware of is that evidence has been found for some constants to not always be constant, not that they change at a predictable rate. Some scientists have invoked a different value for the fine structure constant (I think it is) which would affect the speed of light, in order to solve a problem with the Big Bang story. Also, other scientists have found evidence of inconsistencies in radioactive decay rates, which they propose changed during Noah's Flood. Beyond that, I'm not sure that I can help. Philip J. Rayment 20:52, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Gotcha. Thanks, Philip. :) Aziraphale 13:47, 6 December 2007 (EST) <-simple, really...


May I remind you that a kilogram is not a measure of weight? Of course the weight of the kilogram standard has changed, because things like the acceleration due to gravity are constantly changing. A kilogram is a measure of mass--you might as well be arguing that since the colour of the metre standard has changed, the Earth is now ten times larger.
Decay rates may have changed, but that does not mean they must have changed. You're assuming that absence of proof is proof of absence. --Camael 20:05, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Does this article actually support YEC? Whether the fossil is 65 million years old or 6000 years old, we all can reasonably agree that soft tissue typically doesn’t last that long, otherwise the world would be covered with dead organisms. In response to this comment posted above:

“a.) fossilizes into stone; or b.) just rots away into nothing within the space of 6 months to a year; or c.) gets attacked and eaten away by scavengers to the point that it is totally gone in less than 6 months. It's probably going to be one of the last two”

This comment seems to me to be completely correct. But, that does not mean that the finding supports YEC either because the animal would have decayed by now whether it died 10 years ago, or 65 million years ago under normal circumstances. So this fossil clearly represents an abnormal situation, and the debate here seems to simply boil down to whether you trust how it was dated not whether soft tissue can possibly last for an extended period of time. Besides, the article clearly states that it is fossilized and not actually soft tissue. --JCap 15:57, 4 December 2007 (EST)

JCap, a soft-tissue fossil disproves the claim that the process of fossilization needs millions of years. It doesn't. Many, perhaps all, fossilization occurs in a time period short enough to permit even soft tissue to fossilize.--Aschlafly 18:00, 4 December 2007 (EST)

You know, none of this is a new issue. I have a fossilized trilobite (a boneless animal), which is very well preserved. But how come we've found thousands of fossilized dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals, but never, for instance, a dog or horse? Maestro 18:48, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Because they evolved much later and haven't been on the planet long enough. 19:14, 4 December 2007 (EST)

There are fossilized horses. [1]
Touche. How about modern horses? Maestro 20:37, 4 December 2007 (EST)
Equus simplicidens is a fairly modern horse, but if why don't you google yourself for fossils of equus caballus. You'll find even a museum of horse fossils. If you want horse more fresh than this, you'll have to go to the butcher. :) Order 01:23, 5 December 2007 (EST)

You want fossils of modern horses? Why don't you bury Trigger in the backyard and wait for a few millenia. These things take time. Claude 20:42, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Thank you, Claude, you just proved the point. If "these things take time," as atheists do claim, then how do you explain the fossilized soft tissue in the story we've been discussing???--Aschlafly 20:49, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Ummm...'cause it's been buried in a swamp for 67 million years? Is that enough time for you?Claude 21:29, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Reply to a number of comments above

We need to draw a distinction between "physical laws" and "physical constants". I think I'm correct in saying that in most cases, we don't know why physical constants are constant; it's just that they usually appear to be (which is why we call them that). Creationists do believe that the physical laws are fixed. Secular science does propose that the physical laws didn't apply early after the Big Bang, but they are talking about the first few microseconds after the Big Bang, not as recently as 67 million years ago.

However, that certain "constants", such as the speed of light and decay rates, have been constant for billions of years is not an observation, as we haven't been observing them that long, but an extrapolation from a relatively short period of observation (i.e. a few hundred years at most). And yes, there is evidence that the speed of light might vary slightly in some circumstances, and there is also evidence that radioactive decay rates have varied, by quite large amounts.

As I said in an earlier post above, this fossil cannot be used to argue for a YEC worldview (or an old-Earth worldview for that matter) on the basis of unfossilised tissue, because it was all fossilised. Andy (Aschlafly)'s point that it must have fossilised quickly is correct, but this can be accommodated in the old-Earth worldview.

Experiments have been done on biological material to see how long it can last, and it would be stretching a bit—but not impossible—to say that in exceptionally conducive conditions it can last a few thousand years (the Flood was about 4,500 years ago), but it is fantasy to think that it can last 67 million years, no matter how good the conditions. (Evolutionists are confronted with this problem: Experimentation has shown that tissue decays quite quickly, so it can't last 65 million years. Tissue (in another case) has been found that is supposedly 65 million years old. So do they (a) question the time that tissue can last, or (b) question the supposed age of the tissue. Unsurprisingly, they question the experimental evidence rather than the old-Earth worldview. Then tell us creationists that we are being close-minded!)

Why are not modern horses found as fossils, if the YEC view is correct? Because the YEC view is that the vast majority of (but not all) fossils were formed during Noah's Flood, and that Noah had one (or seven?) pair(s) of horse(s) on the ark, from which all the modern varieties have been bred. So modern horses post-date the formation of most fossils. Nothing inconsistent there.

By the way, the Flood is an exceptional fossilisation event. This fossil required an exceptional event (to fossilise it rapidly). If this was an exception then it mightn't support the YEC view all that well, but it's not an exception—cases of "exceptional" fossilisation are quite common. Philip J. Rayment 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST) P.S. for Claude's latest comment posted while typing this: I would think that a swamp would be a very bad place to preserve something for a long time. Philip J. Rayment 21:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)

And obviously, given the evidence about the very specific circumstances that brought about this particular bit of fossilised tissue, you'd be wrong. Claude 21:37, 4 December 2007 (EST)

"Buried" in a "swamp"??? That's a contradiction, but it sounds like you'll believe and say anything rather than open your mind.
By the way, you've expressed your contempt for an "invisible" God, and I wonder if you also have contempt for the invisible "love", faith, the invisible hand, etc. I bet you're relatively young, because people who cling to such views often migrate towards despondency, depression and worse as they grow older -- or change their views.--Aschlafly 21:58, 4 December 2007 (EST)
Why would I be wrong? The two linked articles didn't mention a swamp, and the second one said that it would have been "rapidly buried in mineral-rich wet sand". That doesn't sound like a swamp to me. It sounds more like something a flood would do. Philip J. Rayment 07:49, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Well, "buried," "immersed," whatever - "at the bottom of" was my point. And it's not so much that I hold belief in God in contempt as much I am bemused by it - kind of like the way I see children's belief in Santa Claus. The two are pretty much the same thing, although far fewer people have been killed in the name of Santa Claus. And I'm well older than you seem to think I am - well into my forties, actually. And I'm a really happy guy - love my work, my friends and family. Sorry to let you down, but I am neither depressed nor despondent - or likely to start believing in Santa Claus again. Peace. Claude 22:08, 4 December 2007 (EST)

There is a world of difference between God and Santa Claus. The Santa Claus story proposes things that we know cannot be done, such as reindeer flying. The accounts of God do not propose Him doing anything that we know a genuine God could not do. Therefore the God account is internally consistent, unlike the Santa Claus account. Philip J. Rayment 07:49, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Claude, you obviously didn't answer my question. Do you also have contempt for love? (or "bemused" as you now pretend). Ditto for faith, the invisible hand, conservative principles, etc.? By the way, if you're "a really happy guy," you're a lucky one, like the smoker who lives to his 80s. Many atheists (and smokers) are not so lucky.--Aschlafly 22:17, 4 December 2007 (EST)

well, I'm not sure what love has to do with dinosaur fossils, but whatever turns you on, right? Of course I believe in love - it's a particularly appealing set of chemical reactions in my brain that makes me glad I'm human. As for faith, my answer to that should be obvious - as you understand the term, I have no faith. And as for the "invisible hand" and other conservative principles, that's even further away from dinosaur bones, isn't it? And aren't you the smug one? I don't "pretend" to be bemused at belief in God - I genuinely am. It amazes me that people still need such a thing at this stage in human history - that people are willing to pillory a teacher for naming a teddy bear or that a country needs to evoke millenia-old mytholgies on its currency is genuinely amusing to be. Peace. Claude 22:26, 4 December 2007 (EST)

I don't think that the fact that Claude is happy is that surprising - it's not like all atheist are isolated and depressed. I mean, atheist make up a fairly large amount of the earth's population (I believe - and I've verified this with a few sources - that its the 3rd most popular religious choice in the world) - so lets not try to dehumanize them by suggesting they're these social outcast (oh - and lets avoid comparing faiths to smoking ... that's a slippery slope).
Now Claude - I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing. Your bombastic comparison God to Santa Claus is offensive to both me and the majority of this site. I have a strong suspicion that your reasons for being here are disingenuous - however if they are not then I suggest you start editing articles (while of course abiding by our MoS) and lose your attitude on the talk pages--IDuan 22:29, 4 December 2007 (EST)
Iduan, Claude's comments are typical of the views of many atheists today. It's good for others to see them here.--Aschlafly 22:37, 4 December 2007 (EST)
Claude, you think love is "a particularly appealing set of chemical reactions in [your] brain"??? Sorry, few are going to agree with you, for good reason. Enough said. Looks like you cling to a materialism that refuses believe anything unseen except, of course, unseen things that fellow atheists believe in, such as UFOs or "dark matter" or bizarre conspiracy theories about George W. Bush.
You may claim to be happy, like a smoker who claims to be in great shape. For most, however, the habit catches up, and its effects then hit hard. Some smokers are lucky, and I hope you are too. But I feel depression and animosity coming through in your comments. I would expect that to grow as you grow older, unless you open your mind as famous atheist Anthony Flew eventually did.--Aschlafly 22:37, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Dinosaurs predate humans. I have no doubts about that. Why are there no mentions of them in the bible or any other historical documents, records or folklore. Would the writers of the old testament have failed to notice the multitudes of enourmous creatures occupying the earth, but still have made reference to modern wild animals? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawman (talk)

I agree that dinosaurs predate humans. They were created before man, but on the same day, so they predate him by perhaps a few hours. You are incorrect about there being no other mentions of them. Keep in mind, though, that the word was only coined in 1841, so you won't find them by that name. But descriptions matching them have been recorded in words and pictures, including Behemoth in the Bible, and dragons in history. Besides, there's lots of animals that the Bible doesn't mention; so that is an argument from silence, which is not a valid argument. See our article on dinosaurs. Philip J. Rayment 07:54, 5 December 2007 (EST)

I'm terribly sorry, but has anyone actually read the BBC article in question? It says (and I quote) "Skin, muscle, tendons and other tissue that rarely survive fossilisation have all been preserved" and then "While it has been dubbed a dinosaur "mummy", the dinosaur is actually fossilised into stone." Fossilised into stone. Of course no tissue could have survived 64 million years, it would have decayed. Its structure was preserved, not the tissue itself. Look at the last line: "The reptile had no chest cavity, suggesting it had been partially eaten by predators before being "mummified" in unusual conditions: acidic, waterlogged sediments collected around the dinosaur, triggering the rapid deposit of minerals and trapping organic molecules before they decayed." It was fossilised quickly, and retained much of its original structure but is solid (unless there are any air bubbles) rock. Phillipps 18:11, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Yes, that it was completely fossilised has been pointed out by more than one person. It's interesting, however, that you say that no tissue could have survived 64 million years (and I agree), because intact tissue from a T-Rex has been found, which has lead evolutionists to discard the idea that it can't last that long (experimental evidence to the contrary) rather than give up the claimed age of the dinosaur. Philip J. Rayment 22:06, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Just out of curiosity, where are you getting that fact? Is it from one of the articles on the various links on this section of the talk page? Just so I can read it.--Phillipps 22:45, 13 December 2007 (EST)
I presume that you are asking about the intact T-Rex tissue? If so, see here, which also has links to other articles on this. Philip J. Rayment 00:08, 14 December 2007 (EST)

The Golden Compass

Might be mainpage worthy - Atheists are getting upset at the Prince Capsian trailer being put in front of The Golden Compass. [2] SSchultz 23:45, 9 December 2007 (EST)

LOL - first they say that the Golden Compass doesn't have any message behind it - and yet they only expect films that agree with its message to show up in the trailers.--IDuan 23:54, 9 December 2007 (EST)
I registered to post this: Wow, that's outrageous. Certainly deserves a spot on the main page.KrisLetang
I have to admit, that is quite hypocritical of them. Actually, that is really hypocritical. Presumably these are the same people that would merely dismiss any complaints of anti-religious messages in The Golden Compass. Feebasfactor 21:54, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I'm sorry, but I think you guys are missing something: the article is clearly a parody! Look at the website hosting it (ComicsNexus), and try to search for any of the organizations named on the internet. They don't show up, because they're not real. It's clearly a liberal trying to make a joke at our expense (Mr. Schlafly has noted that this is also often liberal style). On a related note, though, I'm about halfway through reading the Golden Compass (morbid curiosity?), and I don't see the anti-Christian message. Granted, I'm not to the "action" yet, I guess.-MexMax 12:06, 11 December 2007 (EST)

The books were designed to draw you in. The first is rather mild, with the strong anti-Church and anti-God messages coming in the second and third books. Learn together 12:15, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Looks like MexMax is right. The article parodies Christians objecting to The Golden Compass. It's comic and shouldn't be on the main page. Ajkgordon 12:20, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks for the tip, LearnTogether; I think I'll still read them, just because I have a hard time stopping a book series that I start. Luckily, my faith is strong.-MexMax 12:25, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Considering that Prince Caspian will blow the Golden Compass out of the water, I find that parody hilarious for reasons other than it was intended. Jinxmchue 11:43, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Did you hear about the woman who took her little girl to see the golden compass and got all upset because she thought her girl was going to want to read the books and watch the movies? --~BCSTalk2ME 11:47, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Homosexuality curable?

Scientists where able to alter the sexual orientation of fruit flyes. We allready know that its possible thro therapy and help with humans, but mayby in future we can produce a drug that makes it easyer for people. One more disease defeated. [3] ConanO 16:14, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Hmmm, fruit flies were made gay....is this supposed to be a pun, or maybe there is something to the FOX News gay agenda conspiracy theory.... Rob Smith 16:21, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Of course, the brain of a human is just a little more complicated than that of a fruit fly. And the fact that many gays see no reason to change their sexual orientation. Maestro 23:24, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Not always -- brain complexity isn't uniform. The ability to make alterations may be similar or it may not. The flip side of your statement is that many people with homosexual orientation would love to find a way to alter their attraction. Of course words like "cure" and "disease" may have gotten you a bit defensive, but I'm assuming that you would not wish to impede the many people who would like the opportunity to change but lack an easy path to do so. Learn together 11:10, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Colorado Springs shooter

There is some new information about this shooting in here. Seams the shooter was homeschooled and very religious, but had been expelled from the Youth With a Mission school and was sending the school hate mail. Mayby there should be new mainpage entry with this added information? WillM 19:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)

This story is a mixed bag: the killer is quoted as someone who "hated Christians" and held a grudge against this facility, which threw him out several years ago. At age 24, it's unclear what connection he has to homeschooling, as very few homeschoolers are over 18.--Aschlafly 19:11, 10 December 2007 (EST)
"The gunman was identified as Matthew Murray, 24, who was home-schooled by his family and raised in what a friend said was a deeply religious Christian household. [...] A neighbor, Cody Askeland, 19, said the brothers were home-schooled, describing the whole family as 'very, very religious.'" He was pretty clearly homeschooled and raised in a religious home.KrisLetang
I am becoming very concerned that home-schoolers are over represented, as a percentage of the population, when it comes to these types of shootings. I mean, what percentage of the population are home-schooled? Yet when you add this guy to Asa Coon it seems as if home-schooled kids are more likely than average to get a gun and start shooting people. Is anyone aware of any studies? --CarolineMilton 20:09, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Roughly 2% of school-aged children in the United States are homeschooled. Statistically, this means there would have to be about 50 public-schooled mass-murderers for every home-schooled mass murderer to say that each environment produces a proportional number of mass-homicidal criminals.--OrwellFan 20:24, 10 December 2007 (EST)
You're forgetting the 10 percent who attend private/parochial schools...--RossC 20:51, 10 December 2007 (EST)
You're right--good observation. Nonetheless, from a purely statistical point of view, the home school environment appears to produce far more mass-murderers, on average, than the public school environment. Of course, looking at it from a purely statistical and environmental point of view excludes the numerous other factors that contribute to these horrible events.--OrwellFan 20:58, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Folks, you're barking up the wrong tree, again. The issue is what the young killer believed, and where he picked up those beliefs. The Colorado killer was anti-Christian,and so was Asa Coon.--Aschlafly 21:02, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Well, assuming the aforementioned FoxNews story is correct, he seems to have picked up his values and beliefs whilst being homeschooled...--RossC 21:07, 10 December 2007 (EST)
RossC, don't make false statements, or else your account will be blocked. The killer apparently picked up his anti-Christian beliefs after his 21st birthday, and long after he was homeschooled.--Aschlafly 21:11, 10 December 2007 (EST)
And yet, you're quick to condemn other killers as a product of public schools long after they've graduated from same.--RossC 21:26, 10 December 2007 (EST)
No, I didn't, RossC. If you're referring to the Virginia Tech killer, he was still in public school. And that's your second warning. In addition, you're in violation of the 90/10 rule so you better contribute to the encyclopedia before engaging in more last wordism.
"Still in college"? Up until this moment you've been condemning public schools (ie, K-12) as the destroyer of young minds, not college. Your own young mass murderers article blames Seung-Hui Cho's warped mind on "Westfield public high school", and now you're saying it's VT's fault? Said list also features Kimveer Gill, age 25 at the time of his rampage, long out of high school and not in college.
And I don't know what the "90/10 rule" is [UPDATE: Iduan has clued me in...], but I've said nothing false here. Indeed, I've only been quoting you.--RossC 08:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)
  • assuming the aforementioned FoxNews story is correct...
  • RossC, assuming the aforementioned FoxNews story is correct, was it three years or five years ago he was thrown out of a Christian program? "Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left" (Matt 24:40). It takes a willing heart on the part of the hearer. Rob Smith 15:52, 11 December 2007 (EST)
I shouldn't have to tell you this, Aschlafly, since you're an instructor here, but your statements are at best speculation... at worst, outright lies. Nowhere does it state where he picked up his beliefs, and to guess at it would be pure speculation. In fact, even the idea that he had anti-Christian beliefs is pure conjecture, as the cop on the scene just said it off-handedly.--OrwellFan 21:17, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Let's see if I've got this straight, Aschlafly. If shooters went to public school then they picked up their values there. If they were homeschooled then they picked up their values somewhere else. OK, I think I'm straight on that. --CarolineMilton 21:19, 10 December 2007 (EST)
No, Caroline, you have to consider who is teaching what. No kidding.--Aschlafly 21:33, 10 December 2007 (EST)
This is the only post I will make on this matter, but if you accept your 'scientific' analysis that 'public schools are the common denominator' despite 90% of kids going to public schools, then you must also accept that a certain proportion of the US Population has a tendancy to go on mass killing sprees, despite their schooling. That much is clear here. MarcusCicero 21:45, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Andy - you kind of are being hypocritical here. I mean we've been saying what you've been saying all along - that there are outside factors - and yet you broadcast murderers who are the product of public schools - but you censor those that are the product of home schools.--IDuan 22:06, 10 December 2007 (EST)

From what I've seen, the reason for this was the assumption that the muderers' motives were related to their upbringing and education - which in most cases will inevitably involve public schools. Perhaps in this case, this homeschooled killer just happened to have been homeschooled very badly? (In terms of ethics and morality, I mean) Feebasfactor 23:49, 10 December 2007 (EST)

After reviewing the mall shooting thread and this thread - I didn't realise that Andrew Schlafly was such a Liberal. He seems to use the Liberal diversionary tactic of blaming society (in this case the atheistic school system) rather than the shooter. As a conservative, I was taught that we were personally responsible for our own actions. Nik77uk 12:25, 10 December 2007 (GMT)

You seem to forget conservative values, such as family and moral education. Conservatives strive for a christian society where everybody is responsible, but can find love, help, education. It is typical of atheists and liberals to live an individual, solitary life, which often leads to hate and depression. Everybody is responsible for his own actions, and Andy is not taking guilt away from the shooters. But a caring society is one of the fundamental values of Conservatives and would most certainly have avoided many, if not all, of these tragic happenings. It is a moral duty, for Mr. Schlafly and me and you, to point these facts out, and make our best to avoid these barbaric killings happening time after time. Leopeo 07:37, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I haven't read the torrent of liberal hysteria and jumping-to-conclusions above, including the trademark "hypocritical" namecalling, but I do welcome more facts about the education of the Colorado killer. Time magazine says merely that the killer "may" have been homeschooled long ago. He may have been public-schooled also. What is clear is that this killer was an intense hater of Christianity, and he picked that up somewhere. Perhaps online?--Aschlafly 12:00, 11 December 2007 (EST)

There's new information on this news story that requires the Main Page story to be amended - police now say he shot himself, he was not shot by a worshipper. Reasonableperson 16:35, 11 December 2007 (EST)

He was shot by a worshipper, multiple times. The police state that he killed himself afterward. Karajou 16:46, 11 December 2007 (EST)

No, you're right, fair enough. The MP item says "shot by", not "killed by". My mistake. Reasonableperson 16:52, 11 December 2007 (EST)

These killers often keep murdering others until they are stopped with armed force. The worshipper stopped him by shooting him, and only then did he give up by shooting himself. Had the worshipper not stopped him, he surely would have continued to kill others. So in every meaningful way the worshipper did end the murder spree.--Aschlafly 18:44, 11 December 2007 (EST)
I agree with Andy - this kid would've likely killed tens if not hundreds had it not been for the Christian security guard.--IDuan 21:37, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Except, Iduan, she was not a "security guard" as reported by the liberal media. She was an unpaid worshipper who used her own weapon.--Aschlafly 21:40, 11 December 2007 (EST)
OH ok - I was just going by the news sources - although, I have to ask - where's the source that says she's not a security guard? I mean - all the sources have seen do say that it was her own weapon - but I can't find much saying that she didn't have that job.--IDuan 21:48, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Iduan, if you're going to rely completely on the liberal media, then might I ask why even bother thinking for yourself or spending time on this site??? The liberal media is pro-gun control. Of course they are going to spin this story as though a security guard stopped the gunman rather than a worshipper who was not hired and who was using her own weapon. You have to read the stories closely and then remove the liberal gloss.--Aschlafly 21:53, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Yes, i am also convinvced that despite this person serving as a security guard. Because security guards don't use their own weapons. Geo.Complain! 22:02, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Ok - but what I'm wondering is do we have a source? I thought this would be a fairly easy question. Andy - if you don't have anything to back up your statement then it's unbelievable. Maybe we should take down the part that says that she credits her success to God - because frankly if the liberal media can't be trusted to accurately report what a person's job is - then they certainly can't be trusted to report a person's motivations!--IDuan 22:24, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Iduan, you seemed determined not to think, not to analyze media stories. Look at the facts of the stories, consider the liberal bias of the newspaper reporters (in this case, pro-gun control), and then remove the liberal opinion that obscure the facts.--Aschlafly 23:18, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Andy, by her own admission she was a hired security guard. Where are you getting your sources?--OrwellFan 23:46, 11 December 2007 (EST)
What I saw was that she was fasting, and a volunteer that day. Where's your cite for your claim?--Aschlafly 23:50, 11 December 2007 (EST)

<-- Having read a few media reports - liberal or otherwise - it appears that she is an ex-police officer trained in firearms use and a worshipper at the church. She was also an unpaid volunteer security guard for the church. However she was not on duty while at that service where she was present only as a worshipper. She was due to be on duty at a service later the same morning which is why, presumably, she had her firearm. What difference this makes I have no idea. Ajkgordon 08:39, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the info. Here we are factual and we do not tolerate liberal bias that permeates the media. The worshiper was not serving as a security guard at the time as several articles misled readers into believing. Most likely she was lawfully armed under the "concealed carry" law that enables almost any citizen of Colorado to be armed, and which liberals intensely opposed. That citizen right saved over 100 lives in this case.--Aschlafly 09:31, 12 December 2007 (EST)
And what about the recent high school shooting in Las Vegas? quote from paper: "... a schoolyard argument that spilled into the streets." Thats why we are pro-gun control! Because stupid little arguments like that can lead to serious injuries and even death. When depressed maniacs can get guns easily then you have the Colorado Springs incident, and Columbine and the recent mall shootings. In Australia we have tight gun control laws. There has not been a single school shooting or mall shooting in the past 5-6 years! The only gun related death that I know of was that of a dutch backpacker who was shot while attempting to stop a woman being raped. One death. Compared to hundreds in America. How do you explain that? Bolly 9:51, 14 December 2007
All studies show that crime increases once you take away guns from citizens. See John Lott. Guns stop many more crimes than they cause. Bolly, if your logic were correct, then Australia should disarm its police and security also! Law-abiding citizens, who far outnumber criminals, deter crime if some are armed just as the police do.--Aschlafly 18:03, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Aschlafly this has nothing to do with 'logic', its simple observational evidence. The USA has many many more gun related deaths than any other country that has gun control laws. This takes into account the relative populations of the other countries as well. Your logic works fine in some ways, however consider that if only police had guns and there was no other way of getting guns then how would crime increase? It shouldn't, it shouldn't change however the amount of suicidal shootings would certainly decrease massively. Bolly 10:14, 14 December 2007
P.S. I just checked the John Lott article. Why don't you? It says that his hypothesis was disproved and has several citations that defeat his arguments. What was your point?

The last (only?) school shooting in Australia that I recall was at Monash University in October 2002, so Bolly's "5-6 years" was correct (I believe) for the "5" part of it. But to make a minor correction on another point, the Dutch backpacker who was shot survived, it was a local who didn't.

Bolly's logic of only the police having guns is good, although how well it works in practice may be another matter. Whether our lower rate of deaths from guns is due to the tight gun controls of recent years or other factors I'm not yet sure, but partly because I don't take a lot of interest in that issue. I should add that the tight gun controls that Australia has were introduced by a conservative government.

I was raised in a committed evangelical Christian environment, and always taught that guns were dangerous and we weren't even allowed to play with toy guns, as that would make them seem more acceptable. Now that I'm much older, I don't see any need to change my views on that, although this of course doesn't exclude them being used by people with a real need for them, such as the police.

Philip J. Rayment 22:00, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Huckabee

Wow - well, the point of the article is that Huckabee refuses to retract his statement on AIDS - not homosexuality--IDuan 21:52, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I don't agree. The relevant quote from the article:
During his Senate run, Huckabee also told the AP in the questionnaire that he found homosexuality to be "an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle."
Speaking Monday in Miami, Florida, Huckabee said he still stands by his earlier remarks on homosexuality.
AIDS is in a way, not a big issue in itself, it's just another incurable disease. The fact that it is caused by an immoral lifestyle, and that this lifestyle is promoted heavily through liberal media is much more relevant. Why fight the problem when you can fight the cause? A statement on AIDS is a statement on homosexuality. Hammet 18:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
I'm not even sure if your a parodist or not frankly. Why don't you do some research on AIDS before you talk about it, mmk?--IDuan 18:32, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Issac I think you need to read through the garbage. Gov. Huckabee specifically says that homosexuality is immoral, he also says that he regrets his earlier statements about AIDs. The statement that ADIS is homosexuality is a strawman.Geo.Complain! 22:05, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Oh no - I'm aware of that - my last comment was only speaking to Hammet. What I meant was - Huckabee isn't really refusing to take back his statements about homosexuality - because by no means is anyone asking him to. The only thing the liberals are trying to pressure him on is the AIDS thing - which is the primary subject of the article. So, I'm just saying, on the main page, rather than say that he's refusing to retract statements on homosexuality - we should say AIDS - which is more accurate--IDuan 22:08, 11 December 2007 (EST)
No, because he said that he regrets the course he took on aids because he was uninformed. Geo.Complain! 22:55, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Hammet, back in the 80s and early 90s, a great many AIDS patients got it from blood transfusions or their parents. Hey, you know another politician who quarentined AIDS patients? Fidel Castro. Maestro 08:41, 12 December 2007 (EST)

It looks like he said that AIDS patients should be quarantined. Thats hurtful to people with AIDS and the least he could do would be to retract it. SamW 08:35, 12 December 2007 (EST)

He said it at a time when he and most others were ignorant of the transmission of AIDS. He has said he wouldn't say it now because he knows more. Ajkgordon 08:51, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Personal tools