Talk:Main Page/archive41

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ron Paul and evolution

In case anyone was wondering, Ron Paul doesn't accept evolution. I have to say I was surprised by this, I guess he is more conservative than I thought.

I don't think believing or disbelieving evolution has anything to do with being conservative.

Double Edge

Here's the video of it:

TRipp 16:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Ron Paul is an intelligent man. This comes as no surprise that he would reject a hoax such as evolution. - Jose83
Perhaps he doesn't believe in evolution, but all that video shows is that he's undecided on the issue or that he's not prepared to say what he really believes. From the video, he clearly does believe in a Creator God, but whether his god used evolution or not seems to be an open question with him.
And evolution might be (read: is) wrong, but it's not a "hoax".
Philip J. Rayment 00:52, 29 December 2007 (EST)
I watched the video as well, and he actually refused to answer the question of whether he believed in evolution. DanH 00:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I don't think putting that fact on the news was a good idea. Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution but as president he won't try to stop evolution teaching in the public schools. Putting that fact on the news might give people the wrong impression about Ron Paul as a president.

Double Edge

I wouldn't expect any president to stop the teaching of evolution in government schools. It's a simple fact that evolution is a widely-accepted belief, and to not teach about it would be silly. However, I would hope that the president or some other authority would make it safe for a teacher to teach the problems with evolution when teaching it, and also to teach other ideas, such as intelligent design and creation, if that teacher so chose.
And by the way, could you sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) or use the signature button on the editing toolbar, please?
Philip J. Rayment 18:34, 4 January 2008 (EST)
We don't, and shouldn't, teach all "widely accepted beliefs," except perhaps in a class on belief systems. In the 1950s most people believed in UFOs, but I hope no feels that should have been "taught". So even if evolution were a "widely accepted belief" (and it really isn't), that wouldn't justify teaching it.--Aschlafly 19:26, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Well, according to Gallup, 49% of Americans believe in evolution, 1% more than those who do not. I think that qualifies it as a 'widely held belief'. (As an aside, it was interesting to note that those who were educated to a higher level were more likely to accept evolution as being true). Evolution is the scientific explanation which best fits the evidence at this moment in time for how we came to be here. This means that, in order to teach something other than evolution, you would have to go against basic scientific principles - which is not exactly what you want to do in a science class. By all means, teach kids that there are other beliefs as to how we came to be here, such as creationism - as part of the religious education normally given in churches and private religious schools, not the science curriculum. Zmidponk 20:57, 5 January 2008 (EST)
I agree that 49% counts as "widely accepted", and the figure would be considerably higher in most other western countries. That is has higher acceptance among the better educated is simply a reflection of the fact that they only get taught that evolution is true, and not the problems with it, let alone alternatives. That evolution is the scientific explanation is POV, and one that I believe is quite false. No, you don't have to go against scientific principles to teach something other than evolution. Creation is at least as scientific—if not more so—as evolution. Philip J. Rayment 18:35, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Well, the only way you can argue for certainly Young Earth Creationism as being scientific is if you try to argue 'special circumstances'. Again, this is contrary to basic scientific principles - you study the evidence, come up with a theory that fits the evidence, then, if possible, conduct experiments to test that theory, and come up with a new theory if your experiments or new evidence proves it wrong. You do not come up with a theory first and then choose the evidence that fits your theory, and, if the evidence does not back up your theory, say that the evidence is invalid because 'things have changed' or that 'God did it'. Zmidponk 14:49, 8 January 2008 (EST)
The motives of people like Hutton and Darwin in proposing an old Earth and evolution were to do away with God. Is that a case of studying the evidence then coming up with a theory to fit? Of course not.
And creationists do not call the evidence "invalid because 'things have changed' or that 'God did it'". You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. How about studying the model and getting to know it before pretending to know enough to argue against it?
Philip J. Rayment 18:24, 8 January 2008 (EST)
'The motives of people like Hutton and Darwin in proposing an old Earth and evolution were to do away with God. Is that a case of studying the evidence then coming up with a theory to fit? Of course not.' Erm, what? Darwin came to his theory after studying fossils collected during his voyage in the HMS Beagle. Whilst he was a student clergyman. Hutton came to his theory, basically, by noticing patterns in rock and rock strata. In other words - they established theories to explain observed evidence. 'And creationists do not call the evidence "invalid because 'things have changed' or that 'God did it'". You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. How about studying the model and getting to know it before pretending to know enough to argue against it?' Then how come every single time, without fail, that any young earth creationist has tried to refute evidence that, basically, proves him wrong, it is always something along the lines of 'radioactive decay was faster in the past' or that 'there was a catastrophe in the past' or 'the speed of light was different in the past' or, indeed, 'it's that way because God has the power to make it that way'. Zmidponk 19:16, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Michael Ruse:
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. … Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. … Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.
Steven Jay Gould said similar[1]. And Hutton had a prior commitment to materialism, and went looking for evidence to support his point of view.
Firstly, could you provide Steven Jay Gould's quote, not a creationist's website's interpretation of it? I ask as he is one scientist who is commonly misinterpreted or even simply misquoted in order to prove a point. Secondly, Michael Ruse is entitled to his opinion on the motives of pro-evolutionists, but that's all it is - his opinion. Others have different opinions on the matter, such as PZ Myers, who comments:
No, no, no. You could argue that many of us find solace in secularism, or that science provides a story of origins or explanation for the world, and that it does substitute for religion in providing a rational explanation of our place in the universe, but it is not a religion unless you want to say that everything that provides a reference point is a religion. And in particular, scientific disciplines like evolutionary biology are not religions, and scientific theories like evolution are not religions. Ruse must have a very, very broad and peculiar definition of “religion” to think so. Is mathematics also a religion? How about engineering?.
Zmidponk 00:08, 9 January 2008 (EST)
"...he is one scientist who is commonly misinterpreted or even simply misquoted in order to prove a point": Incorrect. He is one scientist of which this is often claimed, but not demonstrated. This is a standard anti-creationist tactic that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Well, I guess he felt compelled to correct some of the common misinterpretations put on his work for no real reason then, as, according to you, his work was not misinterpreted. Zmidponk 20:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
I had this discussion recently. See Talk:Theory of Evolution and search for "As far as Gould" (it's in the "Glaring errors" section). Read the rest of that post by me. Then search for "If you have some evidence" (in the "Examples of Transitional forms" section), and read the first two or three paragraphs. Then read my reply below that post. Philip J. Rayment 05:20, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Well, following the links provided in the sections you indicated proves exactly what I said - Gould felt compelled to correct the misinterpretations put on his work. I am still waiting to actually see the quote you're referring to, so I cannot comment on whether what you say is correct or not until I do. Please supply it if you want to continue in this part of the discussion. Zmidponk 15:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Then you didn't read it very well. Gould said that he felt compelled to correct the misinterpretations of his work, but he also said that he had been criticised by his colleagues for providing ammunition to the creationists. So clearly there is a possible motive in falsely accusing creationists of misinterpreting his work (to deflect the criticisms of his colleagues), yet he failed to show how he had been misinterpreted! So I take his complaint with a grain of salt. I'm not able to provide you with an actual quote regarding his views on Darwin's motives. I pointed you to the article about it; that's all I can do. Did you read footnote 1 of that article? If you want to know more, perhaps you could write to CMI and ask them. Philip J. Rayment 06:14, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Sorry, the fact of the matter is that he felt compelled to correct misinterpretations put on his work. Speculation on the hows and whys is, basically, irrelevant. What is also irrelevant is this sideline - if Gould said what you claim he said, PROVIDE THE QUOTE PROVING THIS. I refuse to bother searching it out for you. Zmidponk 16:04, 12 January 2008 (EST)
"Secondly, Michael Ruse is entitled to his opinion ... but that's all it is - his opinion": Funny how when you express the view that evolution started with evidence, not a motive, that's apparently a "fact", but when I offer expert evolutionary views otherwise, that's dismissed as merely "opinion".
Firstly, Michael Ruse is a philosopher of science, not an evolutionary biologist himself, so how is that 'expert evolutionary evidence'? Secondly, I note that you haven't commented on the quote from the evolutionary biologist PZ Myers which is diametrically opposed to Ruse's statements. Thirdly, I suggest you go and educate yourself about the difference between 'opinion' and 'fact'. Unless Michael Ruse has personally read the minds of each and every evolutionist, he simply cannot accurately make such a statement, except as a statement of his own opinion. My statement, however, was based on the work done by historians using Darwin's own notebooks, and what is known about Hutton. Zmidponk 20:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
We are discussing here how the evolutionary idea came to be. That is, we are not discussing the theory itself, but the philosophy behind it! That means that Ruse trumps Myers in the qualifications department. I'm quite aware of the difference between opinion and fact—why do you think I used both those words the way I did? Philip J. Rayment 05:20, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Firstly, who would know the philosophy behind evolutionary science better than someone who practices evolutionary science? Secondly, we were NOT discussing the philosophy behind evolutionary science, you attempted to muddy the waters by introducing it with Michael Ruse's quote. We were discussing the motives of Darwin and Hutton, for which I have still to see any evidence of your assertation that they were out to specifically come up with an 'anti-God' theory. Zmidponk 15:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Who would know the philosophy behind evolution better than an evolutionist? A philosopher of science! Duh! If you haven't seen any evidence, then you have your eyes closed, because I've provided it (Gould and Ruse). Whether you find that evidence convincing is up to you, but it's evidence nevertheless, so to claim that I haven't provided any is simply false. Philip J. Rayment 06:14, 12 January 2008 (EST)
1) If you really think someone who, as part of his chosen career, immerses himself in evolutionary science on a daily basis is not familiar with the philosophy of evolution, then I think that really speaks for itself. Additionally, the quote you provided is such a generalism that he would need to literally be telepathic in order for it to be accurate, as this is the only way he could be certain that every single evolutionist regards evolution as a religion. It is clear, simply by the fact that PZ Myers, for one, disagrees with him, that his statement is not accurate.
2) You have NOT provided evidence to back up your assertation. You have provided a quote that is a staggering generalisation that fails to even mention Darwin and Hutton, far less prove anything about their motives, and claimed a second person said something similar, without even actually providing a quote of what you claim they said - the nearest you got was a link to someone else's interpretation of what they said, and even that interpretation fails to actually provide the quote in question. Zmidponk 16:04, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Oh, before I forget, I'm still waiting on the proof of your assertation that Darwin and Hutton specifically set out to come up with 'anti-God' theories. Ruse's statement was interesting, in it's own way, but has zero bearing on that. Zmidponk 20:25, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Now, how's that study of creation coming along so that you will know what you are talking about?
Philip J. Rayment 01:09, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Creationists don't need to refute evidence. What they refute is the materialistic interpretations of the evidence. That might be, for example, denying the materialistic assumption that there were no catastrophes, but note that they are denying the assumptions, not the evidence. But again, if you had really studied the creation model you should know this. So How about studying the model and getting to know it before pretending to know enough to argue against it?! Your ignorance is inexcusable.
Philip J. Rayment 22:03, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Sorry, to me it seems obvious that it's pretty much the opposite way around. Creationists are not disregarding the 'assumption' there was no catastrophe or that things were not the same as they were now, they are making the assumption that there was such a catastrophe, or that things were different in the past simply because the evidence cannot be explained any other way without proving their own beliefs to be incorrect. Evolutionists are challenging and disregarding this assumption due to lack of evidence. It also seems to me that, essentially, you have just backed up what I have said - that the evidence is invalid due to 'things being different in the past', immediately after saying that I am wrong to claim that this is what creationists say. Zmidponk 00:08, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Both sides have assumptions, so I won't deny that creationists have them also. But it's not "... simply because the evidence cannot be explained any other way...". What "lack of evidence"? There's plenty (that is consistent with the creationary view), but of course you wouldn't know that, because you've never actually studied the creationary view that much, have you? (Please answer that.) Here's one bit just to illustrate the point. If there was a global flood, you'd expect lots and lots of sedimentary rock. Now, is it 75% of the Earth's surface is covered with sedimentary rock? Of course, that by itself doesn't prove that a flood is responsible, but that's a bit of evidence that is consistent with the creationary view. There's lots more.
"It also seems to me that, essentially, you have just backed up what I have said - that the evidence is invalid due to 'things being different in the past'": Then you have not understood what I said. Yes, things were different in the past. But this does not invalidate the evidence. What it invalidates is the evolutionary story that tries to explain that evidence.
Philip J. Rayment 01:18, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Well, first of all, what you quoted has nothing to do with 'lack of evidence'. It's to do with the fact that the evidence, taken at face value, suggests the Earth is millions and billions of years old, not 6000, and an additional factor has to be introduced to conform to the 'Young Earth' belief. Even ICR and RATE acknowledge this, so I don't know why you're having trouble doing so. Secondly, I thought you would be intelligent enough to realise that you need to provide evidence that would indicate the Earth is young, considering that's the matter being discussed. Obviously, I was wrong. Zmidponk 20:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
I asked you—and you didn't answer—if you've ever really studied the creationary view very much. Please answer that if you want to continue this discussion. Philip J. Rayment 05:20, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Well, to put it somewhat bluntly, the answer seems fairly obvious, given that the particular point we have been discussing above has already been conceded by the Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth project at the Institute of Creation Research, yet you are arguing I am wrong to say it. To put it absolutely clearly, it seems I am more familiar with the creationist scientific arguments than you are yourself. Zmidponk 15:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Do you mean by "the answer seems fairly obvious" that you haven't? Because that's what seems obvious to me. If that's the case, then I suggest that you go away and actually put some effort into learning about the idea that you so readily criticise. Fair enough? Philip J. Rayment 06:14, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Well, if I need to 'go away and actually put some effort into learning about the idea that you so readily criticise', then you need to do the same, except it is the point of view you have spent so much time actually DEFENDING you need to learn about. Oh, and I suggest, in future, if you're going to respond to what someone typed here, actually read fully what they typed, instead of just the first eleven words. Zmidponk 16:04, 12 January 2008 (EST)
There is nothing more scientific about claiming that the earth is old than in claiming it is young. Once can't be science and the other religion.--Aschlafly 15:59, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Scientists claim the Earth is old because that is what is suggested by verifiable evidence. Christian YEC believers claim the Earth is young because that is what is said in a book that may or may not be an accurate account of a dialogue that took place at least 4000 years ago with someone who may or may not exist. I would suggest the former adheres to scientific principles far more than the latter. Zmidponk 17:01, 8 January 2008 (EST)
You haven't kept up with the last eleven years of challenges to what you call "verifiable evidence." I don't have time in a "forum" like this to ask you what you mean by "verifiable evidence." So I have to guess. And I guess that by "verifiable evidence" you mean "radiometric dates of fossils and rocks." Well, read this, and check out the references, beginning with this, and this, and this. And that's only the beginning.--TerryHTalk 17:15, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Ah, yes, those fair, balanced and neutral sources of CreationWiki(!)!) and the Institute of Creation Research(!) Of course, how could I have possibly been so mistaken. That was sarcasm, by the way. To actually address them, for a start, the 'incorrect dating' of Mt. St. Helens lava dome was down to simply using the wrong dating method. They used Potassium-Argon dating, which is used in rocks believed to be more than 100,000 years old, and the long half-life of Potassium decaying to form Argon and Calcium makes it give wildly inaccurate and varying results in anything that is newer than that - which is exactly why it is NOT typically used in rocks as new as these ones. As for the article about the 'tree date' being far younger than the 'rock date' of the rock in which it was encased, well, the article says that only a few samples of very small size were available. One of the limitations of radiocarbon dating (the method used, according to the article) is that the fewer and smaller samples you have, the more inaccurate the result. Plus, of course, the samples were actually collected from a drill core drilled by miners - so they could very easily have been contaminated by more modern carbon. As for the last article, to be frank, seems to disprove some of it's own key points. For example, it opens by saying that 'metamorphic rocks are not always easy to date using radio-isotopes. Results obtained usually signify the "date" of the metamorphism, but they may also yield the "age" of the original volcanic (or sedimentary) rock.' It then goes on to conduct it's own dating attempt, then makes a big thing of the fact the samples from the same area sometimes give two wildly differing ages. Did it not occur to them that the newer date is the date of the metamorphism and the older date is the age of the original rock? Zmidponk 18:55, 8 January 2008 (EST)
You and your fellow evolutionists are quite fond of saying that we creationists have biased sources and insisting that your sources are not biased. In fact, your sources have an agenda as well. It's rather a case of "may the best team win."
Well, in my experience, according to many creationists, the definition of a biased source is 'any source that doesn't agree with the creationist point of view'. Zmidponk 20:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Concerning Steven Austin's Mount St. Helens findings, I have heard that canard many times before. It won't wash. FYI, the "youngest" rock ever dated has an apparent age of 700,000 years. Your claim of a lower limit of 100,000 years is highly dubious. And more to the point: by your own admission, those guys at GeoChron couldn't have dated the Mount Saint Helens eruption if they tried. Why, they wouldn't be able to date the eruption of Mount Vesuvius did we not have ample historical records establishing that eruption.
Using Potassium-Argon dating, you are completely correct - which is why Austin screwed up in using K-Ar dating. As for your claim about 'the youngest rock ever dated being 700,000 years old', that is just completely wrong. Just off the top of my head, I can give an example of a team from the University of California testing a new technique of Argon-Argon dating in 1997 who managed to get results testing rocks from the destruction of Pompeii of the rocks being 1,925 years old - just 7 years off the actual figure. And that was on the first attempt of this new technique. Zmidponk 20:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
For those reasons, radiometric dating cannot back up an old-earth theory of earth's history. The very assumptions that form the basis of radiometric dating are circular, and therefore every single published radiometric date ought to be re-examined.
Well, yes, you are correct, in a way - there are what you could possibly call assumptions in radiometric dating. However, they are of the order 'there is no evidence that anything happened to change radioactive decay, so we'll assume there's not'. Considering the people who disagree think that something changed so drastically on a world-wide scale to shrink 4.5 billion years of decay into 6 thousand, the onus is on them to provide evidence or proof of this, not on those who don't to provide evidence or proof it didn't. Doubly so, considering such decay would cause enough radiation to kill all life on Earth and huge amounts of heat, which mysteriously all but disappeared. Zmidponk 20:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Also, for your information, accelerated radioactive decay has now been shown to have happened at least once in the early history of the Earth. Thank the RATE Team, which assembled in the wake of Austin's Mount St. Helens findings, for that determination. Probably it happened shortly before the Great Flood, and in fact triggered it.
Could you provide the evidence? I ask, because all I have seen on this is, basically, articles saying RATE claim this. Zmidponk 20:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Your dispute of the conflict in the Crinum Coal Mine findings is a new angle. The usual claim is that one accepts one date as given and dates the other object by the first. But have a look at the statement you made: you say that the wood sample was contaminated by the miners' drill. That assumes that the investigators can't tell the difference between fossilized and non-fossilized wood. I assure you, they could and did.
Erm, I suggest you read what I typed again. I said it could be contaminated by more modern carbon, which is suprisingly easy to do, not that the researchers couldn't tell the difference between fossilised and non-fossilised wood. One of the known problems with radiocarbon dating is the ease by which samples can be contaminated. This is why most scientific studies reject any sample that has not been taken directly from the object in question by someone who knows what they're doing, or, at the very least, treat any such samples as 'prone to error'. Zmidponk 20:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Concerning the Grand Canyon findings, your theory fails on this important point: they never did get agreement between one method and the next. No two answers were ever alike. They had at least as many different answers as they had methods used, if not twice as many, and the answers differed to a degree far beyond their rated tolerances.
It all adds up to wild inconsistency of radiometric dates from the same sample, and non-correlating dates from samples taken from the same region. These findings violate and vitiate every assumption upon which radiometric dating stands.--TerryHTalk 19:51, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Considering one of the members of this group is the same person who tried to date rocks he knew to be from 1986 using K-Ar dating, I'm not surprised they had problems, to put it bluntly. Frankly, I do not have the time nor inclination to carefully analyse their methods, but, if I did, it would not surprise me to find similar elementary errors. Zmidponk 20:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Although I am impressed by the new creationism article, I am not so sure anymore about the standing of creationsts. It seems that as soon as you dig deeper into their own theory, they come also to an end quite quickly, and it boils down to a play with the different meanings of the same word, and/or inconsistent and selective application of definitions. Order 21:04, 6 January 2008 (EST)
What "new creationism article"? Philip J. Rayment 22:25, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Oh, Freedoms new article on ID User:Freedom777/workspace1. Sorry to confuse ID with creationism. Order 22:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Apology accepted (if you'd said "ID article", I would have known what you were talking about). I had a very quick look at an early draft of it, but wasn't going to look at it closely until it went into mainspace. Philip J. Rayment 00:52, 7 January 2008 (EST)
The correlation between believing in evolution and opposing classroom prayer is probably over 90%; believing in evolution and supporting abortion is probably over 80%, and believing in evolution and supporting gun control is probably over 70%. People who believe in evolution tend to be materialists, while conservatives tend to be Platonic. I've never met or heard of anyone who believed in evolution and was a 100%, across-the-board conservative like Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul, Jesse Helms, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, etc.--Aschlafly 15:47, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Do you have any data to back this up? There has been research that shows that that quite a few US Americans that believe in evolution of species over millions of years, also believe in special creation of humans [2]. I doubt that they would be all opposed to class room prayer, but would be interested in any data. Order 20:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Ron Paul believes in limiting the federal government to powers mentioned in the constitution. I don't dispute that Ron Paul is a creationist but it would effect his policy as president. I don't think Ron Paul as President would effect prayer in schools (which is not a conservative issue anyway), or abortion. He would leave it to the states, cities and towns as in the tenth amendment. Also, one of the greatest conservative novelists of this century was an atheist; Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World.

Double Edge

I don't know if Huxley, who was the grandson of a big promoter of evolution, was really a conservative. His book is on conservative book lists, but there are many more conservative issues than can be suggested by one book. What was his view on taxes? abortion? legislative prayer? classroom prayer? gun control? free enterprise? etc.--Aschlafly 16:36, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Honestly, this just seals the deal on evolution for myself. I cannot trust the judgment of a man who would want to abolish the National Board of Education and the Federal Reserve. CodyH 2201 08 January 2008 (BST)

Mike Huckabee ?

It seems that he is very popular on this site, but I would like to warn that he may not be the right candidate to the GOP, in fact there are many sources reporting him to be more liberal-like than conservative. He has various contradicting issues in his campaign:

Huckabee's statement that he agreed with the court's sodomy ruling was made one week after the decision.

I think that Mike Huckabee is a liberal hoax, who is temporarily supporting conservative ideas to be promoted in the GOP. I think that Ron Paul is the right conservative candidate. Thiudareiks 09:45, 1 January 2008 (EST)

You know, if most of your links weren't to some white supremacist site, I would be much more inclined to not actually immediately disregard you. As it stands… --AngryCommunist 18:04, 5 January 2008 (EST)
By some, perhaps. But liked by others who really like his social positions.--Aschlafly 23:54, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Both Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are conservatives disliked by the neoconservatives who are more dominant in the media, such as Fox News. It is said about Mike Huckabee that he is conservative on abortion, gun control, marriage, and religion, but nothing else. But many of his supporters wonder what "else" is as important as those issues?--Aschlafly 10:21, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Mike Huckabee is really disliked, however, by strong fiscal conservatives. --AngryCommunist 23:50, 5 January 2008 (EST)
I suppose it is taxes and government programs that he tends to be more liberal on. It is up to the voter to decide if this is a big enough issue to not vote for him. There is rarely a "perfect" candidate. In my mind, his views on other things outweigh his ideas that I don't agree with. -- David R talk 15:30, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Eh, I have no problem with his somewhat left-leaning economic politics… :) --AngryCommunist 23:13, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Who else would you support if not Huckabee? I don't trust Mitt Romney for a second after a career spent appeasing liberal New Englanders he now claims to have suddenly realized that abortion and homosexuality are wrong. If you wanted a Massachusetts flipflopper you had a chance last election. Rudy Giuliani seems to have the right idea in some places, but it's hard to trust someone with such low family values. Didn't he live with gay friends for a while? Fred Thompson is not bad, but it's hard to be excited about him. Ron Paul is not a Republican, he is a libertarian. I for one don't think the Republicans should choose a candidate who wants to abandon the iraqis ASAP. Though I must say I wonder what the Democrat would do without that issue to debate...Who is left? John McCain seems to have spent his whole career trying to fight the Republican party (see: 2000 election) and I don't think he would be a good choice. Huckabee is one of the most honest and trustworthy politicians I've ever seen and he has a solid conservative background as far as I can tell. And he plays a mean bass guitar. TRipp 17:59, 2 January 2008 (EST)

He is also a Baptist minister. --~BCSTalk2ME 18:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Huckabee is considered a joke up here in Canada. [[3]] -- Jose83
Just as Stephen Harper was considered a joke in Canada 10 years ago? Now that evangelical is running Canada. Maybe being considered a joke isn't all that bad!--Aschlafly 18:48, 2 January 2008 (EST)

I know conservatives like Ann Coulter aren't a big fan of Huckabee, but I think it would be good to have a Washington outsider in power, and somebody who might actually stand up to the spending earmarks that are polluting Congress. DanH 18:55, 2 January 2008 (EST)

$100 Oil

Saw oil trading at $100 a barrel today, which makes a pretty interesting story. How should Americans deal with a declining supply in the face of growing demand... something the world hasn't seen in over 100 years of industrial production. Arguably this is the most important issue facing the world today; how do the presidential candidates address it?

Is this the end of globalization and economic growth?--NickSix 20:28, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Is it the end of globalization? No way. Is it the end of economic growth in the short term? Maybe. In the long term? No. People are resilient and will adjust to the changes that come. When oil was near this high adjusted for inflation in the 1970s, it sure wasn't the end of globalization. In fact, globalization as we know it today was just getting started. DanH 14:16, 3 January 2008 (EST)
I think you're right about human ingenuity. Innovation can go a long way, and with advanced recovery techniques and new technologies and development in the Canadian tar sands and Venezuela's heavy oil reserves, we can delay the effects of declining world production. Unfortunately, what we're going through now doesn't compare to the oil embargoes of the 1970s. In 1973 and 1979, OPEC cut exports for political reasons, which created an artificial supply gap, and the prices sky-rocketed. Now, the world produces just barely enough to keep up with demand, and demand continues to grow (especially in countries like India and China). So the high prices we're seeing today (although particularly high due to speculation) are going to remain in this price band for quite some time, if not go higher. If, let's say, Saudi Arabia continues to show production declines, or conflict increases in the Persian Gulf, the prices will make $100 oil look cheap.--NickSix 15:11, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Don't forget the likely discrepancies between Saudi Arabia's claimed reserves and reality as well. DanH 17:53, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Some people argue that expensive oil is good. It encourages cleaner energy sources and causes people to drive less. Scarcity seems to lead more people to faith, while wealth can pull people away from faith.--Aschlafly 18:24, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Romney Flip-Flop?

According to the front-page:

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said on Tuesday the Bush administration mismanaged the Iraq war, distancing himself from his party's unpopular president two days before Iowa's first-in-the-nation presidential contest.

Didn't take too long to remove that distance:

WEST DES MOINES, Iowa -- President Bush hasn’t been getting a great deal of love on the campaign trail in recent months and years, even from Republicans, but former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) gave him some on the eve of Iowa’s first-in-the nation caucuses... "We’re a nation united that stands behind our fighting men and women. We honor them and respect them," Romney said at a conference center here. "We love what they’ve done for us, and we also love a president who has kept us safe these last six years."

Of course, considering Bush's approval ratings, not sure the country exactly "loves" Dubya.

--Jdellaro 10:15, 3 January 2008 (EST)

New DNA test that can ID a suspect's Race..

but Liberals don't want to touch it.

This is taking Political Correctness way too far. To the point of being harmful. This method can eliminate a majority of potential suspects in a crime and prevent many innocent accused individuals from being arrested. -- Jose83

While I agree that people should set their emotions aside from what is basically a way of categorizing suspects in a crime, nowhere in the article does it mention "liberals". The article says that POLICE don't want to touch it, not liberals; unless the vast majority of police officers are liberal now, you're just making stuff up here. JKaplanek 17:05, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Of course the article is not going to admit that liberals oppose this and, yes, liberals do run big cities where most crime occurs. Fortunately, we're not limited here to the political correctness of the MSM.--Aschlafly 18:16, 3 January 2008 (EST)
... but that's not what's in the article. You're just adding this "liberal" tag to it because you personally believe it to be the case. Do you have any proof that liberals are even mentioned in passing in the article?? Also, when you say that you're not limited to "political correctness", are you saying that you're not limited to backed-up, verifiable facts? Because the inclusion of "liberals" in the headline is pure, unsourced speculation.JKaplanek 18:31, 3 January 2008 (EST)
The Main Page says "police", not "liberals". Jose83 was probably a bit misleading in changing "police" to "liberals", but I guess the point is that police won't touch it because of liberal-inspired political correctness. Philip J. Rayment 18:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Front page note

where is "here"? Also, there is a Iowa Caucus article if anyone is interested.--Tash 17:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Main page is a good place for discussion as the news is posted.--Aschlafly 18:11, 3 January 2008 (EST)
So does "Analyze the results here." mean "discuss this on the Main Page talk page", or does it mean "keep watching this page"? It needs clarification. Philip J. Rayment 18:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
I agree - simply because of the precedent of linking whenever we say here - if we don't link it causes confusion--IDuan 19:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Feel free to clarify, Philip or others. As returns start coming in, I imagine many will be updating and clarifying the Main page.--Aschlafly 19:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
The difficulty with that was knowing what you intended, but the wording is no longer there anyway, so the point's moot. Philip J. Rayment 02:44, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Projected Huckabee Victory!

Huckabee and Obama are the projected winners: --IDuan 22:02, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Ahh, some more searching and I've found a better story - the New York Times has reported that Obama and Huckabee ARE the winners (not projected winners, but absolute winners) --IDuan 22:06, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Iowa Analysis

Looks like the big news is that Hillary Clinton disappointed big time. She's not even wanted by the ... liberals???--Aschlafly 22:16, 3 January 2008 (EST)

The numbers should also be updated. There were in the neighborhood of 225,000 Democratic voters, and about 108,000 Republican voters. --Jdellaro 22:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)

She's speaking on CNN right now. She was referring to her campaign in the past tense, I thought she was going to drop out for a minute! Wishful thinking, unfortunately. ThomasB 22:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Chris Dodd, however, is dropping out, according to CNN. ThomasB 22:37, 3 January 2008 (EST)
I'm not sure I'd call her the "big" loser. The percentage difference between her and Obama is the same as that between Huckabee and Romney. If anyone's the big loser, it's Kucinich (according to the results on, anyway) CSGuy 22:40, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Clinton had the most to lose. Kucinich finishing last isn't going to affect much. With the three liberals in a dead heat in the polls, whoever finished last between them lost the most. That, fortunately, was Hillary Clinton. ThomasB 22:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)
From the results I saw, Clinton and Edwards ended up virtually tied. CSGuy 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
With 97% of votes in, she is behind by eleven votes. ThomasB 22:47, 3 January 2008 (EST)
State delegates, technically. Iowa's Democratic caucus is weird. And 11 out of a total of over 2000 is very small. But it's something; hence the "virtually." CSGuy 22:49, 3 January 2008 (EST)
It is a small difference. but she's nearly 200 votes behind Obama. I think it's clear that she isn't wanted, at least not in Iowa! ThomasB 22:55, 3 January 2008 (EST)

(And again, by "votes" I mean "state delegates," as you said) :) ThomasB 22:57, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Joe Biden to drop out as well! ThomasB 23:20, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I was actually quite impressed with Obama. None of the Republican candidates have really captured my interest, but his speech was quite stirring. SSchultz 23:23, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Obama has had a huge day - it seems most the other candidates (definitely Kucinich and Richardson) support him over Clinton - so if they drop out he wins big - and given their numbers they might drop out. Also, the fact that he won will give him more name recognition - another plus, if he plays his cards right we'll all be asking, "Hillary who? ... Hillary Swank?".
Also a big day for Huckabee - he also benefits from an increase in name recognition as a result of his victory. Although I wouldn't call his victory as big - as it seems Giulliani is lurking in the shadows (Florida) - but hopefully he can overcome that.--IDuan 23:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)

A great day for Mike Huckabee! Now on to New Hampshire. And while lots of liberals did reject Hillary Clinton but they did go for even more liberal candidates...she was basically tied for second I think. Does anyone else think Ron Paul did surprisingly well? Fred Thompson too, I thought his campaign was kind of stagnating. TRipp 00:18, 4 January 2008 (EST)


Breaking News sez, "Fainting reported in teens after administration of the Gardasil vaccine." Initially I read that to mean that there were side effects to the vaccine itself causing girls to mysteriously pass out. Instead, the article is about the pain of the injection itself causing girls to faint. Perhaps a clarification? Maybe change "vaccine" to "injection", or change "after" to "during"?--RossC 08:30, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks. Much better.--RossC 09:43, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Of course, the article goes on to state, "But it’s not clear that Gardasil’s sting is related to the fainting increase, said Dr. Barbara Slade, an immunization safety specialist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." --Jdellaro 10:00, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Quality Control?

I may be speaking completely out of turn here, and if so, just delete this, however...

I noticed one of the latest news headlines on the main page referred to Spears as a "Godless Celebrity". That may or may not be so, we do not know... But perhaps we might try avoiding that adjective altogether? My concern is that those of us who are religious believers will be painted as rather heartless. It's obvious she is paying for her mistakes... Alexander 21:19, 4 January 2008 (EST)

More importantly, IMO, is this even worthy of discussion? Is this an encyclopedia or a gossip column? CC #1 says everything posted must be verifiable. Spears' religion, "godless celebrity", as you say, is hardly verifiable. Also, CC #3 says edits should be "without gossip." Perhaps my definition of gossip is too wide, but the Spears entry cheapens the site. --Jdellaro 21:22, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Liberals don't like the word "godless" because it prevents them from appearing reasonable and mainstream. Brittany Spears is part of the culture that is foisted upon us by the liberal media. We're right to call it like it is.--Aschlafly 21:28, 4 January 2008 (EST)
But is her religion, "godless", a verifiable statement? She may be the product of such a society, but that doesn't mean she herself is "godless". Heck, the other end of that kiss was Madonna Ciccone, who prescribes to a religion. If Madonna declares herself as belonging to a religion, can we call her "godless" because of the society that called for her antics? --Jdellaro 21:34, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Spears's godlessness is evident by her behavior. And don't get me started on "Madonna"...--RossC 21:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)
The article definitely borders on gossip, but there is still a lot to be learned from this sad story, although not much of it is covered in the short article.
The interesting subject is, I think, the effects Brittany Spears' promiscuity and alcohol problems has had on her personal and professional life.
The main page also mentions Spears' controversial TV-broadcasted kiss with Madonna. Since Spears herself identifies as heterosexual (as far as I know), this is not only an indecent display of homosexuality, but more importantly a prime example of how the MSM and artist elite endorses and popularizes homosexuality and promiscuity.
Furthermore, Madonna has stated in interviews that she is bisexual and is a "gay icon", and her music video "Like a prayer" borders on blasphemy. I think her "prescribing to a religion" is rather a PR stunt than a personal belief. Hammet 21:48, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks for defending me, Mr. Schlafly, but I may have been over the top to call these ladies "godless". I just meant that their behavior shows a scandalous disregard of (or utter disrespect for) the Judeo-Christian standards of godly behavior. And don't even get me started on the Sharia law of Islam. (Can you say "beheaded", boys and girls?). --Ed Poor Talk
I really cannot see why CP has to stoop to the gutter with this kind of thing. Tabloid gossip belongs in tabloid gossip columns, not on the front page here. And I am at a loss to understand why Ed feels that this kind of thing is suitable when this was gossip suitable only for wikipedia! "Don't mud wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig enjoys it!" 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 08:36, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Good point. Feel free to edit both Paul McCartney and Britney Spears to the same standard. Let's not stoop, eh? --Ed Poor Talk 19:40, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Banned Bible study

Oh, I'm going to regret this . . .
First of all, I'm going to say this once. I will not respond to criticism or questions (unless they're really good) because I consider it a waste of time and I don't really care about this enough to bother. That said, I think the main page mention of the banned bible study should also mention that the ban was overturned by the school board in 2006 (according to the linked article). "Overturned" may not be the right word, but it's good enough to get my point across. -CSGuy 22:35, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Two years later, after families retained an attorney and after bad publicity for the school, the board overruled the principle and teacher to allow some "religious expression" (not necessarily Bible study) during "discretionary time" (not necessarily recess). No, sorry, that doesn't alter the headline.--Aschlafly 22:46, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Wait - bible study isn't religious expression? As it says, the ban was overruled. However - that being said, CSGuy, I don't think we need to mentioned that the ban was overruled - because the fact that the ban was initiated in the first place is the story--IDuan 13:14, 6 January 2008 (EST)
The school never changed its policy against the Bible. That same principal and intolerant teacher apparently held to their anti-religious position. Whether they will comply with what the Board said is, at the very least, an unresolved question. The very fact that the parents still felt they had to sue suggests they may be skeptical.--Aschlafly 14:03, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Perhaps mention in the headline that the case is before a federal judge? Otherwise, when read as is, it seems to be something that happened recently, as opposed to years ago. Do we have a front page headline that states, "Wayne Dumond murders two women after Huckabee pushed for parole"? I mean, technically it happened years ago and is only in the news again b/c of Huckabee's run. But when reading it, someone that is less-informed may think this is a recent event. I think the headline is misleading since it is filed under, "Breaking News"---when what happened is not breaking news, as it occurred (and was publicized) years ago. The breaking news may be the continuation of the court case, but the event itself is most certainly not breaking news. --Jdellaro 15:28, 6 January 2008 (EST)
The "breaking news" refers to the news story, which is recent. The deposition with the admission under oath is also relatively recent. Liberals may like to censor what they're doing in public schools, but obviously our site is going to let the public know.--Aschlafly 15:37, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Would an article mentioning, to go back to my earlier example, the allegations concerning Huckabee and Wayne Dumond be considered breaking news then? Would you present it as if Huckabee's actions in the case were recent? I mean, it would be breaking news since an article was written about the allegations against Huckabee. Of course, the case itself isn't breaking news, but the allegations being made are, even though to follow above standards, the Dumond case would be what was presented as breaking news. It just seems poorly presented.--Jdellaro 16:39, 6 January 2008 (EST)
There is huge liberal denial about the censorship of prayer in schools. We know that. We're not going to allow that censorship here. People need to know what public schools are doing, and this is indeed "breaking news" for 99% of the people who see that news story. So it's not going to be diluted. As to Huckabee's issue, that could be breaking news if there is a current story about it also, though it's not as important as this public school story.--Aschlafly 16:49, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Study of college drinking

This may be of interest as mainpage news --Leopeo 12:58, 7 January 2008 (EST)

This might be a good front page article

It seems that autism rates continue to climb despite the removal of thiomersal from vaccines. That's a clear indication that thiomersal is unrelated to autism. Given the various pages regarding disputes over vaccination on this site, this might be a worthwhile link. SSchultz 20:48, 7 January 2008 (EST)

The article is flat-out wrong. It says that thimerosal "is used in some flu shots." In fact, it is used in 80% of flu shots. It also still exists in many other vaccines, as do other harmful "preservatives".--Aschlafly 21:16, 7 January 2008 (EST)
If that is the case (I doubt it is, but that's irrelevant), the article's not so much wrong as misleading. 80% counts as "some." (Sorry, I'm kind of a nitpicker about this kind of thing) -CSGuy 10:14, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia and Ron Paul

If you guys knew anything about Ron Paul, he'd be on your front page all the time. And you'd do anything you could to get this guy elected. Ron Paul makes the other republican candidates look like Marxist Socialists. Ron Paul doesn't buy into this evolution crap. That is, he realizes there is no evidence to back it up. Thats why he wants the federal gov. out of our schools. He wants us to be able to use our money on private schools or home schooling. He is amazing at defending his anti-abortion stance. The conservative right should be so lucky to elect this guy. He wants to cut taxes more than any other republican candidate. He wants to cut gov. spending WAY MORE than any other republican candidate. Ron Paul is the true conservative in this race. He actually stands for LIMITED GOVERNMENT. He makes the other republican candidates look like socialists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zepking (talk)

I like Ron Paul. You make many great points.--Aschlafly 23:13, 7 January 2008 (EST)
Unhappily, Ron Paul has a problem with enemy identification. He'd have the troops home and throw away our victory.--TerryHTalk 06:22, 8 January 2008 (EST)

"...literally freezing to death"

Practically. The word you're looking for is PRACTICALLY, Hillary. Why do so many people do this?! It's like literally no one has any idea what the word actually means!

...sorry, that's just something that annoys me too. Anyway, it's a funny Breaking News article. :p Feebasfactor 23:53, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Ugh I think news reporters are the worst. "Literally" this and "ironically" that. They speak for a living but don't know the proper usage of their two most common words!! HelpJazz 13:44, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Has anyone been following this? Seems Hillary's been taking this latest season fairly emotionally. I can't say I blame her, but a theory: a ruse to make herself more "likable" and "human"?-MexMax 17:24, 8 January 2008 (EST)