Talk:Conservapedia conference

Hey is there any way you could post a transcript of the conservapedia conference? I cant attend but would love to read it! JJacob 22:45, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

Stem cell research

I added stem cell research to the list. While it's debatable whether it's junky science, it's certainly morally corrupt because it effectively aborts an embryo to extract the cells. I personally believe they could probably achieve at least some of the things they say, which is why I hesitate on the "junky" label. But this real possibility of satisfying their goals is part of why stem cell research is so scary. People will be impressed by the results and forget the way they were obtained--an awful application of the ends justifying the means. -Foxtrot 02:00, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

Stem cells are quite the hot topic. What I find striking is that you can get stem cells without resorting to embryo's however we never hear about it. Its as if some are determined to cheapen human life by any means possible. Anyway, my above transcript request stands.....Oh please please!!!! JJacob 03:33, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

To say that embryonic stem cell research "effectively aborts an embryo to extract the cells" is untrue. And you do hear about plenty of research regarding cord blood and adult stem cells, although their potential for differentiation is different than that of embryonic stem cells. These guys are trying to cure diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, and are not in any way boogeymen "determined to cheapen human life by any means possible." Reasoned arguments against the moral and ethical defensibility of embryonic stem cell research are one thing, but rants consisting of hyperbole, spleen, and general ignorance of the issue are something else entirely. -Corry 11:33, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Great resource

Just found JunkScience.com, which has some great articles and facts related to the CP conference idea. Definitely worth checking out in prep for the conference. --Jareddr 10:41, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

Jareddr, I've just checked that site out and it looks fantastic. It's about time someone who's credentials are impeccable started telling the truth about politically motivated science.--DamianJohn 12:06, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Gun Control

Just added a couple myself. One thing though, is gun control really science? MikeR 09:27, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

War Against Smokers?

I won't remove it, but some clarification is needed as to why this was added. I'm assuming this is about secondhand smoke and restrictions on smoking in public, because I seriously doubt anyone on CP thinks that smoking itself is not harmful. I know there's debate as to where the line on smoking restrictions versus rights should be drawn (i.e. is it child endangerment to smoke in a car with kids as passengers?), but as to the science of whether smoking is harmful or not? I thought that was settled long ago, and is not considered junk science by anyone including the tobacco companies (who focus on a smoker's informed-right-to-choose instead). --DinsdaleP 11:20, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

I was referring to the Liberal desire to turn those who smoke in public into criminals on the basis of junk science, as Milloy describes on his site. Actually Milloy has a long history of things to say about the tobacco industry. It'd be interesting to see him give a talk. MikeR 11:16, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

I see your point, but is this a topic that CP wants to take a pro-smoker-rights position on? I'm not a scientist, but it seems the verdict is in that smoking itself is harmful. When I breathe in the secondhand smoke of those around me, it burns my eyes and makes me cough, and this still happens outdoors if they're in proximity or the wind blows that way. I'm also not fond of my clothes smelling like an ashtray after visiting the homes of smokers. It may be possible, then, to question the specific degree of harm caused by secondhand smoke, but given that at a minimum it's irritating and affects bystanders who choose not to smoke, restrictions on smoking in public are well-justified and not a "war against smokers". This isn't a Liberal cause, it's just everyday people who choose not to smoke not wanting to be irritated by those who do. --DinsdaleP 12:03, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Pardon my simplicity: restrictions are the issue. The govt needs turn away from knowing what is in our best interests. The flip side, people telling the government what to do, "We the people..." is the proper course of action.--jp 12:13, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

But the idea for the conference is "federally funded junk science" not "restrictions on liberty". If the science itself isn't being questioned, but rather the rights of the people, is it necessarily a good fit for this conference? --Jareddr 12:16, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm with Jareddr on this one - unless the topic is a presentation on how the science that shows smoking (or second-hand smoke) to be harmful should be considered "federally-funded junk science", then it doesn't belong in this particular conference by definition. I'll start up a debate page on smoking restrictions here on CP, though. --DinsdaleP 12:58, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Steve Milloy

Before somebody invites Milloy as a speaker, he has stated he believes in evolution. He may be an atheist liberal/libertarian. I believe he also supports the homosexual agenda. Also, I am confused about DDT "ban", as the article it on DDT actually says it isn't baned. Zmart 11:41, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Lenski Debate?

Even though there are people here4 on CP who consider his work to be junk science (incorrectly IMHO), any debate over his work is by nature going to be technical, and not well-suited to a layman audience. Objections to his work, and any responses from him or his team, are better handled in written form and posted online. --DinsdaleP 11:55, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Girls and boys

Mr.Schalfly, I'm curious - have you seen a wide disparity in math educational attainment in your own homeschool classes between girls and boys over the years? EngelUmpocker 21:06, 26 July 2008 (EDT)