Talk:Main Page/Archive index/129

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NFL

Television ratings were up 15% over the same playoffs weekend last year. Perhaps the initially low ticket sales were just due to the cold, and the League isn't in dire straits after all.---Eg

Television ratings are a function of what else is on TV, and whether people would rather stay indoors and watch TV than, for example, travel. The League will decline if it becomes merely a television-watching event.--Andy Schlafly 20:19, 6 January 2014 (EST)
This item is really below CP's standards and should be removed. The reference is to a Providence Journal sports columnist's op ed piece where he lists a bunch of controversial opinions with no supporting data or rationale. A much better news story appeared on pages B1 and B3 of the January 4 Wall Street Journal, "Football Fans Forgo Tickets, Prefer View From the Couch" by Kevin Clark and Jonathan Clegg. They focus on the Green Bay Packers game which would have been blacked out but for three Fox affiliate TV stations purchasing the remaining unsold tickets. The WSJ reports that the teams' fan base remains strong and that there is "a six-figure season ticket waiting list". However, the playoff game was scheduled on short notice, extremely bad weather was predicted, and playoff tickets had to be purchased separately from the season tickets. The "ticket requests were sent out earlier when it appeared the Packers wouldn't make the playoffs." The WSJ also reported on interviews conducted about the three other playoff games. For example, the Colts tickets were packaged in groups of 20 seats, which make it harder to organize a group trip to a game on short notice. The article concludes that fan interest remains strong.
The WSJ article raises a different point that CP should feature on its front page: In December, the Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously to issue a proposed rule to remove the ban on TV coverage of football games that are not sold out. The NFL is fighting that proposal. So, here you have a classic case of big government action vs. property rights of a powerful corporation vs. personal choice and freedom vs. business interests of two regulated industries. It is the libertarian vs. economic conservative debate. Thanks, Wschact 06:32, 7 January 2014 (EST)

Obamacare and Congress

May I suggest that we add a MPR item about Senator Ron Johnson's new lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act implementation as it applies to Congress and Congressional staff? Before the ACA was adopted provisions were added to require Congress and Congressional staff to purchase healthcare on the exchanges instead of the healthcare plans offered to other federal employees. Sen. Johnson claims that this provision was intended to include the fact that Congress and Congressional staff would pay with post-tax dollars. However, the Obama administration has implemented the ACA so that the federal government pays for Congress and Congressional staff health insurance with pre-tax dollars as an employee benefit. All other citizens purchasing insurance on the exchanges pay with post-tax dollars, and Sen. Johnson sees this as unfair and contrary to the intent of the amendment. Thanks, Wschact 06:59, 7 January 2014 (EST)

Global warming

There are a couple of news items about the Big Freeze in the USA on main page right, saying this disproves global warming. Can I make the obvious point that the globe extends beyond the borders of the USA. Here in the UK, we've got what the Brits tell me is their warmest winter ever while Australia has had its hottest summer ever. So the weather you're having back home doesn't mean the climate over the world as a whole isn't getting warmer on average. StaceyT 20:08, 7 January 2014 (EST)

Hi, thank you for your comments. The climate on average has been getting warmer throughout the past century, no reasonable person denies this. What we conservatives take issue with is the appropriate way to handle it. More government intrusion is not the answer, and that's what liberals and Big Science are pushing. --Kennywillis 20:20, 7 January 2014 (EST)
In furtherance of Kenny's comments, the cold winter in the U.S. does prove that there is not a crisis in global warming that liberals insisted would happen.--Andy Schlafly 20:25, 7 January 2014 (EST)
I quite agree with StaceyT, the polar vortex responsible for this cold snap is covering less than one percent of the earth’s surface and assuming it lasts for a couple weeks this weather phenomena is less than one percent of the minimum length of time required to measure climate data (ten years). Plenty of disinformation everywhere; Rush Limbaugh proclaimed polar vortexes are a recent creation by liberals even though atmospheric scientists have been using it for decades. Pat Robertson is in on the game also. Over seven years ago he said climate change/global warming was happening, because he experienced a hot summer of course, and he even appeared in a climate commercial with Rev. Sharpton. Of course he is a flip flopper now with his laughable SUV on Jupiter claim. --NormaN 20:35, 7 January 2014 (EST)
Regardless of the differences in how conservatives and liberals think global climate change should be addressed (reversed!), this is a great article which explains how the the Big Freeze in N.America is the result of global warming - specifically a big increase in the temperature of the Arctic Ocean. StaceyT 15:08, 8 January 2014 (EST)
Again, nobody really denies that global warming plays a pretty big part in extreme weather events across the globe. I mean, some might, but they fringe people and not representative of the people at this site, from what I've read. So I won't argue about that. But the point is that climate change isn't as urgent as it is said to be, and that government action can't really do anything about it. --Kennywillis 15:25, 8 January 2014 (EST)
I was going to post this earlier but was unable too, I am not sure if I was blocked. Anyway 6th Jan 2014 was the first day in recorded history that all 50 US States recorded sub-zero temperatures on the same day.[5]--JerryCa 15:55, 8 January 2014 (EST)
Kenny, we (the human race) need to deal with global warming while it's still a manageable problem and before it becomes a catastrophe. We're not going to do that by putting our feet up and saying it isn't an urgent problem. It's already an urgent problem for reindeer herders in northern Russia because rivers aren't freezing over, and for people who live on low-lying tropical islands because storm surges are happening more often. We need to take action before it becomes an urgent problem for the rest of us. Put warmer clothing on in winter and turn the heating down, put fewer clothes on in summer and turn the aircon down, take public transport instead of driving a car whenever possible, eat less meat so we need to use less fertiliser. We need to invest in nuclear power and burn much less oil and col. Those simple steps won't wipe us out economically. StaceyT 16:42, 8 January 2014 (EST)
"StaceyT" -- please read up on Lord Monckton, Bjorn Lomborg, Joe Bastardi, or some of Conservapedia's own articles on this subject before reciting hollow talking points from Al Gore's bargain bin book. Do you get Fox News over there? I would recommend you find a way to watch it, as they did a segment on this issue recently. There is a VAST amount of literature out there and no amount of "think of the polar bears/reindeer"-type rhetoric will make global warming (AKA global cooling) less of a hoax. JohnBD 18:59, 8 January 2014 (EST)
  • If you actually wanted to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, you would be backing nuclear power, or the dumping of iron filings in the oceans. But instead the ecofreaks are pushing solar cells, electric cars, wind turbines and other such solutions in search of a problem. This agenda was developed in the 1970s in response to the energy crisis. When the energy crisis dissipated, they weren’t about to modify it to accommodate reality. So they began to agitate about global warming. Does anyone remember the ozone hole? It's worst now than ever. But nobody cares because the issue has lost its political utility. The best measure of the global temperature is the radiosonde data. Look at that chart and tell me that there is anything to get excited about. Just from eyeballing it, I'd say no real change since about 1987. If you think they have didn’t have climate change before cars and industry, take a look at my Roman Warm Period article. PeterKa 20:12, 8 January 2014 (EST)
I have read up on many lunatic fringe climate deniers such as Monckton, and contrarians like Lomborg and Bastardi. They are useful if a person wants to be familiar with the minority view of climate change. I get my climate change information from peer-reviewed sources, hard to go wrong there. Fox News? They deal mostly with pseudo-science, viewer beware. The Conservapedia articles? Look at the sources first. The growth of the ozone hole is slowing thanks to a reduction of CFCs and other harmful man-made gases. Solar power is one way to live a carbon neutral life, it works for me.--NormaN 19:53, 8 January 2014 (EST)
Perhaps "At AGU, NASA says CFC reduction is not shrinking the ozone hole – yet" can enlighten. CFC was an innocent chemical all along, the victim an ecofreak jihad. If we ever go solar, I guarantee it will be more of the same. PeterKa 20:48, 8 January 2014 (EST)
CFC an innocent victim? Uh huh. Watts definitely isn’t credible. He wrote a check he couldn’t cash when the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study was released and completely refuted his contrarian claims concerning climate change.--NormaN 21:15, 8 January 2014 (EST)
The story is from NASA. Here's a quote: "However, two new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size." PeterKa 21:37, 8 January 2014 (EST)
Here’s the money quote: “Until chlorine levels in the lower stratosphere decline below the early 1990s level – expected sometime after 2015 but likely by 2030 – temperature and winds will continue to dictate the variable area of the hole in any given year. Not until after the mid 2030s will the decline stratospheric chlorine be the primary factor in the decline of ozone hole area.” CFCs are not ‘innocent’.--NormaN 22:06, 8 January 2014 (EST)
When CFC was banned back in 1987, they predicted the effect would peak around 2000. When 2030 rolls around, they'll tell us to wait another 15 years. PeterKa 22:25, 8 January 2014 (EST)

Lunatic fringe, minority view, pseudoscience: these are the same terms used to describe the view that the Earth is thousands rather than billions of years old. Are you sure you're on the right wiki? JohnBD 00:47, 9 January 2014 (EST)

John, you're full of nonsense. Of course we're on the right wiki. Stop trying to paint conservatives as deniers of established science, it's starting to reflect poorly on your motives. --Kennywillis 15:14, 9 January 2014 (EST)
If you bash conservatives simply for being conservative, which how I interpret several of NormaN's comments above, than you are obviously not one. PeterKa 23:03, 9 January 2014 (EST)
I do not consider the theory of evolution to be established science. (Have visited the Holy Land Experience but unfortunately not the Creation Museum -- a bit too far off the beaten path...) I provided a list of suggested reading on the topic of global warming, which were summarily dismissed. I then suggested perbaps we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion. How does that "reflect poorly" on anything? JohnBD 23:43, 9 January 2014 (EST)
Fortunately, however, the truth is not predicated on you accepting it. ErnstSB 13:25, 10 January 2014 (EST)
Just as this wiki is not predicated on us accepting sock puppets of banned users. JohnBD 13:50, 10 January 2014 (EST)
So you admit I'm right? Thank you. ErnstSB 14:27, 11 January 2014 (EST)

Liberal pseudoscience still not sound

Nate Phelps giving a lecture on exercise science and nutritional science at an American Atheists convention? See: American Atheists and obesity

In the picture above, did you notice how Nate Phelps' wide girth obscures your view of the pro-science logo of the American Atheists?[1] Another case of atheist hypocrisy my atheist friends?

Nate is currently the Executive Director of the Center for Inquiry Canada.[2] New research suggests that extra pounds and large waists undermine perceptions of leadership ability.[3]

Anyone who adamantly maintains that atheism is pro-science and that conservative Christianity is anti-science, needs to see how many prominent atheists flout the dictums of exercise science, nutritional science and medical science! See: Atheism and obesity and Christianity and science

And don't forget that that the irreligious and "liberal Christians" are more superstitious than conservative Christians! See: Irreligion and superstition

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Atheist! No doubt you are a smoker too! And never forget that church going Bible believers live longer than the irreligious and are mentally healthier! See: Atheism and health

See: Essay: Atheists, stop flouting sound science!

(photo obtained from Flickr, see license agreement), Title: Nate Phelps AAC00 (a very brave man)

If so-called "liberal Christians", liberal theologians, atheists, agnostics and deists who commonly subscribe to evolution have such great scientific understanding, then why are Bible believing conservative Christians who believe in a young earth less superstitious? See: Irreligion and superstition And why did the scientific revolution happen in Christianized Europe? See: Biblical roots of modern science I trusts this information further clarifies things as it helps show who is irrational and who is rational. If only evolutionists were more open to reason instead of being obstinate purveyors of foolish nonsense. Conservative 12:37, 11 January 2014 (EST)

The lack of self-awareness from you is rather stunning... ever hear of Russell's teapot? ErnstSB 14:27, 11 January 2014 (EST)
You must be new here, Ernst. Welcome. You've met Conservapedia's most colorful character. Enjoy. You might also be amused by this edit. By the way, the privilege of posting on this talk page is afforded to any unblocked user. Of course there is no guarantee that your account (or mine) won't be blocked 5 minutes from now; arbitrary blocks are quite common. SamHB 22:10, 11 January 2014 (EST)
I am new here and heavily leaning toward hopeless basket case with regard to the state of the project. I apologize if my earlier comment was unwarranted. Someone created another account just to say "pwnt" at the same time as Ernst joined. As for User:Conservative, s/he is mentally ill, trolling, or both. Karajou and PeterKa are the only people I am convinced are here for the right reasons. JohnBD 00:14, 12 January 2014 (EST)

ErnstSB, there must be a reason why you did not answer the question of why the irreligious and "liberal Christians" are more superstitious than conservative Christians? See: Irreligion and superstition What is it? Cat got your tongue? Unless you answer this question, I regret to say that you will lose your privilege to post on this talk page.

Also, if the Russel Teapot argument against theism is so strong, then why pray tell was the British Humanist Association and Richard Dawkins afraid to debate William Lane Craig? A man who consistently wins his debates against atheists. Even prominent atheists have conceded that the prospect of debating Craig can be quite unnerving to atheists and that he has won debate after debate with atheists.

"William Lane Craig is a prolific Christian philosopher, apologist, author, and public debater. He is the best debater – on any topic – that I’ve ever heard. As far as I can tell, he has won nearly all his debates with atheists. When debating him, atheists have consistently failed to put forward solid arguments, and consistently failed to point out the flaws in Craig’s arguments" - from the atheist blog Common Sense Atheism. [6]

By the way, your armchair psychology is not at all impressive - especially since atheists enjoy less mental health than the general population. See: Atheism and depression and Atheism and suicide. Conservative 15:40, 11 January 2014 (EST)

This discussion started as being about climate change and how it's affecting the world, I'm failing to see how that's really related to this. The scientific revolution occurred in Europe once the stranglehold of the church lessened, and incidentally much of it occurred during a cold spell during which agriculture was much less productive; one wonders if it created a need for more efficiency. If you like we can split this interesting theological discussion off into a separate subsection, but I think StaceyT's link above is quite interesting. ErnstSB 20:25, 11 January 2014 (EST)

ErnstSB, given that atheism has become a intellectual laughingstock and its proponents have fallen into such a deep state of disrepute so that even the term "atheist" is a term that many atheists are avoiding calling themselves, it is not surprising that you dodged my question (Sam Harris said recently that the label atheist is right next to the word pedophile as a designation and a study of Canadians and Americans found that the only group the participants distrusted as much as atheists was rapists[7]). So because you did not answer my question on why the irreligious are more superstitious than conservative Christians and chose to dodged it (See: Irreligion and superstition ), I am afraid you are now banished. Conservative 03:29, 12 January 2014 (EST)

SamHB, being an evolutionist, you are one of Conservapedia's most colorful characters and unfortunately for you the color is a cowardly yellow!
Of course, if you agree to debate VivaYehshua on the 15 questions for evolutionists in an oral debate to be widely distributed, then you can redeem yourself. If Bill Nye is agreeing to debate Ken Ham and Eugenie Scott was willing to engage in a mini internet radio debate exchange with Andrew Schafly, then surely you can debate VivaYehshua. Of course, by being in a debate with Darwinism doubter, VivaYehshua would lend Darwinism an air of respectability after it lost a series of humiliating defeats in the 1970s and 1980s (and Darwinists have yet to find credible missing link fossils after fruitless searching for over 150 years), but that is a risk us Darwinism doubters are willing to take. See: Evolution and the fossil record and Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates. Conservative 07:17, 12 January 2014 (EST)

JohnBD, I merely challenged an evolutionist/atheist to answer some relevant questions and gave some Darwinists some satirical jabs after they threw out some snarky comments. One of the tell tale signs of a weak position is to accuse your opponent of mental illness. And of course, armchair internet psychological diagnoses are very lame and very often an act of desperation by those who cannot intellectually defend their views. So needless to say, I see your accusation above as a sign of intellectual weakness and a sign of poor character/judgment as well.

Of course, this is nothing new. Vox Day has said that atheists/leftists have accused him of mental illness. And the Apostle Paul and Jesus have both been accused of mental illness but their critics. Festus told Paul that his great learning had caused him to go mad. C.S. Lewis said that Jesus was either Lord, liar or a lunatic and maintained He was Lord. Today, atheists and liberal theologians accuse Jesus of mental illness.[8] [9]

Of course, a great irony of these accusations is that atheists suffer from higher than average mental illness (see: Atheism and health) and studies show that adherents of liberal theology which includes Darwinism are more likely to engage in immoral behavior. See: Study shows morals decline linked to evolution and Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity And I am reasonably guessing immorality is a causative factor for being less psychologically adjusted (narcissism, etc. etc.). Conservative 08:09, 12 January 2014 (EST)

JohnDB, I would also point out that you are assuming that only one person has used the User: Conservative account and you have no evidence that this is the case. So any psychological accusations or fishing expeditions about User: Conservative that you may engage in related to the person or persons who posts from the User: Conservative account are quite tenuous to say the least. I have some rather amusing information relating to the matter of some gentlemen attributing some content posted by User: Conservative to the wrong person and they had no idea they were doing so. To this day, no true skeptic claims to know who or whom is using the User: Conservative account. Conservative 08:28, 12 January 2014 (EST)

I have decided to retire from this exchange with Darwinists/atheists. Darwinists, feel free to engage in last wordism at this point. Conservative 08:41, 12 January 2014 (EST)

  • So, uh, do you prefer "users conservative"? That those without faith turn to superstition is hardly very surprising. The human heart has a need to believe. "The heart has reasons that reason does not know," as Pascal said. If someone is denied Jesus, he is more likely to turn to astrology, UFOs, quack medicine, Marxism, or something of that kind. When Americans stopped reading their Bibles in the 1960s and 1970s, they didn't pick up Nature, Britannica or a calculus textbook. PeterKa 11:11, 12 January 2014 (EST)

PeterKa, I just proofread one of my posts and made a small correction. I thought I would respond to your comment. Solomon wrote: “The heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead” (Ecclesiastes 9:3). A man without God is not going to be at peace nor is He going to receive God's peace/counsel. Conservative 11:34, 12 January 2014 (EST)

  • Did you see Bill Nye's Youtube video? He apparently thinks that our children would all grow up to be scientists and engineers if only their Christian parents weren't distracting them with religious instruction. Somebody forgot to tell that to Isaac Newton, that's for sure. PeterKa 12:06, 12 January 2014 (EST)
I thought it was stupid and much of it insincere. There is one thing that Nye and I agree on. The USA has the most biblical creationists in the Western World and is the world's most innovative and technology advanced civilization. Coincidence?  :) By the way, Switzerland has one of Europe's biggest biblical creationist populations and is one of the most prosperous countries in Europe and in the world.[10][11] Coincidence? :)
Bill Nye is an atheist/agnostic. Atheism/agnosticism had some publicity during the hay day of New Atheism and no doubt Nye will gain some publicity via his debate with Ken Ham, but the days of atheism getting a lot of limelight are gone and now global atheism/agnosticism faces a bleak future due to demographics and other forces. See: Global atheism. And I don't believe that publicists are going to turn things around.
Nice conversing with you Peter. I promised a number of people I would help them this month concerning various matters, I better focus back on these matters. Conservative 12:44, 12 January 2014 (EST)

SamHB replies

I'm pleased that Cons considers me "colorful". I think "hard working", "sensible", and "mature" would be better characterizations.

But the color is not yellow. I challenged Cons to a debate/competition in mathematics, specifically the Generalized linear model here, and (twice) here. His/her response was to decorate the challenge with a picture of a chicken. Or was it a bunny rabbit? Whatever. I also challenged him to a competition in physical fitness and "svelteness" here and here. His response to the latter included "Lastly, as far as my fitness level, I am scheduled to take part in a social function with a member of the opposite sex." We're dying to know how that went.

And I'm pleased to note that Cons is avoiding name-calling, ad hominem statements, and writing articles about atheists suffering from higher than average mental illness, as though that has any affect on one's dealings with any particular atheist.

As far as debating "VivaYehshua", I hadn't seen that name brought up in several months. I had thought Cons finally realized that VivaYehshua wasn't interested in being his proxy for bogus debates. You see, a number of people contacted him several months ago, offline, to ask him about his repeatedly being cited as a debate proxy. He told those people that he is not interested in Cons or in being Cons's debate proxy. I've seen some of the emails. It appears that Cons never got the memo. In any case, if Cons really thinks that there are people who think the "15 questions" are worth debating (as opposed to simply being some of the stupidest things ever to hit the dregs of the internet), Cons should issue such a challenge himself.

SamHB 14:13, 12 January 2014 (EST)

You described the 15 questions as "being some of the stupidest things ever to hit the dregs of the internet". I agree with your assessment about the stupidity of the 15 questions, but I would not put it as superlative among stupid Internet content, especially content written by people and organizations that should know better. GregG 14:23, 12 January 2014 (EST)

Against my better judgment I am choosing to respond. I spoke to VivaYehshua, a university biology student, via Skype and he thinks it is very humorous that Darwinists are afraid to debate him concerning the 15 questions for evolutionists. Shockofgod's chat room is less active now, but occasionally I will text contact VivaYehshua via Skype.

GregG, you are contradicting yourself. If the 15 questions for evolutionists were so stupid, then why did you contact Kenneth Miller about them? Either you were being stupid or the questions are legitimate to raise. I know the latter is the case. Seems like you are being mighty contradictory in this matter! And I know the questions were important and relevant to the creation vs. evolution issue, because even Richard Dawkins' moderator at his website posted the 15 questions and said they were good/interesting questions (If memory serves and it may not, it was at Dawkins' old website). By the way, how is Kenneth Miller doing as far as satisfactorily answering the 15 questions for evolutionists? Have you heard back from him yet? Conservative 16:23, 12 January 2014 (EST)

SamHB, your debate offer was illegitimate and inane

The Generalized linear model article I created was a quote from a stats website. What is there to debate about? You are certainly not telling me the content was in error. It was a ridiculous debate offer from a small-minded and petty man. Conservative 16:52, 12 January 2014 (EST)

40 year mortgages in the UK

The problem with using a celebrity driven tabloid like the Daily Mail as a source is that it values sensation over substance. 40 year mortgages have been available in the UK - and in the US - for decades. It's not news and it's not limited to the UK. The Daily Mail is great if you want to know what a scantily clad starlet wore to the beach or what a rapper got up to in a nightclub, but it's not a quality source for serious news. Rafael 17:08, 11 January 2014 (EST)

We have some tabloids in the U.S. too. Your point is a good one.--Andy Schlafly 17:19, 11 January 2014 (EST)
As far as the Daily Mail objection, this is a genetic fallacy objection.
Second, in 2003, 40 year loans were starting to be more common in the UK.[12] The trend may be increasing in its pace.[13] There has been a lot of immigration into the UK which would tend raise the demand for housing which could in turn increase the pricing of housing so the context of the story seems credible. Plus, wages have been stagnant in the UK for 40 months.[14] Furthermore, UK citizens seem to have an appetite for debt and the external debt % to GDP in the UK was recent pegged at 406% which is about 4 times higher than the USA.[15]
If housing prices are rising, wages are stagnant, customers want mortgages and are not debt averse and in fact are debt hungry, lenders do not want to increase the debt/income ratio of its borrowers, there are reports that interest in 40 year loans is increasing among lenders and consumers, then the proposition of 40 year mortgages becoming more popular over time in the UK is not far fetched. The question is not how long 40 year mortgages have been around in the UK, but are they increasing in frequency and will that trend continue and pick up in pace.
Of course, if economic conditions get even tougher in the UK and become more severe, which could certainly happen as there are a number of economic problems in the UK and in the world economy, then lenders could be more risk averse and become less likely to give out 40 year loans. Conservative 19:37, 11 January 2014 (EST)
I disagree with your analysis on several levels. Britain has had a Conservative government for the last three and a half years and the economy is growing by around 3%. Among other things, they have privatised the Royal Mail. Quoting statistics from a liberal-left newspaper like the Guardian can't change that.
Risk averse bank prefer 40 year mortgages because they give clients the illusion of affordability. It's interest-only mortgages that are risky.
The external debt to GDP ratio is a red herring. Britain has been a service economy operating in a global market since Mrs Thatcher's reforms of the 1980s. Balance of payments has been an issue since the 1970s.
And so on.
But the biggest canard is the genetic fallacy thing. Click on any of your links to the Daily Mail and look down the right hand side of the page. Go to the main page and count the number of hard news stories, soft news stories and celebrity stories. Look at the pictures. That's why many conservatives, myself included, won't have it in the house. There's too much smut in the world already. Rafael 09:12, 12 January 2014 (EST)

Just because an overall economy is growing, doesn't mean that workers wages have not stagnated overall. Workers wages are subject to the supply/demand of labor and the productivity of labor. And your Guardian complaint is another genetic fallacy. And there are other reports of many UK workers wages stagnating as well.[16][17] Given the propensity of Europeans to often engage in liberalism, it does not surprise me that their educational systems are producing people ill prepared for the marketplace along with high youth unemployment.

The external debt to GDP ratio is not a red herring. An economic entity providing services does not mean it will necessarily go into debt. Highly paid professional firms with low or no debts are witness to that. And there is nothing wrong with the UK better competing when it comes to providing high quality manufacturing. It certainly hasn't hurt Germany.

A country being mired in a great deal of debt is not a good situation and its countrymen making excuses for it is certainly not a remedy for this situation. You may now bask in my tough love. :) Conservative 09:53, 12 January 2014 (EST)

A quick addendum: If only Britain did not forget its godly heritage and put that agnostic/atheist peddler of origins pseudoscience on their currency. A cornucopia of Divine blessing and Protestant work ethic would have lifted the UK out of its economic morass. Conservative 09:58, 12 January 2014 (EST)
A few additional points. In 2012, it was reported that UK workers were much less productive than others in the G7.[18] Plus, it seems like there has been very high immigration in the UK in the last 10 years which would of course increase the supply of labor which would exert a downward pressure on wages. [19] And it seems like a lot of the immigrants were low skilled labor according to Prime Minister David Cameron which would not be helpful as far as increasing worker's wages. [20] It appears as if the UK was not very selective in terms of immigration in terms of requiring the people to be investors or high skilled workers.
All these factors combined would seem to be recipe for overall wage stagnation. Conservative 10:35, 12 January 2014 (EST)
Are the multiple posts supposed to be from the multiple people you claimed above are using the account? I am asking in all seriousness. JohnBD 11:12, 12 January 2014 (EST)

Why does it matter? Respond to the content of the posts. I/we just find it amusing that all these personal attacks about the person/persons User: Conservative from atheists/evolutionists/liberals are not made from a position of certainty. No true skeptic claims to know who or whom User: Conservative is.

微乎微乎,至于无形;神乎神乎,至于无声;故能为敌之司命。

"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." - Jesus Conservative 11:47, 12 January 2014 (EST)

Conservative, my friend, are you seriously saying that articles from celebrity tabloids like the Daily Mail and liberal left newspapers like the Guardian trump the tangible, measurable and verifiable achievements of David Cameron's Conservative government? Do you seriously think its a coincidence that the forty months of alleged wage stagnation reported by the Guardian are the same forty months since Gordon Brown's leftie Labour Party lost the election? Does it follow that we should take the BBC, CNN and NBC seriously? The New York Times? The Socialist Worker newspaper? Or should we only take the mainstream media seriously when it agrees with us?
What should we make of stories like this one about the BBC's programming for Good Friday, in Britain? [21]
Some interesting points for discussion with a great deal of significance for this website, don't you think? Rafael 12:36, 12 January 2014 (EST)
Rafael, this much I know. Cameron inherited a big financial debt hole that the UK is in plus it faces a number of other significant challenges. If Cameron manages to turn things around, it will be difficult. I wish him the best though. Second, given the present economics of the UK and its current population's appetite for debt as exhibited by its high external debt to GDP ratio, it would not surprise me if 40 year mortgages are growing in popularity. That is all I have to say on this matter. Conservative 12:55, 12 January 2014 (EST)
Let's agree to differ on our reading of the British economy, as we do on so many other things about the UK.
However, I'm perplexed that you did not address my (original and important) point about media sources. You've said you have no more to say, and I respect that, so does anyone else have an opinion? How, for example, should we take a report from the solidly conservative Telegraph about the moslem head of religious programming at the socialist BBC scheduling another live TV passion play for Good Friday? Rafael 15:08, 12 January 2014 (EST)

I showed the British have had a penchant for debt and are buried in it which is something you can't dispute. Nobody held a gun to the Brits head and forced them to take out an extraordinary amount of external debt compared to their GDP. Even if much of the debt is the result of bailouts related the 2008 crisis (it may or may not be. I don't know) that is still a choice that was made. Iceland bit the bullet, let their banks take the hit of their poor choices and now Iceland is doing better than most European countries.

Show me some data that show the Brits are among the productive workers in Europe. I don't believe you can do that. Even the heavily unionized and highly regulation filled French have higher worker productivity than the Brits.[22] Give me data that shows that Brits immigration policy would not have downward pressure on wages. You can't do that either. And it wouldn't be that hard for me to find a Telegraph article dealing with the very high amount of low skilled immigrants that have come to the UK. And it is basic economics that increasing the supply of workers has downward pressure on wages.

The only thing you have done here is to use the genetic fallacy (which is illogical) and use poor economic arguments. I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't read any books on economics. Many people don't understand economics including the leaders of many countries. I regret being so frank, but you asked me to be more forthcoming. I strongly suspect your intransigence about the poor state of the British economy as a whole which would include a consideration of the high amount of debt, is the result of excessive nationalism. So trying to reason with you will do no good in my estimation. Conservative 15:55, 12 January 2014 (EST)

No need to express regret. Frankness between friends is a virtue, and your unexpected response is a pleasant surprise.
Does anyone else want to discuss the media points I raised? What are the implications of the generic fallacy for our understanding of the mainstream media? Rafael 16:03, 12 January 2014 (EST)

Rafael, thank you for your gracious reply.

I am not particularly interested in the media issue. I recently decided to spend less time attending to the news and putting the time to better use. I read that the average American spends about 70 minutes a day attending to the news. I think that time/focus could be better spent. And most news organizations spend too much time on negative news items. I read about 60-75% of news is reporting on bad news which sounds about right. And it has been found that people who expose themselves frequently to this negativity are more prone to various mental maladies. Conservative 16:37, 12 January 2014 (EST)

So lets get this straight, The UK's economic problems are all down to who happens to be on one of its banknotes? What utter nonsense. What about the countries that are in a far worse financial pickle like Ireland, Greece, Spain and Italy? I don't think that any Euro note has Darwin on it. However if you are so convinced you are right please write to George Osbourne, 11 Downing Street, London, SW1 2AA and give him some pointers. Also for a protestant work ethic would first require the population to be protestant which England is not, at least not in the traditional sense. Also what about the predictions that the UK economy will be ahead of Germany by 2030. Stick to the atheist topics where you have some expertise.

Most of Ireland is pro-Darwinism. Spain and Italy are also pro-Darwinism. Second, I hope you are not saying that most of Ireland and Spain/Italy/Greece have the Protestant work ethic! Also, this 2011 Telegraph article said: "Either way, not a single Protestant or Germanic EU country has so far needed a bailout."[23]

Next, as per Gladwell in the book Outliers, it can be shown that countries have cultural legacies so there is some effect of a country adhering to Protestantism in the past as far as the current culture and work ethic. Unlike Roman Catholic countries (which are also pro-evolution), I don't believe the UK has needed a bailout and they can give some credit to William Tyndale, John Wyclif, John Wesley, John Bunyan and the translators of the Geneva Bible and King James Bible! [24]If only the UK had been the fountainhead of Protestantism like Germany, then they would not be in so much debt!

Lastly, please stick to the topics where you have some expertise! Conservative 17:30, 15 January 2014 (EST)

Dear Mr. Schlafly

I assume you follow this page. Please look at the "wide-ranging essay" above, and note the way ErnstSB was treated. Please look at his block log also.

User Conservative has shown himself to be utterly unable to be trusted with blocking authority. Please admonish him that, while blocking authority naturally goes with administrator status, he will henceforth be forbidden to exercise blocking authority. There are plenty of other people who are capable of dealing with disruptive editors.

You can see here that I brought this issue up with you back in 2011.

SamHB 14:13, 12 January 2014 (EST)

Pope speaks out against 'horrific' abortion

[25] --JerryCa 17:05, 13 January 2014 (EST)

Another great story for a headline - thanks for mentioning it.--Andy Schlafly 23:05, 13 January 2014 (EST)

Andy, who do you like in this year's Aussie Open?

I'm wondering how you think conservative athletes will perform in this year's Australian Open, given the particular circumstances in which the tournament is being played. EddyJ 18:01, 15 January 2014 (EST)

The frantic environmentalists crowd would be more convincing if they did not first make dire predictions about global cooling which of course failed to come true. Ever read the Aesop fable The boy who cried wolf? The "global warming" crowd have had over 125 significant global warming scandals by now.[26] Pardon me, if I don't take their "Wolf!" cries seriously at this point.Conservative 12:17, 17 January 2014 (EST)

Should I or Should I not?

My friend gave me God delusion by Richard Dawkins urging me to read it. She has turned an atheist after that. I am scared to read it. Should I or should I not?

--Maria O'Connor 16:32, 16 January 2014 (EST)+

Wow, another Irish person living in England. This Derry born man advises if your faith is strong the book will not "delude" you. I am sure Conservative would agree that having as much knowledge about the opposing view as possible is a good thing. He is more knowledgeable of atheism than most atheists and his faith has not suffered becuase of it, It may have made it even stronger.JerryCa
There's nothing wrong with being an atheist. Personally, I'm a Sermon-on-the-Mount-values atheist-agnostic, but if God does exist, I'm sure he would love each and every one of his children the same and wouldn't punish you for what you believe in. Follow what Jesus said about treating others, live responsibly and think conservatively. Dogma doesn't matter one iota, even ask the current Pope. --Kennywillis 22:37, 16 January 2014 (EST)

The initial thing to do to spot a "counterfeit bill" is to be familiar with the real thing. Therefore, before I would read a book by a self-described agnostic like Richard Dawkins who oddly named his book The God Delusion (Despite his agnosticism, I think Dawkins chose a provocative militant atheistic title of the book to sell more books), I think you should first be familiar with the main arguments for the existence of God and for Christianity. See: Evidence for Christianity websites.

Then, you will not be fooled by weak straw men arguments that Dawkins sets up only to knock down nor will you be fooled when he gives patently wrong facts that any decent fact checker could have readily found if he or his publisher would have employed one. See: Chapter 8 of the book The Irrational Atheist. Conservative 00:22, 17 January 2014 (EST)

First quality and free theological degree which focuses on the evidence for Christianity

God is still a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Conservative 01:04, 17 January 2014 (EST)

News pick: PA trial court strikes voter ID law

From Rick Hasen's blog. The one thing the Pennsylvania voter ID experience that is useful for other states is a lesson in how not to implement a voter ID law. GregG 10:39, 17 January 2014 (EST)

"Secular astronomers are desperately searching for earth-like planets, but have come up empty."

No they haven't. They have found billions of them. and they have only had the ability to look for a very short period of time. EddyJ 18:28, 18 January 2014 (EST)

If you read the article, the headline is clearly wrong. Only ten planets of this type have been identified so far. They got the 8.8 billion number by extrapolating the results from the stars they have studied to the entire galaxy. PeterKa 20:32, 18 January 2014 (EST)
In this case, there is the possibility that these secular astronomers won't come up empty. After all, it's a huge sky to look at, and we've so far only studied a mere fraction of what's out there. Karajou 20:38, 18 January 2014 (EST)
We live on a Privileged Planet. Conservative 21:09, 18 January 2014 (EST)

A leading British newspaper admits: "There was indeed a great flood, and the animals really did go in two by two,"

This is a joke right? If we're going to go with The Telegraph as a reputable news source, we probably should be mentioning the aliens living on top of clouds and Yetis among other things recently reported by the same paper... Fnarrow 13:48, 19 January 2014 (EST)

I thought the Daily Mail was the tabloid in London. The Great Flood is no joke: the Great Flood's occurrence is described in numerous sources independent of the Bible, and Jesus referred to it also. It is confirmed by geological evidence as well.--Andy Schlafly 14:23, 19 January 2014 (EST)
There are several tabloids published in London. I'm surprised you don't know that. EddyJ 00:14, 20 January 2014 (EST)
Fnarrow. Can you suggest a more reliable and reputable news source from the UK? Rafael 16:07, 19 January 2014 (EST)
The Times. EddyJ 00:14, 20 January 2014 (EST)
While I accept that the Times is the British Newspaper of Record, and is the proper source for Court Circulars and the like, it's not what it was just thirty years ago. There's something mucky about Murdoch and his twenty year flirtation with Tony Blair's pinko liberalism still grates. Rafael 12:01, 20 January 2014 (EST)

Fnarrow, Dr. Henry Gee is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is also a senior editor of Nature, Britain's leading mainstream scientific journal.

in 2004, Gee wrote in Nature: "The discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until so very recently, in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as yetis are founded on grains of truth.

In the light of the Flores skeleton, a recent initiative4 to scour central Sumatra for 'orang pendek' can be viewed in a more serious light. This small, hairy, manlike creature has hitherto been known only from Malay folklore, a debatable strand of hair and a footprint. Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold."[27]

Fnarrow, are you saying that the leading evolutionist and science journal editor, Dr. Gee, believes in bunkum? Based on this incident and my previous encounter(s) with you, it seems like you have one standard for conservative creationists and another standard for liberal evolutionists!

Secondly, the agnostic and evolutionist Richard Dawkins speculated in his interview with Ben Stein that first life may have been introduced to earth via space aliens! Talk about desperation! Atheists/agnostics speculations about the origin of life are foolish and misguided.[28] Creation scientists maintain UFOs and reported contacts with "aliens" are either natural events misinterpreted (weather balloons) or demonic deception.[29] [30] Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress declared about this matter: "A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to demonic possession and psychic phenomenon which have long been known to theologians and parapsychologists. "[31]

Of course, the Christian explanation of "UFOism" and "ETism" is far superior to the evolutionary camp who often embrace such pseudoscience. Conservative 09:54, 20 January 2014 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, I was merely commenting on the reliability of the cited source, not (necessarily) the topic it happens to be covering.
Rafael, I don't live in the UK, I just happened to know that The Telegraph was a tabloid from a trip I took to London and previous experience on the internet. However, when I'm looking for British news I generally stick to The Times (as EddyJ suggests) or The BBC. Fnarrow 10:07, 20 January 2014 (EST)
The Daily Telegraph is a leading broadsheet newspaper in the UK and sold internationally as well. It is conservative by British standards. It is not a tabloid newspaper. Also, your criticism of The Telegraph certainly crumbled under cross-examination. You clearly use double standards. By the way, like other evolutionists, you have yet to satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists. Conservative 10:36, 20 January 2014 (EST)

Yahoo! answers

Anyone can ask pretty much anything on Yahoo! Answers, regardless of how uninformed the user is. Many of the users are probably trolls as well. This is the same userbase that produces questions which are adapted from lyrics from "Friday" and repeated iterations of "How is babby formed? How girl get pragnent?", among other stupid questions. GregG 23:14, 19 January 2014 (EST)

Look what Celeste at Yahoo Answers said about an atheist after visiting Conservapedia. She was "repulsed" and "horrified" by the words of an atheist professor and definitely doesn't want a man like him elected to governmental office in the United States. Conservative 00:01, 20 January 2014 (EST)

Is it really appropriate for MPR to be showing links to sites with comments such as:

'To be safe, always believe the opposite of whatever Conservapedia tells you.'
'Just took a look at the [Conservapedia] site. I thought it was an atheist site making fun of fundamentalism at first, it is so extremist I assumed it had to be a parody.'
'Lets put it this way, the ones who write the articles for that website are usually only a few select types; trolls, crazy people, and people who never had any education. I suspect the guy who runs it is a mix of all three.'

--DHouser 10:38, 20 January 2014 (EST)

I know it must be frustrating when Yahoo Answers Christians/others point out the obesity in the secular community, but you are just going to have to take it like a man and keep a stiff upper lip.
Also, I know that atheists/agnostics/evolutionists keep hoping that the "this must parody" line causes the first atheism/agnosticism revival, but it is not working.
Global atheism has been shrinking for about 13 years and The Daily Beast admitted that "2013 was a terrible year for Evolution".[32]
If only atheism/evolutionism had proof and evidence it was true! Unlike Christianity, atheism/evolutionism lacks proof and evidence. And unlike global Christianity and evangelicalism, atheism is not experiencing an explosive growth in adherents.
They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing which does not work over and over and expecting a different result. I say it is time to admit defeat and become a Bible believing young earth creationist. Again, the "this must be parody" line is stale and clearly ineffective. Your toothless "bites" are not only lame, but they are clearly pathetic at this point.Conservative 11:03, 20 January 2014 (EST)
Conservative, that was my point. Why are we being directed to a site that repeats this rubbish? --DHouser 11:18, 20 January 2014 (EST)

DHousers, I hope you are not denying that there have been theists chiding atheists about the obesity in the atheist community via Yahoo Answers. Why just 2 months ago Hector Sinclair, no doubt a UK theist, raised this issue at UK Yahoo Answers.[33]

So far this is my favorite post at Yahoo Answers:

"It has been scientifically proved the relationship between atheism and obesity:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity

Also the relationship between atheists and low self esteem, atheism and mass murder, atheism and suicide, atheism and homosexuality and pederasty and atheism and deception.

In general everything GOD tried to prevent."[34] Conservative 11:35, 20 January 2014 (EST)

Seriously, Conservative, what on Earth have I written that suggests I am 'denying that there have been theists chiding atheists about the obesity in the atheist community via Yahoo Answers'? --DHouser 11:54, 20 January 2014 (EST)
I linked to the Google search results and did not censor the results. Why is it that liberals have an obsessive need to control? :) I certainly gave little weight liberal criticisms found in Yahoo Answers about this topic. They certainly failed to point out a single factual error in the atheism and obesity article and no doubt many of them poorly understand how to weigh evidence and engage in the fallacy of exclusion. After all is said and done, one golden conservative Yahoo Answers post will always offset a legion of liberal Yahoo Answer whiners and complainers who can't handle the truth. :)
Hong Kong Christians at Gateway Camp. In 2005, there were four times as many non-Western World Christians as there were Western World Christians and many of them are quite slim! [4]

(photo obtained from Flickr, see license agreement)
Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist, Jesus, the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter - all thin! The Mosaic diet is still world famous to this day and Orthodox Jews are generally thin. Sarah, Elizabeth and Mary the Mother of Jesus - all thin! On the other hand, 3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement were overweight. The American Atheists clearly have an obesity problem as well. Unlike Moses, these atheists are not associated with a sound and healthy diet. And how are secular women doing? Behold, lesbianism and obesity!
Atheists, this is yet another area where the very religious are head and shoulders above you. In the race of slimness, the atheist communities waddling will never catch up to very religious Christians who are running the glorious race of the Christian faith with all due haste. See: Atheism and obesity.Conservative 12:55, 20 January 2014 (EST)