blackbird
-
Posts
9,907 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
10 minutes ago, robosmith said:
I understand you're admitting a lack of expertise, but unwilling to take the word of an expert who is backed by the vast majority of experts wrt evolution because it is counter to what you have "long believed."
And you are unwilling to acknowledge that the science "experts" employed by Creation Ministries International make a lot of errors as detailed in the rebuttal I cited.
Do you not know that CMI is very selective in the "experts" they employ; meaning that they have to be willing to believe what the Bible says, despite the FACT that the Bible was written LONG BEFORE what we KNOW about evolution TODAY.
The MEN who wrote the Bible knew shit about the processes that created man. Why are you so distrustful of modern science that you continue to believe MYTHS instead of empirical EVIDENCE?
Are you also unable to understand the REASONS I cited behind your belief in those MYTHS?
I have already explained why I cannot debate something like what you posted as I have no expertise in biology. You claim what they say is absolute truth and ignore the fact that they are biased in favour of evolution. They start from the premise there is no God, that the Biblical account of creation cannot be true, and that only evolution could explain things. That is a clear bias. There is no way around that.
Secondly, the Bible is not a book on science, history, theology, but it is a book that God gave us to tell us what we have to know about man's problem (sin), the fall of man, and the solution and what the future will bring. It is a supernatural book recording the supernatural dealings of God with man. Since you know nothing at all about the Bible or where it came from, it is a bit rich for you to call it a myth.
-
2 hours ago, robosmith said:
Except for one thing, you own video cite says there is an 84.38% exact match of nucleotides.
If you watch the rest of video they explain why this does not prove a common ancestry. They explain that God created humans and animals with many similarities. That is because there are characteristics that are good for both man and certain animals that are similar. For example several creatures and humans both have five fingers. This does not prove they evolved. All it means is this is the way that God created those animals and humans. It had nothing to do with evolution.
-
1 hour ago, robosmith said:
So you argument boils down to, because you can't understand the reasons given why Sanford's thesis is erroneous, you're just going to believe him ON FAITH, right?
No, I only watched the Sanford video today, but I have believed in creation for decades because that is what the Bible says and makes sense to me. You need to learn why and how the Scriptures came from God.
Twenty years ago I also watched video and recorded it from Professor Philip Stott who gave four or five evenings of a slide show presentation and talk on the topic of evolution. He was very knowledgeable. He was a professor of mathematics from South Africa, knew a lot about the science related to the subjects related to creation versus evolution, and I believe educated and from England. But he spoke in various countries at conferences and speaking engagements on the subject and knows what he is talking about. That was 20 years ago. He was once an evolutionist himself but was converted to Christ around 1976 I think and totally changed his thinking.
Check the website: Philip Stott: General Science: Table of Contents | Reformation International College (refcm.org)
Also, you mentioned the question of believing Sanford on faith. No, I already explained there are many other reasons why I believe in creation and have for decades. You posted an article countering Sanford and I explained I do not have the expertise or knowledge to go into that depth of biology to really know or comment on that.
-
2 hours ago, robosmith said:
Well, I did a little research on your creation.com sources, and found this which thoroughly REFUTES them:
I will read that BEFORE I watch your video which you have not even summarized.
If you will pardon the coarseness of the term, there is an old military term that says bullshit baffles brains.
Unfortunately, that is what many articles do. They delve into a subject with technical or scientific terms that almost nobody understands with the objective of winning a debate by scheer complexity in incomprehensible terms and arguments. I am not going there. There is another term which uses the abbreviation KISS. You probably know that one. Keep it simple stupid. That makes more sense for a discussion with lay people like myself.
-
2 hours ago, robosmith said:
Well, I did a little research on your creation.com sources, and found this which thoroughly REFUTES them:
I will read that BEFORE I watch your video which you have not even summarized.
As I explained I do not have the knowledge of biology to dig that deep into the subject your link goes into. I can only discuss this from a more general point of view.
This video explains why humans and apes did not come from the same ancestor as evolutionist have long claimed. Evolutionists have claimed for ages that 98.5% of human and ape DNA are the same.
Recent scientific research has found that their DNA are not the same at all and could not have come from the same ancestor as previously thought by evolutionists.
-
1 hour ago, robosmith said:
Well, I did a little research on your creation.com sources, and found this which thoroughly REFUTES them:
I will read that BEFORE I watch your video which you have not even summarized.
I regret I do not have the knowledge or ability to dig deep into the biological aspect of this. I mean I could spend days trying to understand the lingo and what they are talking about but I don't think it would be a useful way to spend my days. It would accomplish nothing because every article is coming from a certain point of view or as you say a bias. If you want to study the biological aspect of it, go ahead, but I don't see that as a very useful way to understand it. Maybe read or watch some videos on creation.com that give a more general view that a lay person can understand. I am not a biologist and am not going to try to be one. I can only discuss more general information from an ordinary non-scientist point of view. Many articles break things down so an ordinary person can understand what they are talking about. Creation.com has many more easier to understand articles and videos. Also, there are many aspects to this other than the debate over genomes and DNA. I am not trying to get away from it but just pointing out I don't have the expertise to really get deep into DNA or biology. I am just being honest with you.
The fact is there are many angles to this creation/evolution debate. There are issues that are much easier to understand than the deep biological technical issues which neither you nor I are going to be able to discuss rationally.
Such as the fact that there is no transitional fossil record to support evolution. That the fossil record to show evolution occurred doesn't exist, then the argument for evolution is dead in the water right there. It doesn't take an expertise in science or biology to understand that.
The second point I would make is simple logic. Where did the universe come from? It had to have a beginning. Matter cannot come into existence without a cause. Every effect has a cause. That is a basic principle of science and logic. Since matter had to have a cause for its existence, that points to a supernatural cause or an intelligent designer Creator. Many scientists admit that fact. Others more stubborn try to come up with irrational explanations like the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang has been debunked because it still does not explain where the material for the explosion came from and an explosion would not create an orderly universe. Explosions create disorder.
It also does not explain where atoms, particles, energy and all the laws that govern how it all operates came from. These law are very precise and orderly. The particles are amazing in how they operate such as the electron and proton and neutron in an atom. All these had to have had a intelligent designer creator. The particle had nothing to do with the theory of evolution. So where did it all come from if not from a Creator we call God?
-
10 hours ago, robosmith said:
Geological time on Earth? Do you know that life can survive in the rocks and ice of asteroids and comets?
The evolution of life is NOT confined to this planet. Certainly the building blocks can arrive here from elsewhere.
Not that that is necessary. It is entirely likely that your expert was biased and made invalid assumptions in his statistical analysis.
The FACT is, we see empirical EVIDENCE of the progress of the evolution of life over time right here on Earth.
Complex animals such as man did NOT just suddenly appear in the fossil record. There is a record of the evolution of primates that preceded man.
IF the beginning of life takes much much longer, then primitives forms COULD have arrived here from space.
You obviously did not watch the video "How Darwin Got it Wrong".
How Darwin Got It Wrong with Dr John Sanford - Media Center (creation.com)
Anything that contradicts your narrative or belief you say is biased. Proof you are totally blind and won't even watch and consider the creation side arguments. The truth is everyone believes one thing or another. You are either biased in a false belief system or biased in the truth. Therefore what is the point of accusing someone of being biased. You are implying you are not biased, which you know is incorrect. Believe the truth and be biased in the truth.
I believe God created everything. That is what it says in the beginning of the Bible.
"1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1 KJV
This website gives ten reasons why you should believe the Bible:
FIRST, on the ground of the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Many people accept the authority of Christ who do not accept that of the Bible as a whole. We all must accept His authority. He is accredited to us by five Divine testimonies: by the testimony of the Divine life He lived; by the testimony of the Divine words He spoke; by the testimony of the Divine works He wrought; by the Divine attestation of the resurrection from the dead; and by the testimony of His Divine influence upon the history of mankind. But if we accept the authority of Christ we must accept the authority of the Bible as a whole. He testifies definitely and specifically to the Divine authorship of the whole Bible."
SECOND, on the ground of its fulfilled prophecies.
There are two classes of prophecies in the Bible–first, the explicit, verbal prophecies, second, those of the types.
In the first we have the definite prophecies concerning the Jews, the heathen nations and the Messiah. Taking the prophecies, regarding the Messiah as an illustration, look at Isaiah 53, Mic. 5:2, Dan. 9:25-27. Many others might be mentioned, but these will serve as illustrations. In these prophecies, written hundreds of years before the Messiah came, we have the most explicit statements as to the manner and place of His birth, the manner of His reception by men, how His life would end, His resurrection and His victory succeeding His death. When made, these prophecies were exceedingly improbable, and seemingly impossible of fulfilment; but they were fulfilled to the very minutest detail of manner and place and time. How are we to account for it? Man could not have foreseen these improbable events–they lay hundreds of years ahead–but God could, and it is God who speaks through these men.
THIRD, on the ground of the unity of the book.
This is an old argument, but a very satisfactory one. The Bible consists of sixty-six books, written by more than thirty different men, extending in the period of its composition over more than fifteen hundred years; written in three different languages, in many different countries, and by men on every plane of social life, from the herdman and fisherman and cheap politician up to the king upon his throne; written under all sorts of circumstances; yet in all this wonderful conglomeration we find an absolute unity of thought.
A wonderful thing about it is that this unity does not lie on the surface. On the surface there is oftentimes apparent contradiction, and the unity only comes out after deep and protracted study.
FOURTH, on the ground of the immeasurable superiority of the teachings of the Bible to those of any other and all other books.
It is quite fashionable in some quarters to compare the teachings of the Bible with the teachings of Zoroaster, and Buddha, and Confucius, and Epictetus, and Socrates, and Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, and a number of other heathen authors. The difference between the teachings of the Bible and those of these men is found in three points–
First, the Bible has in it nothing but truth, while all the others have truth mixed with error. It is true Socrates taught how a philosopher ought to die; he also taught how a woman of the town ought to conduct her business. Jewels there are in the teachings of these men, but (as Joseph Cook once said) they are “jewels picked out of the mud.”
For more extensive information on this go to:
Ten Reasons Why I Believe the Bible Is the Word of God by R. A. Torrey | Tony Cooke Ministries
Have you really thought about what you are building your life on? Do you realize you are building life on no solid foundation? Jesus taught that life built on a poor foundation is like building a house on sand. It will not stand the stresses and strains of life and has no eternal meaning or future.
Parable of the two builders:
quote
In the wise and foolish builders, Christ describes two categories in illustrating the building of a house. Both houses appear equally attractive and substantial, but their comparative stability differs greatly. In their construction, the materials and labor used were similar, and both houses appeared upright, solid, and sound. Many times, seemingly good people who are uncalled seem to build their lives well and wisely in terms of money, material possessions, and friends. All these things seem good to the human mind, but their end can be disastrous without a Rock foundation (James 3:13-17). The elect of God build their houses differently, by daily obedience (Psalm 111:10), service, overcoming, Bible study, and prayer. unquote bibletools.org
"24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." Matthew 7:24-27 KJV
Believing in false, humanist theories such as evolution or Darwinism is building your life on a corrupt theory or lie. There is no future in it. We must build our lives on the one solid foundation of Jesus Christ and his written revelation to man. That is the solid rock foundation.
-
14 minutes ago, Hodad said:
Let's talk for a minute about how you come to your beliefs. You say things like "If you really want to know the truth..." How did you come to believe what you describe as the truth?
By your own admission, you don't have the science to evaluate it on your own, and in scientific communities the creationist claptrap is not even considered a scientific question. It's not taken seriously at all. People like Behe are laughingstocks and their arguments have been thoroughly dismantled by peer reviewed science. And among biologists (all the disciplines, actually) there is overwhelming confidence in evolution as both scientific theory and fact. It's not controversial, or a question, but foundational science like a
Yes there are a few extreme outliers who (nearly all from a religious perspective) who have learned some science and put it to work trying to reconcile their faith with the evidence of the natural world. (It's sort of the opposite of science, and it's also not really necessary, but that's beside the point.)
If you, as a layperson who lacks science, went to 100 biologists, they'd likely all be happy to explain evolution to you. You MIGHT find one "intelligent design" proponent in the mix if you stopped by Liberty University or something.
But even if you found that outlier, why does it seem logical for you to latch on to the extreme heterodoxy as "truth" instead of what the overwhelming majority of experts tell you? You lack the science to discern yourself, but choose the extreme outlier? Why?
It's not logic. There is no rational reason to make that choice. Rather, for whatever reason, you feel that evolution as an explanatory theory represents a threat to your religious beliefs. And rather than accept new information and revise your beliefs you will reject the information.
So forgive me when I say it's hard to take your seriously when you say things like, "If you really want to know the truth." That's not ever going to be a compelling argument. Sort of like recommending that people watch propaganda to get at the truth of politics.
And FWIW, everything above applies to the climate change conversation as well. It's no longer a question for the scientific community. So why would you choose to latch onto heterodoxy? Where is the application if reason?
You think my beliefs are not based on sound and rational reasoning, but your beliefs are? You emphasize that most scientists believe in evolution so it must be a fact. You proved by your comments that your own reasoning is based only on the opinion of a majority. Well, the truth is that majorities do not always determine what is true or false, especially in the area of spiritual matters that involve God and evolution versus creation. That is a subject which because of its nature cannot be understood by simply accepting what the majority say. If you go to India and ask the majority what they believe about God, they will tell you about their Hindu gods and there may be thousands of them. If you go to Iran or Afghanistan and ask about their god, they will tell you about Allah. Those are majorities in those countries who will tell you what their truth is. So if you go to a country whose religion is Darwinism or evolution, the majority will tell you that is what they believe. But what does it prove? Nothing. If you want an opinion that fits yours, you go to a group of people who believe what you want. Same with evolution. If you go to group of atheist or agnostic sicentists, what do you think they will tell you. Of course they believe what they've been told by others of a similar mind. Most people have not even listened to the arguments on both sides of an issue; yet their mind is made up and no amount of reasoning with them will change their mind. That is just how life is.
You might want to watch this 50 minute video explaining why Darwin got it wrong.
How Darwin Got It Wrong with Dr John Sanford - Media Center (creation.com)
Darwin knew nothing about biology, DNA, or geology, etc.
-
4 hours ago, robosmith said:
Sorry, but ALL of ^this is just opinion. An opinion based on the tenet that "if WE don't understand exactly how it happened, then god did it."
Your empirical evidence ONLY proves those things exist, NOT that any particular mechanism was responsible for creating it. In fact WE KNOW that those creatures were "created" by their parents and THEIR DNA was inherited and went through continual random changes over EONS.
Here is a video presentation that explains how Charles Darwin got it wrong by Dr. John Sanford, PhD.
"Dr John Sanford, A Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years, John has been semi-retired since 1998. His Ph.D. was in plant breeding and plant genetics. While a professor at Cornell, John has trained graduate students and conducted genetic research at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva, NY. During this time, John bred new crop varieties using conventional breeding and then became heavily involved in the newly-emerging field of plant genetic engineering. John has published over 80 scientific publications and has been granted over 30 patents."
Livestream: How Darwin Got it Wrong - Media Center (creation.com)
-
1 hour ago, robosmith said:
Sorry, but ALL of ^this is just opinion. An opinion based on the tenet that "if WE don't understand exactly how it happened, then god did it."
Your empirical evidence ONLY proves those things exist, NOT that any particular mechanism was responsible for creating it. In fact WE KNOW that those creatures were "created" by their parents and THEIR DNA was inherited and went through continual random changes over EONS.
The subject of DNA and changes is a complex one. There are scientists who strongly believe in creation and have explained why evolution theory just doesn't hold up. This man is one of them.
"Dr Matthew (Mátyás) Cserhati
Dr Cserhati (pronounced Chair-hat-tea) came to Christ after high school in Hungary. But after studying biology at university, he struggled with harmonizing the book of Genesis with evolutionary theory he was being taught. After a few years of this struggle, and being exposed to information on creation, he came to understand that the evolutionary worldview and the Gospel are in opposition to one another, in that evolution uses death as a natural process, but according to the Bible, death is the last enemy, and a consequence of man’s sin.
After seeing how creation supports the biblical worldview and with it, the Gospel, he felt called to help the cause of creation ministry. After buying and reading material from the creation science movement, it only reinforced his view on how ‘real science’ supports the Bible, and that the Bible can be fully trusted in all areas of our life. He was active in establishing a creation science group in Hungary called the Protestant Creation Research Group in 2001.
Matthew has a Ph.D. in biology and has been an active creationist for 18 years and takes a great interest in molecular biology. He has published a number of articles in Journal of Creation.
He received a M.Sc. from the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest in biology in 2003, and went on to receive a B.Sc. in software development and a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Szeged in 2010 and 2011. His doctoral thesis was about the development and application of a transcription factor dyad prediction algorithm. He is currently studying for an M.A. in religion from Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He also has certificates in five languages, and has done over 200 translation and interpreting jobs."
quote
Doppelgänger protein ‘Signal Recognition Particle 14’ refutes evolution
by Matthew Cserhati
Evolution has difficulty explaining the similarities in gene distribution and sequences in unrelated groups of organisms. Doppelganger genes are genes that are highly homologous to one another but are found on disjunct parts of the alleged evolutionary tree. One such doppelganger gene codes for a protein called the Signal Recognition Particle 14 (SRP14), which has a poly-alanine C-terminus. This protein is known to occur in most species of the primate apobaramin, but also in a species of bat, called the little brown bat. Another SRP14 isoform without a poly-alanine C-terminus also occurs not only in this bat species but also in primates, rodents, protists, and yeast. Evolution cannot explain why this isoform is conserved throughout the alleged evolutionary tree, yet two structurally significantly different isoforms occur in one species. Creation theory offers a better explanation, namely that these two SRP14 isoforms are distinctly created functional units.
The distribution of genes and their sequential similarities and differences challenge evolutionary theory. For example, the gradual transformation of one family of genes to another has never been observed, indeed it cannot even be observed. The de novo appearance of genes from random non-coding sequence has also never been observed. Evolutionary conservation of genes is also an oxymoron—how can proteins manage to evolve by staying the same for millions of years?"
Doppleganger genes (creation.com)
This is only part of the article. To read the whole thing go to the above link.
As it says the author has a PhD in biology. This is too complex for me, but maybe you will understand the article better. There is also a book called "The Greatest Hoax on Earth" by Jonathan Sarfati, an expert on this subject. If you really want to know the truth you could purchase his book or others on the subject adverstised on creation.com
You could also read some of the article or watch some of the videos on the same website.
But I don't think it would be very productive to just post back and forth if your mind is closed and you are only willing to consider one view.
-
49 minutes ago, robosmith said:
^This is ridiculous. "Reality" DEPENDS on empirical evidence. The IDEA of "god" IS anti-reality because there is NO EMPIRICAL evidence for its existence (nor for its absence).
All you have is your FAITH, which requires NO empirical evidence to keep believing. God is ONLY "reality" in your mind.
In REALITY, climate change is "pushed" by climate scientists who understand the empirical EVIDENCE.
Joel Kotkin is NOT an expert on climate science:
The Bible was written by men inspired by God and the Bible's (KJV) demonstrates itself that it came from God. Much of the Old Testament books reveal the sinful evil of many of Israel's leaders and people, yet is was written by the people of Israel. If it were not from God, we would expect it would be praising everything about Israel, not exposing the truth and condemning it. That is proof. It also has many prophecies about future events that came to pass. Another proof. The existence of God is evident in the creation all around us. I will be easy on you as you don't know any of this. Will assume this is the first you heard of it.
The existence of the finely tuned universe and creation is evidence for an infinitely powerful designer creator. It is all around us. The beauty in nature if another proof. Those kind of things don't just happen by accident but were designed. The universe could not even exist without a supernatural force or being to bring it into existence. Many scientists admit that and if a scientist is being honest, he will tell you there is no other rational explanation. Most people be they scientists in one field or another simply have not observed any proof that man causes global warming. It is fiction to claim it is empirical science. Empirical science entails experiment and observation to establish that something is a scientific fact. That is not the case with climate change.
Even the theory of evolution has been found strongly doubtful by many scientists simply because the evidence that would be expected such as the transitional fossils do not exist. That is just one reason. There are other reasons that debunk it such as the existence of many biological things that are referred to having irreducible complexity. They could not have evolved simply because of their complexity. Many scientists understand that. Yet many so-called scientists believe in evolution as if it were a fact even though they know little to nothing about the information debunking it.
Here is a couple photos of amazing creatures that God created. Only God could have done this.
Rainbow lobster and blue-footed booby.
-
Biden and Trudeau will now really go all out on their progressivism. Maybe Blackface will really push his feminism rhetoric now. This extreme progressivism will hurt most Canadians but is nothing more than a tool to try to get more votes. Many suckers fall for it thinking this is what "human rights" are all about. Well, not really what it is all about. If you think Canada needs Trudeau and Biden progressivism to defend human rights, take a look at Iran or Afghanistan. You will realize Trudeau and Biden's ideas are phony. Drag queens have absolutely nothing to do with freedom or feminism and western society. There are a few around but nobody cares. They are free to act out.
Joel Kotkin: Now watch Biden and Trudeau escalate their extreme progressivism (msn.com)
-
8 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:
The federal government wastes billions of taxpayer dollars on programs most Canadians know little about and would be unlikely to support if it meant they could pay less taxes. The Liberal federal government reaches far beyond what should fall under federal jurisdiction.
More evidence of what you say is true is the fact Trudeau is jetting off today, Remembrance Day, to southeast Asia for more conferences instead of attending the Remembrance Day services at the Ottawa cenotaph as any Prime Minister should. Why? He is first and foremost a globalist and loves jetting around the world creating greenhouse gases while he tells Canadians he is fighting for "net zero" emissions.
-
1
-
-
"The current course both the U.S. and Canada are taking seems destined to create a recession, or at least a sustained downturn marked by low growth, as is the inevitable goal of “net zero” advocates. The losers here will be, first and foremost, blue collar workers, homeowners and younger people, all of whom will have to look increasingly to the state to fight off poverty. Welfarism as opposed to economic growth is increasingly baked into progressive policies. Barely half of Democrats even believe that hard work pays off and some suggest that the massive transfers during the pandemic that managed to reduce poverty should become permanent."
Joel Kotkin: Now watch Biden and Trudeau escalate their extreme progressivism (msn.com)
The fact is the war on climate change is being pushed by radical progressives. This is an ideology that think man knows everything and can do anything. It is anti-God and anti-reality. This is causing great harm to the world's economy and standard of living. These progressives live in an alt reality. It is a kind of Marxism where they think they can control the world and society for the better. Unfortunately it is for the worse, much worse. "Net zero" is their motto now. Young people who are brainwashed into progressivism in an early age in public schools will all contribute to this destruction of society. Many are being radicalized by the school system. I dare to speculate that even some of the posters on these forums are radicalized youth from the brainwashed public school system.
-
On 11/7/2022 at 4:16 PM, Army Guy said:
Maybe we are all missing the Capt obvious question, why is it that all our federal government departments are under funded, undermanned, and under equipped, and to most of us we see this as normal, not asking the government to solve that issue, more employees means faster service, not better but faster.
The feds spend lots of money on foreign aid and helping women get abortions in the third world.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:
upon the beach at Dieppe
the Canadian boys charged to the seawall, trying to climb the steps
cut down on three sides by MG42's
every day is remembrance day
Unbelievably tragic. It looks like it was hopeless. Wonder what happened to those who ordered that operation. Seems like that kind of thing was common in the wars.
-
10 hours ago, OftenWrong said:
Canada is economically beholden to China at this point, so there is not much room to manoeuvre. Canada also depends on them for certain essential products, like hospital supplies, PPE and drugs, to name a few.
Once upon a time Canada had a very strong relationship with the USA. As China began to ramp up its industrial capability, their so-called great leap forward, Canada increasingly shifted its trade towards China. Globalists touted the benefits of "free trade" would bring us closer to world peace, bridge the divide between east and west. Others saw this as a lie, it amounted to exploitation of the Chinese people and essentially, making a deal with the devil, that increasing China's power and influence would only make them stronger, and the communist party leadership are not to be trusted.
I read that today Canada gets like 90% of its drugs from China. We make very little medication here. Now there is a terrible shortage of children's medication, without much explanation why this has happened, nor any mention of someone having a plan to do something about it,
IE where is the goddam government, is this not their thing. You would think so.
I'll tell you where they are... this week Trudeau's reps walked away from the premiers meeting in BC, held to discuss the health care crisis. The man was too busy to attend, and after those shenanigans, clearly not interested in talking about it.
He does have the time though to attend and be on a drag queen TV show.
Those acting skills really come through when you need them, I tell you.
....
But now I hear my friends can cross the US border, and buy all the meds that their babies need. Seems the US has enough supply, but not Canada.
Why exactly izzit?
I say 1 + 1 = 2 ...Canadians need to connect the dots.
Figure out where the Venn diagram intersects...
This law firm website says 80% or more generic drugs are manufactured in China.
There has been a problem with at least one drug called Valsartan, which I take, and it is manufactured in China.
"Valsartan is a commonly-prescribed drug for high blood pressure and heart failure. Authorities in the US and worldwide have recalled more than half of all Valsartan on the market because it was contaminated with a cancer-causing chemical called NDMA."
The article says some patients are taking legal action.
There is nothing I can do about it, because I do not know exactly if what I receive is contaminated, what the risks are, and what the alternative is. It is a critical heart medication. I doubt if the doctor knows anything about this and I am sure he doesn't have the time to look into it or find alternatives if there is any.
Valsartan Manufacturers - Who Makes & Distributes The Drug? (shouselaw.com)
Your post made me look into where this drug comes from..
Oh, I just read further down and found the Valsartan is in Entresto, which is what I take but Entresto has not been recalled by the FDA. I may be ok with continuing to take Entresto.
All this drug business is a money-making thing for pharma companies and law firms and lawyers.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, OftenWrong said:
Canada is economically beholden to China at this point, so there is not much room to manoeuvre. Canada also depends on them for certain essential products, like hospital supplies, PPE and drugs, to name a few.
Once upon a time Canada had a very strong relationship with the USA. As China began to ramp up its industrial capability, their so-called great leap forward, Canada increasingly shifted its trade towards China. Globalists touted the benefits of "free trade" would bring us closer to world peace, bridge the divide between east and west. Others saw this as a lie, it amounted to exploitation of the Chinese people and essentially, making a deal with the devil, that increasing China's power and influence would only make them stronger, and the communist party leadership are not to be trusted.
I read that today Canada gets like 90% of its drugs from China. We make very little medication here. Now there is a terrible shortage of children's medication, without much explanation why this has happened, nor any mention of someone having a plan to do something about it,
IE where is the goddam government, is this not their thing. You would think so.
I'll tell you where they are... this week Trudeau's reps walked away from the premiers meeting in BC, held to discuss the health care crisis. The man was too busy to attend, and after those shenanigans, clearly not interested in talking about it.
He does have the time though to attend and be on a drag queen TV show.
Those acting skills really come through when you need them, I tell you.
....
But now I hear my friends can cross the US border, and buy all the meds that their babies need. Seems the US has enough supply, but not Canada.
Why exactly izzit?
I say 1 + 1 = 2 ...Canadians need to connect the dots.
Figure out where the Venn diagram intersects...
If you are correct, I would be concerned about Canada receiving 90% of its drugs from China. Considering the inferior quality of a lot of products from China, it may not be a wise idea. I would be concerned that medications from China are not being screened and checked properly. I doubt if it is even possible to check medications coming into Canada, certainly not all medications. The government could randomly check some but that would be a very small amount. This could be serious for people with serious medical problems who depend on quality medications.
I might have to talk to my pharmacist about this.
-
2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:
How does standing up to China get him more votes? If the public doesn't know it's happening and therefore it's not making him less popular he's going to give a crap. Been 8 years, we know how the guy works.
He's not in this for his country, he's in this for himself. He's in it for the attention and the power and the glory and seeing himself on the news every day. He's a narcissist.
We only have to look at Trudeau's and the Minister of Foreign Affairs comments to see they are weak and meaningless. China could care less. It will continue to be business as usual with practically no changes in Canada to protect our democracy. The leader of the opposition, Pierre Polievre, has demanded action, but we will see what happens. I am not holding my breath.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, robosmith said:
Asbestosis
Users have NEVER paid the full cost of fossil fuels; particularly the cost of pollution has been externalized onto the general public.
And the current and future costs of changing the climate continues to be denied and obfuscated, just like cancer from tobacco and asbestosis lung disease.
Funny thing that climate has always changed. Nothing new there. The theory that man is causing it now is purely a theory. A theory is not science. Science is empirical; that is, experiment and observation. There has never been any proof that man is causing it. The CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere and out of that trace gas, 97% is produced by nature. Only 3% by man. So even if everyone in the west stopped using fossil fuels, how much of that 3% would be eliminated? Probably less than 1% because the rest of the world is not going to change or stop using fossil fuels. That is next to nothing. The west would suffer catastrophically because almost everything we have requires fossil fuels to produce and almost all of transportation requires it. It's not going to go away. It would make no difference anyway. Only in the minds of fanatics that think they can change the climate and weather.
-
1 hour ago, Hodad said:
Forbes is a fine source. It's an opinion piece reflecting the authors opinion only, but it's informed/expert and pretty reasonable. Fine with me.
However, there are about 4 things that should inform your reading.
1. The article is from March 2021, just two months after Biden took office. It's not an analysis of what has happened, but the authors prediction about what may happen.
2. The author predicted that Biden would suppress increases in supply. That didn't happen, as you can see for yourself, domestic production had rebounded to near-record levels.
3. California had a real emissions problem to solve -- one in which the public didn't have to listen to scientists, but could see, smell and taste for themselves. So good on them for solving it. We have a global problem more that needs solving, and efforts will be gradually made to that end, but there's nothing really happening yet to drive prices immediately. And for that matter it's not at all clear that a transition to renewables would have any upward pressure on gas prices. Demand goes down.
4. When the author writes of California, note that he's explicitly taking policy changes over the course of 20 years. Biden had been president for 20 months. This is what I was telling you about the decisions Biden is making today not having any effect on a small time scale. Nothing has happened yet.
The point, as before, is that Biden may not be as friendly to the fossil fuel industries as you'd like, but the prices today have almost nothing to do with Biden. You can disapprove of his perspective and speculate about future consequences but you can see that US production today is just fine. It's the rest of the world that is slower to recover.
While I admit Biden is not the only reason there are higher gas prices today, what he has done is certainly going to contribute to high gas prices from now on.
quote
Here are three specific things Biden has done that have led to increased gas prices.
1. Canceling drilling leases and limiting domestic production
Since taking office, Biden has taken too many steps to count to limit domestic production. These include halting federal permits for oil and gas drilling and leasing shortly after taking office and blocking drilling in a major oil-rich Alaskan region.
To be clear, these decisions will mostly affect future production. But that does still significantly affect gas prices because companies factor in their expectations about the future into the decisions they make today.
“Some say that new leases … would have taken time and would not yet be online, but even so, there is evidence that expectations of increased future supply has a beneficial impact on current prices and expectations of future supply drying up has a negative impact on current prices,” the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Ben Lieberman said.
“At a day-to-day level, I am hearing from drillers that they are having a very hard time getting all the approvals they need from [the Environmental Protection Agency] and other agencies in order to produce on existing wells, and of course, new federal leasing has come to a halt,” Lieberman added.
It’s just basic economics that when the government throttles future supply in an industry, that will lead to higher prices both now and in the future. Biden was warned by many critics at the time that this would happen, but he proceeded anyway.
2. Choking regulations that impose big costs and lead to higher prices
Speaking of basic economics, it’s well established that when businesses’ costs rise, that puts upward pressure on the prices they charge consumers. The oil and gas industry is no exception.
And unfortunately, the Biden administration has both proposed and implemented a wide array of regulations on the energy sector, inflicting billions in direct financial costs and incalculable indirect compliance costs — plus further harming expectations for the future.
“The regulatory chokehold imposed by the Biden administration on oil production in place of a Green New Deal has drastically raised gasoline prices, thereby hurting lower-income people the most,” said conservative economist Vance Ginn, who served in the Trump administration.
“This is yet another example of the high cost of big-government environmentalism when the better approach is to remove government barriers so that free markets can better let people adapt to changes in the environment at a much lower cost,” Ginn concluded.
3. Anti-energy rhetoric that discourages investment
Rhetoric matters. While words don’t literally do anything to change gas prices, the signals coming from policymakers absolutely do affect the long-term investment decisions businesses make.
And even as a presidential candidate, Biden sent very negative messages about what his leadership would mean for the gas industry.
In just one example, as Americans for Tax Reform pointed out, Biden said during a campaign stop: “We are going to get rid of fossil fuels. … We’re going to phase out fossil fuels.” Then, upon taking office, the president followed these words with actions such as canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, blocking leases, restricting imports, and pursuing regulations.
In general, Biden’s open hostility toward the oil and gas industry has almost certainly curbed investment into production that otherwise would’ve occurred.
“Such extinction rhetoric, coming from the now-president, has an unprecedented chilling effect on investment,” Lieberman said. To put it simply, less investment means less supply — which means higher prices.
It’s absolutely true that our high gas prices aren’t entirely Biden’s fault. But the president is not the helpless bystander his defenders would have you believe.
Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a co-founder of Based-Politics.com, a co-host of the BasedPolitics podcast, and a Washington Examiner contributor.
unquote
Three things Biden has done that increased gas prices | Washington Examiner
Punishing people for using fossil fuels is certainly not a wise idea. It will make absolutely no difference to the climate. All you have to do is look at the miniscule amount of CO2 that man contributes and you should realize man's contribution will make no difference. 97% of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural. Even if the U.S. makes life miserable for Americans and Canada does the same, the rest of the world is going on as normal and building more coal-fired plants in places like India, China, Russia, etc. So it is extremely unlikely punishing American and Canadians will help at all. It is a useless course that Biden and Democrats are following.
-
There are several key reasons why gas prices rose very high. Some of the reasons are beyond government's control, but other reasons are directly caused by the governments, both federal and in California, the state government.
quote
The markets clearly see the Biden/Harris administration as one that will work to inhibit U.S. oil production, which will also have the effect of tightening the global market, and traders have responded by driving up the price of crude oil;
(As I pointed out in a previous posting, the article describes 125 reasons or things the Biden administration has done to choke the energy industry)
But what about California? According to AAA, the current average price for regular in the Golden State stands at $3.885 per gallon, while in Texas it is $2.626, about a 47% difference. This differential is almost entirely due to politics around climate change.
California is a state that is rich in underground oil resources, but over the past two decades, the state government of California has pursued a policy agenda designed to inhibit drilling and production within its borders as part of an overall program to try to ratchet down emissions via command-and-control regulations. In more recent years, the state government has implemented emissions regulations that far exceed current federal regulation and implemented mandates requiring a rapid phasing-out of gas-powered cars and replacing them with electric vehicles (EVs).
These policy choices have very predictably led to higher gasoline costs and higher costs for gasoline powered cars in California. As I detailed in yesterday’s piece, the Biden/Harris administration is now aggressively pursuing the same kinds of policy choices at the national level, with the help of congressional Democrats. Thus, California essentially serves as the proverbial canary in the coal mine for the rest of the country. unquote
Here’s Why Gasoline Prices Are High And Going Higher (forbes.com)
I searched for information on the question of the trustworthiness of Forbes and came up with this:
Is Forbes A Credible Source? (10 Reasons It Is)
"In particular, Forbes magazine has a long history of credible information. It’s been in print since 1917 and has been giving readers consistent and fact-checked information since its inception. Because of this, business leaders and entrepreneurs rely on it for trusted information."
Is Forbes A Credible Source? (10 Reasons It Is) (thecoldwire.com)
"
-
On 11/7/2022 at 3:48 PM, Moonlight Graham said:
This report also reiterates the CCP efforts in Canada in Operation Fox Hunt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fox_Hunt
So what are the feds doing about this? Where is the legislation? Are foreign agents being removed from these legislator offices?
This is nothing new. I am sure with the security services the federal government should have been advised about this for years. Why they chose to do nothing about it is the question. Trudeau did express an admiration for the Chinese Communist system.
A book was written in 2019 by Jonathan Manthorpe called "Claws of the Panda - Beijing's Campaign of Influence and Intimidation in Canada".
Canada has had a long relationship with the People's Republic of China. First based on missionaries who travelled from Canada to China beginning in the 19th century and through the 20th century. The book says Canada has misjudged the reality and potential of the relationship. I believe liberals including the left generally have a rose-coloured vision of China and our relationship with it. They are very misguided in their thinking.
-
12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
Maybe or maybe not.
I was responding to this: "it means basically handing Canada over to aboriginals. "
I can see you and some others are starting to moderate extreme claims, which is a good thing. It means we can talk about what is really being said rather than claims like "the natives are taking everything"
Even Trudeau isn't careful with his language, as evidenced by the NP article.
In many NDP and Liberal minds, First Nations means exactly what it says, they should come first. That is NDP -Liberal ideology. You don't have to believe me. Just listen to the frequent comments by many NDP and Liberal politicians. There is ongoing evidence to show they actually believe FNs should be treated as first class citizens and everyone else as second class citizens. This is not "reconciliation" whatever that is supposed to mean. It is the NDP-Liberal ideology that is perverted. How about treating everyone the same. One law and one justice system the same for all Canadians? Ever thought of that?
The high price of gas can be largely traced to Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
There are countless articles on the subject and countless videos. I am not saying every word or idea presented on this material is infallible or absolute truth because it came from fallible men. Only the Bible is absolute truth because it came from God.
Here are some more sources of information:
What is Science?
About the Author, Philip Stott
General Index
For First-timers
Introductory Remarks
What Is Science?
Zoology as Anti-Christianity
How Firm Is Your Ground?
Thaxton: Christianity & Scientific Enterprise
Polkinghorne: Creation & Structure / World
Stott: Hermeneutics, Science & Scripture
Hanko: Framework Hypothesis & Genesis 1
Atheism in Decline Everywhere
Soddy: Address to Nobel Prizewinners
Einstein: Theories of Relativity
Selbrede: Rebuttal of North & Nieto
Einstein: Sidelights on Relativity
Stott: The Christian and Science
Statement on Science & Christianity
Evolution
Lodge: Search for Definition of Evolution
Thaxton et al: The Mystery of Life's Origin
Biography of Charles Robert Darwin
Darwin's Origin of the Species >>
Introduction
01: Variation Under Domestication
02: Variation Under Nature
03: Struggle for Existence
04: Natural Selection
05: Laws of Variation
06: Difficulties on Theory
07: Instinct
08: Hybridism
09: Imperfection / Geological Record
10: Geological Succession of .. Beings
11: Geographical Distribution
12: Geographical Distribution, cont.
13: Organic Beings: Morphology, Embryology
14: Recapitulation and Conclusion
Glossary, from the sixth edition
Fernandez: Talk Origins: Deception by Omission
Colby: Intro to Evolutionary Biology
Stott: Creation, Evolution & the Christian
Goldberg: Persecution of Richard Sternberg
Johnson: Darwinists Squirm Under the Spotlight
Johnson: Comparing Hostage-takers
Johnson: What is Darwinism?
Johnson: The Church of Darwin
Miller / Johnson Debate: How Did We Get Here?
Johnson: Shouting Heresy in the Temple of Darwin
Johnson: Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning
Behe: Intelligent Design in Biochemistry
Dembski: Still Spinning Just Fine: Response to Miller
Berlinski: The Deniable Darwin
Keeping an Eye on Evolution: Dawkins Trips
Spetner: A Scientific Critique of Evolution
Atheism in Decline Everywhere II
Buckna: Do Creationists Publish in Refereed Journals?
Jerlström: Pseudogenes: Are They Non-Functional?
Wells: Unseating Naturalism / Developmental Biology
Life's Origins: Reassessing Current Theories
Life's Origins: Thermodynamics
Life's Origins: DNA and Proteins
Ages of Time
Geological & Astronomical Time
Goldberg: The Persecution of Richard Sternberg
Stott: Age of the Earth & Historical Geology
Stott: Ages of Time: Astronomical
Biography of James Hutton
Brown's Hydroplate Theory
Biography of Sir Charles Lyell
Lyell: Principles of Geology, Chapter 3
Lyell's "The Student's Elements of Geology" > >
Introduction and Contents
01: On the Different Classes of Rocks
02: Aqueous Rocks, Composition & Stratification
03: Fossils in Strata
04: Consolidation of Strata & Petrifaction
05: Strata Above the Sea
06: Denudation
Chadwick: A Creation / Flood Model
Ostrichosaurus: Astonishing T. Rex Soft Tissue
Geocentrism
Introduction: What is geocentricity?
Stott: Thinking and Reasoning (Geocentrically)
Jordan: The Geocentricity Question
How Figurative is the Geocentricity Question?
Tielhard de Chardin's View
George H. Schweitzer’s View
Byl: Another Look at Galileo
North: The Flat Earth Temptation
Geocentrism: An Astrophysicist’s Comments
Aardsma: Geocentricity and Creation
Stott: The Timothy Test, A Continuing Saga
Faulkner: Geocentrism and Creation
Geocentricity: A Fable for Educated Man?
Babinski: The Bible's Geocentrism
Babinski: Morris' Attempts to Deny Geocentricity
Babinski: Abandoning Geocentrism for Evolution
Babinski: Is Earth the Center of God's Interest?
Stott: Towards a Biblical Cosmology
Philip Stott: General Science: Table of Contents | Reformation International College (refcm.org)