The Folly of Ignoring Climate Change

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

You place man on the same level as God when you try to demote God and his supernatural work.   You also demote God in saying science is on the same level as God and the Bible.  It is not.  There are many atheists in science and the world.  They are no guide for eternal supernatural matters.

That is devilish.  God is not on the same level as man.  God is a supernatural being.  Man is a created being.  There is no comparison.  Your mind seems to be locked in some kind of narrow view where you cannot accept that an infinitely powerful being created everything including us who are subject to him as part of his creation.  I know it's tough to admit you are a mere mortal.  But you are and life is very short.  You will be held accountable for what you believe and the opportunities afforded you to change your thinking.  Learning and change is what is required.  How old are you or will to say?  You appear to be very young.

God was invented by MAN. There is NO EVIDENCE proving the contrary.

You don't even understand WHY man invented god despite being told a reasonable explanation which you've not even addressed let alone refuted.

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Even an atheist has to admit that humankind are transitory on Earth just as any species. It's not a matter of if we go extinct as the top form of life...but when.

Well sure but it's not like we're hoping for it. The theists OTOH will have you believe our world is transitory to the point where it really doesn't matter given God has made us another world up in heaven - where we'll persist for eternity.  I can't think of anything that would make it easier to ignore climate change.  Hell, the more hard-boiled Christians can't seem to wait for the End.

Pat Robertson says heaven will be just like Sunday School except it'll last forever.  I can't imagine a worse fate myself.

[Rebound]

16 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Aerosols did not form the base of the global economy.

Fossil Fuels do...and the "science" is not overwhelming at all. In fact, it rather underwhelming.

You want a different source of energy? OK

You wanna collapse the existing base of the global economy and primary source of energy BEFORE we find a reliable replacement? UP YOURS! That's stupid and suicidal.

Find a replacement. Make it affordable and ample. THEN...we'll deal.

Well… DUH!

Seriously, where do you get your bizarre ideas? NOBODY is saying we should shut off coal plants without providing alternative generation.  The push is to find development and deployment of alternatives. We did a lot of that under Obama, then elected a knuckle-dragging primate who claims that the noise from windmills causes cancer.  I’ve pointed out facts: For example, half of all electricity generated in Iowa is from wind. So for sure it works, on a large scale. 
 

My view is we can generate far more power with alternative energy than with conventional sources, and for less money. And that means prosperity, worldwide.  People need power everywhere, and having abundant, clean air electric power allows far more industrial development than ever before. 
 

All energy production is government subsidized. Oil, coal, wind, nuclear, hydro… all of it. Pull your head into the sunshine and figure out that the entirety of the opposition to alternative energy is the coal and petroleum industry. Now they’ve even spun it into a religious argument. Seriously? Like people thinks the Bible somehow commands us to burn coal and not use windmills. That’s the very definition of insanity. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by Rebound

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Well… DUH!

Seriously, where do you get your bizarre ideas? NOBODY is saying we should shut off coal plants without providing alternative generation.  The push is to find development and deployment of alternatives. We did a lot of that under Obama, then elected a knuckle-dragging primate who claims that the noise from windmills causes cancer.  I’ve pointed out facts: For example, half of all electricity generated in Iowa is from wind. So for sure it works, on a large scale. 
 

My view is we can generate far more power with alternative energy than with conventional sources, and for less money. And that means prosperity, worldwide.  People need power everywhere, and having abundant, clean air electric power allows far more industrial development than ever before. 
 

All energy production is government subsidized. Oil, coal, wind, nuclear, hydro… all of it. Pull your head into the sunshine and figure out that the entirety of the opposition to alternative energy is the coal and petroleum industry. Now they’ve even spun it into a religious argument. Seriously? Like people thinks the Bible somehow commands us to burn coal and not use windmills. That’s the very definition of insanity. 

Ya know...you're a fcking liar! Plain and simple.

[Rebound]

Just now, Nationalist said:

Ya know...you're a fcking liar! Plain and simple.

Go read AIC’s Green New Deal, which is pretty much the most radical of the plans, and tell us where it says we all need to get by with less electricity. 
 

Or go find where Iowa is NOT generating half its electricity from Wind. Or where Trump did NOT say that windmills cause cancer.  
 

I’m not lying, I’m just presenting you with facts that don’t fit your narrative. 

[Nationalist]

37 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Go read AIC’s Green New Deal, which is pretty much the most radical of the plans, and tell us where it says we all need to get by with less electricity. 
 

Or go find where Iowa is NOT generating half its electricity from Wind. Or where Trump did NOT say that windmills cause cancer.  
 

I’m not lying, I’m just presenting you with facts that don’t fit your narrative. 

"Fossil fuel plants are closing faster than green alternatives can replace them. Producers of oil and gas can’t keep up with a surge in demand."

WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-new-energy-crisis-11659153633

[Hodad]

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

As I said, I believe age was built in when it was created.  That means light from distant starts would appear millions of light years distant.   Remember God created the universe supernaturally.  So it would have to have an apparent age built in at the moment of creation.  Scientists say the universe is expanding.  Therefore it had a beginning.  The question many ask is where did it come from?  Something can not come from nothing without a supernatural being behind it.  Every effect has a cause.  

How does Santa Claus visit every (Christian) child around the world in one night? It's magic!

Honestly, your child-like worldview would be kind of sweet if you weren't also trying to use it to guide legislation and shape curriculum. Then it becomes outright dangerous.

[Hodad]

15 hours ago, blackbird said:

If you want to make accusations up and invent things, be my guest.   I never said I dismissed science, biology, astronomy, etc.  I actually grew up with a great interest in science.  I had my own lab in the basement when I was about 12 years old.  The local pharmacist could supply me with almost anything I asked for.   I only reject things like Darwinism, which conflict with the truth as revealed in Scripture.  Darwinism is NOT science.  You claim everything anyone says or promotes under the heading of science, is science, but that is not true.

 

No, you never said that you dismiss science. You simply do dismiss it, post after post. Instead of looking at the facts and understanding that geologic erosion, light transmission, radioactive decay, etc. etc. all indicate that the earth and the universe it resides within are VASTLY, INCOMPREHENSIBLY older than 6000 years you turn to the magic explanation that God faked it all to look older. Because he's a bit of a rascal, I presume. Or perhaps how some people paint their furniture with a weathered look. You god is just into vintage-looking planets. 

[Rebound]

15 hours ago, blackbird said:

Of course God wrote inspired men to write the Bible for all of man.  Why would he only write to one particular group in one particular period of time.  The Bible itself refutes that notion anyway.  It was written over a period of 1,500 years by 40 different authors.  Much of it's information and teachings are eternal and directed to all ages.

Genesis account of creation is a literal account of God creating everything in six days and resting on the seventh.  Nowhere does it say it is allegorical.  It is absolutely literal.  There is no room for Darwinism which is a denial of the Bible and a teaching that man is just the result of accidental chemical reactions.  If you go by that teaching, man was just an accidental occurrence by nothing and for nothing.  That goes completely contrary to the Holy Scripture.  

Does DNA exist? Yes, it does.  
Why doesn’t the Bible tell us about physics, chemistry, atomic theory and DNA?  Didn’t God create those things? 
 

Science is based upon observation. It does not have an agenda beyond discovering the truth as revealed by observation and experimentation. You choose to feel threatened by that, but that’s your problem. Your answer is that it’s all magic, as described in a book. And that’s fine, unless you’re using it to promote a policy which happens to be in concert with supporting the petroleum and coal industries… which becomes pretty suspicious. 

[Hodad]

14 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Not at all.

The push behind the vaccine mandates is both anti-science and completely unethical. 

The stats that matter, where the rubber meets the road, are out, and the "vaccines" are not vaccines at all. It's a gross misuse of the word vaccine. What do you call the polio vaccine now? A supervax?

88% of the covid deaths in the last few months in Canada were among the vaxed. And then there's the subject of side-effects among the young, healthy people who don't need them.

"Science" is a monster, at least in the field of medicine.

88% you say? This is what is called a specious argument. It's meant to appear reasonable and to fool folks who aren't paying attention. Someone may have gotten one over on you. I suspect you're tapped into some bad media.

To explain, as vaccination rates increase, obviously any outcome, good or ill, will befall the vaccinated to a higher degree. If Canada were 100% vaccinated then 100% of COVID deaths would be among the vaccinated. I think the reality is closer to 90% vaccination among adults. But at any rate that's a statistic meant to mislead. 

Science is certainly not a "monster" and vaccination has saved countless lives. And it is plainly and factually incorrect to claim that the COVID vaccines are not vaccines. Again, I can only assume you've tapped into some garbage media and have chosen to believe those claims over those of every medical body in the world. I'd suggest looking to authoritative sources.

 

Quote

"Not particularly dignified", hmmmm, that's a new way to put it.

IMO it's repugnant, and not at all the kind of thing that a person in a position of authority should do. The message to young girls is completely alarming.

It's one thing for a pop diva like Madonna to play the slut, but when legislators are doing it, who's left to set a good example? 

I gave up on the idea that politicians were meant to be role models a long time ago. And in the US our former president demeaned women, boasted about sexually assaulting women, cheated on all 3 of his wives, paid for sex with porn stars, stole from his own charity and ran a scam education program--and the religious right flocked to him in droves. So yeah, some state senator doing a goofy dance on the beach is honestly the least of my worries when it comes to moral public service.

 

Quote

Not true at all.

America was conceived in a world where slavery had been normal since the very beginning of time, on every continent aside from Antarctica. 

America may still have been improving up until about 2015, but it wasn't moving at a snail's pace between independence and the 2010s. 

There's a very good case to be made that the main reason society is collapsing is due to a decline in morality. 

Are you familiar with the philosopher John Rawls? He advanced a theory of justice, that is very influential, the cornerstone of which is a thought experiment called the "veil of ignorance." It asks you to imagine that you will be born into the world without knowing anything of your circumstance-- your sex, your gender, your sexuality, your class, your race, your location, your religion etc. are all unknown. How then would you design a society and legal structure? 

I bring it up because though our world is far from perfect, it is certainly not in decline. Put yourself in that experiment and try to imagine any point in history in which you would have a better, fairer shot at a happy life. It doesn't exist. There is no point in history in which you can shake up all those random variables and be assured of a better, fairer outcome.

Society is not collapsing, nor is it in decline. But there are certain privileged and entitled groups that feel pretty angry about the idea of a fairer world.

 

Edited October 4, 2022 by Hodad

[Rebound]

42 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

"Fossil fuel plants are closing faster than green alternatives can replace them. Producers of oil and gas can’t keep up with a surge in demand."

WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-new-energy-crisis-11659153633

I can’t get past their paywall. It’s not an article by AOC.  I think that article has more to do with, “the rise of fracking, which extracts oil and gas from shale rock, unlocked cheap domestic supplies,” has had unintended consequences.

What you seem to be doing here is suggesting that a current, unanticipated production constraint has been created by strategy. Maybe you can share some insights from that article, so that I don’t have to pay.  

 

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I can’t get past their paywall. It’s not an article by AOC.  I think that article has more to do with, “the rise of fracking, which extracts oil and gas from shale rock, unlocked cheap domestic supplies,” has had unintended consequences.

What you seem to be doing here is suggesting that a current, unanticipated production constraint has been created by strategy. Maybe you can share some insights from that article, so that I don’t have to pay.  

 

Gawd ur a dope.

What was the first thing Biden did as POTUS? Sign the end of the Keystone pipeline and stomp on the fossil fuel industry in the USA.

[Rebound]

19 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Gawd ur a dope.

What was the first thing Biden did as POTUS? Sign the end of the Keystone pipeline and stomp on the fossil fuel industry in the USA.

Explain what the Keystone Pipeline has to do with the cost of energy TODAY.

1) It would take years to complete

2) Its purpose is to enable petroleum exports

Edited October 4, 2022 by Rebound

[Nationalist]

11 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Explain what the Keystone Pipeline has to do with the cost of energy TODAY.

1) It would take years to complete

2) Its purpose is to enable petroleum exports

So you further exhibit your "dopiness".

What do you think happens to an industry when the leader of a nation...say...the USA...declares the products of said industry as undesirable and begins to shut said industry down? Do you think...just perhaps...that the industry maybe halts investments and costs rise?

No kidding man...ur dopey as hell.

[WestCanMan]

14 minutes ago, Hodad said:

88% you say? This is what is called a specious argument. It's meant to appear reasonable and to fool folks who aren't paying attention. Someone may have gotten one over on you. I suspect you're tapped into some bad media.

To explain, as vaccination rates increase, obviously any outcome, good or ill, will befall the vaccinated to a higher degree. If Canada were 100% vaccinated then 100% of COVID deaths would be among the vaccinated. I think the reality is closer to 90% vaccination among adults. But at any rate that's a statistic meant to mislead. 

88% I know. Between May 1 and Aug 24 88% of the covid deaths in Canada were among the vaxed. 

Your "explanation is incredibly stupid, and an odd proof of the fact that you don't understand the definition of the word "vaccine".

If 85% of the population was vaccinated against polio you'd expect basically 100% of polio deaths to come from the 15% of the population that isn't vaccinated.

If 85% of the population was vaccinated against covid you'd expect basically 100% of covid deaths to come from the 15% of the population that isn't vaccinated.

If 85% of the population was vaccinated against covid and 88% of covid deaths came from the "vaxed" you'd say "that isn't a vaccine", and you'd be correct.

Quote

Science is certainly not a "monster" and vaccination has saved countless lives. And it is plainly and factually incorrect to claim that the COVID vaccines are not vaccines.

Yeah, science is a monster.

No, the vaccine hasn't saved countless lives. (the notion that it did save lives was based on "lab science' which ended up being quite different from "real life stats")

Young people who didn't need the pseudovax even if it dd work were forced to take it, even though it is known to have serious short-long term side effects. There may be more side effects down the road, no one knows. People were forced out of their jobs/careers over it. 

Quote

Again, I can only assume you've tapped into some garbage media and have chosen to believe those claims over those of every medical body in the world.

Stats.

Stats trump science. Science is just an educated guess until it collides with real life, then you get stats. Stats are the ultimate judge.

Quote

I'd suggest looking to authoritative sources.

Authoritative, as in fascist. Like "science", for example.

Quote

I gave up on the idea that politicians were meant to be role models a long time ago. And in the US our former president demeaned women, boasted about sexually assaulting women, cheated on all 3 of his wives, paid for sex with porn stars, stole from his own charity and ran a scam education program--and the religious right flocked to him in droves. So yeah, some state senator doing a goofy dance on the beach is honestly the least of my worries when it comes to moral public service.

Wow, now you've completely gone off the deep end lol. That's a perfect example of why leftists are starting to be considered the lowest of the low, politically.

FYI sexual assault is a serious term, not to be used lightly, and "grabbing the vaginas of young tarts who want their vaginas grabbed" isn't really sexual assault, it's just crass, consensual behaviour. It's not done on camera though to get votes, as in the case of Senator Mack.

An example of an actual sexual assault allegation with some merit to it is like what Bill Clinton did to Jaunita Broderick. She named a specific place, and a specific time, and had a witness that she was injured, and the place and time she mentioned timed perfectly with Clinton's schedule. 

There are similar allegations against Trump, but they're basically ridiculous. "He raped me in a change room in a dept store sometime between Nov and February".

Quote

Are you familiar with the philosopher John Rawls? He advanced a theory of justice, that is very influential, the cornerstone of which is a thought experiment called the "veil of ignorance." It asks you to imagine that you will be born into the world without knowing anything of your circumstance-- your sex, your gender, your sexuality, your class, your race, your location, your religion etc. are all unknown. How then would you design a society and legal structure? 

I bring it up because though our world is far from perfect, it is certainly not in decline. Put yourself in that experiment and try to imagine any point in history in which you would have a better, fairer shot at a happy life. It doesn't exist. There is no point in history in which you can shake up all those random variables and be assured of a better, fairer outcome.

In 2012 in America there were no neighbourhoods destroyed by rioters, just because CNN aired a false narrative about a guy like M Brown. Violent felons didn't get out of jail to recommit within a month. Police forces in the US were at capacity and it was hard to get a job there.

FFWD to 2022 and police stations are undermanned, short on budget, and violent crime is on the rise everywhere in the US. DAs are being recalled because they refuse to obey the law. It's nonsense.

Is a fair outcome "being run over by a guy who just got arrested for using a vehicle as a weapon 2 months earlier, but was out on $1,000 bail"?

Quote

Society is not collapsing, nor is it in decline. But there are certain privileged and entitled groups that feel pretty angry about the idea of a fairer world.

As soon as you had to claim "racism" you knew that you had lost, right?

Are you honestly dumb enough to believe that it's the Nancy Pelosis of this world who are suffering from the rising crime? The AOCs?

In case you forgot, the only people in the US who are protected from rioting are the politicians at the capitol. Those politicians cheer on riots that last for weeks and destroy the communities of their voters, but 3 hrs of rioting at the capitol is akin to Pearl Harbour and 9/11. 

Are the suburban moms the main victims of rising crime?

Of course not, it's the people who live in the inner cities. 

The people who suffer the most, by far, from groups like MS-13 are minorities. Almost 100%. The people who suffer the most from rising crime are not the "privileged and entitled groups" that you're blathering about.

 

I'll hand it to ya, your talk is pretty polished, you could very well be the leader of this gaggle of leftist dolts here, but you still say the same stupid, racist things. 

[Rebound]

54 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

So you further exhibit your "dopiness".

What do you think happens to an industry when the leader of a nation...say...the USA...declares the products of said industry as undesirable and begins to shut said industry down? Do you think...just perhaps...that the industry maybe halts investments and costs rise?

No kidding man...ur dopey as hell.

You didn’t answer the question. All you did was change the subject and insult me. Petroleum prices increased worldwide. Then they fell. Joe Biden did not increase nor decrease worldwide petroleum prices by cancelling a pipeline which will not be operational for ten years. 
 

One reason prices went up was the war in Ukraine. Ted Cruz claims he could have prevented that war by… wait for it... wait for it… by cancelling a non-operational petroleum pipeline. 
 

So I think you need to have a seance with Rush Limbaugh or call Steve Bannon and get your bullshit straightened out. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by Rebound

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

No, you never said that you dismiss science. You simply do dismiss it, post after post. Instead of looking at the facts and understanding that geologic erosion, light transmission, radioactive decay, etc. etc. all indicate that the earth and the universe it resides within are VASTLY, INCOMPREHENSIBLY older than 6000 years you turn to the magic explanation that God faked it all to look older. Because he's a bit of a rascal, I presume. Or perhaps how some people paint their furniture with a weathered look. You god is just into vintage-looking planets. 

When a tree or anything was created, of course it had to have an apparent age.  You can't create something without it having an age.  Age is inherent in everything that was created.  That would explain why the universe had an apparent age when God created it around six thousand years ago.  You just can't accept that there is a supernatural being with infinite power to create a universe.  When it comes to the beginning of the universe and how we got here, science does not have the answers and never will apart form an intelligent designer-creator we call God.  Logic supports this and Scripture verifies it.   The Bible says "the fool hath said in his heart there is no God."  So you see the reason why many people are atheists.

Edited October 4, 2022 by blackbird

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

Does DNA exist? Yes, it does.  
Why doesn’t the Bible tell us about physics, chemistry, atomic theory and DNA?  Didn’t God create those things? 
 

Science is based upon observation. It does not have an agenda beyond discovering the truth as revealed by observation and experimentation. You choose to feel threatened by that, but that’s your problem. Your answer is that it’s all magic, as described in a book. And that’s fine, unless you’re using it to promote a policy which happens to be in concert with supporting the petroleum and coal industries… which becomes pretty suspicious. 

We agree DNA exists, but we know from the vast complexity of DNA and all the other data and machinery in a cell that they could not have been made by evolution.  Darwinism or evolution does not add new information to any degree if at all.  Information required an intelligent designer Creator to produce it.  

The Bible does not claim to be a book of science.  It is a book of God revealing man's condition, what the problem is, and what the solution is.  The solution is to believe in faith the God of the universe who created everything, and accept and believe in his Son, Jesus Christ, as one's personal Lord and Savior.  That is the primary message of the Bible.  

There is no conflict between the Bible and genuine science.

There is false science masquerading as real science.  That is the theory of evolution and other such similar nonsense.

Darwinism is not science and never was.  It is not based on observation.  So how can you make the claim it is science if you say science is based on observation.

I have believed in the Bible and received Jesus as Lord and Savior for 42 years, long before climate change became the controversy it is now.  Never heard of it back then.  I never became of a believer in order to use it to oppose climate change madness.

Jesus said if you know the truth, the truth shall set you free.  Right now your mind is captive to false theories and thinking,  i.e. atheism.   That can lead to eternal damnation.  Everyone must make the choice.

Edited October 4, 2022 by blackbird

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

No, you never said that you dismiss science. You simply do dismiss it, post after post. Instead of looking at the facts and understanding that geologic erosion, light transmission, radioactive decay, etc. etc. all indicate that the earth and the universe it resides within are VASTLY, INCOMPREHENSIBLY older than 6000 years you turn to the magic explanation that God faked it all to look older. Because he's a bit of a rascal, I presume. Or perhaps how some people paint their furniture with a weathered look. You god is just into vintage-looking planets. 

You need to do some studying from the articles and books listed on creation.com.   YOU have only listened to one side of the story.  You have to study both sides to be able to make a proper judgment. 

The facts do not support Darwinsim.

[Nationalist]

32 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You didn’t answer the question. All you did was change the subject and insult me. Petroleum prices increased worldwide. Then they fell. Joe Biden did not increase nor decrease worldwide petroleum prices by cancelling a pipeline which will not be operational for ten years. 
 

One reason prices went up was the war in Ukraine. Ted Cruz claims he could have prevented that war by… wait for it... wait for it… by cancelling a non-operational petroleum pipeline. 
 

So I think you need to have a seance with Rush Limbaugh or call Steve Bannon and get your bullshit straightened out. 

https://www.hoover.org/research/what-caused-gas-prices-jump

 

Learn something other than lying.

[Hodad]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

88% I know. Between May 1 and Aug 24 88% of the covid deaths in Canada were among the vaxed. 

Your "explanation is incredibly stupid, and an odd proof of the fact that you don't understand the definition of the word "vaccine".

If 85% of the population was vaccinated against polio you'd expect basically 100% of polio deaths to come from the 15% of the population that isn't vaccinated.

If 85% of the population was vaccinated against covid you'd expect basically 100% of covid deaths to come from the 15% of the population that isn't vaccinated.

If 85% of the population was vaccinated against covid and 88% of covid deaths came from the "vaxed" you'd say "that isn't a vaccine", and you'd be correct.

Are you under the misapprehension that vaccines must be 100% effective in preventing one from contracting the virus? Or 100% effective in preventing serious illness or death? That's simply false information.

Case in point: the flu vaccine. Is that also not "really" a vaccine? How about mumps? Whooping cough? None of these are perfectly effective at the individual level, yet they are beneficial to the individual and even moreso to the community. All these all "fake" vaccines as well.

Again, not sure where you're getting your information, but it clearly not from medical authorities. Go ask the CDC, WHO, May Clinic, or a real live doctor.

 

Quote

Yeah, science is a monster.

No, the vaccine hasn't saved countless lives. (the notion that it did save lives was based on "lab science' which ended up being quite different from "real life stats")

Young people who didn't need the pseudovax even if it dd work were forced to take it, even though it is known to have serious short-long term side effects. There may be more side effects down the road, no one knows. People were forced out of their jobs/careers over it. 

Stats.

Stats trump science. Science is just an educated guess until it collides with real life, then you get stats. Stats are the ultimate judge.

Authoritative, as in fascist. Like "science", for example.

Yeah, stats are pretty useful. 

Like these, from The Lancet

Quote

Based on official reported COVID-19 deaths, we estimated that vaccinations prevented 14·4 million (95% credible interval [Crl] 13·7–15·9) deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8, 2021. This estimate rose to 19·8 million (95% Crl 19·1–20·4) deaths from COVID-19 averted when we used excess deaths as an estimate of the true extent of the pandemic,

 

Or these from The Commonwealth Fund

Quote

Without the U.S. vaccination program, COVID-19 deaths would have been approximately 3.2 times higher and COVID-19 hospitalizations approximately 4.9 times higher than the actual toll during 2021.

 

And many more. The point again is that you are disregarding the information provided by every medical body on the planet in favor of some media-brewed heterodoxy. Why? Why ignore what an overwhelming consensus of doctors and scientists are telling you in favor of some poorly mangled stats from the right wing echo chamber?

 

Quote

Wow, now you've completely gone off the deep end lol. That's a perfect example of why leftists are starting to be considered the lowest of the low, politically.

FYI sexual assault is a serious term, not to be used lightly, and "grabbing the vaginas of young tarts who want their vaginas grabbed" isn't really sexual assault, it's just crass, consensual behaviour. It's not done on camera though to get votes, as in the case of Senator Mack.

Yowza. You sound like those rapists who defend themselves by saying "Yeah, but she really wanted it!" I hope you don't walk the walk in this case, and that it's just bluster. Sexual assault is indeed very serious, and it is indeed sexual assault to grab someone's genitals without permission. Please don't do it, and please don't defend others for doing it. It's not excusable.

 

 

Quote

 

In 2012 in America there were no neighbourhoods destroyed by rioters, just because CNN aired a false narrative about a guy like M Brown. Violent felons didn't get out of jail to recommit within a month. Police forces in the US were at capacity and it was hard to get a job there.

FFWD to 2022 and police stations are undermanned, short on budget, and violent crime is on the rise everywhere in the US. DAs are being recalled because they refuse to obey the law. It's nonsense.

Is a fair outcome "being run over by a guy who just got arrested for using a vehicle as a weapon 2 months earlier, but was out on $1,000 bail"?

As soon as you had to claim "racism" you knew that you had lost, right?

Are you honestly dumb enough to believe that it's the Nancy Pelosis of this world who are suffering from the rising crime? The AOCs?

In case you forgot, the only people in the US who are protected from rioting are the politicians at the capitol. Those politicians cheer on riots that last for weeks and destroy the communities of their voters, but 3 hrs of rioting at the capitol is akin to Pearl Harbour and 9/11. 

Are the suburban moms the main victims of rising crime?

Of course not, it's the people who live in the inner cities. 

The people who suffer the most, by far, from groups like MS-13 are minorities. Almost 100%. The people who suffer the most from rising crime are not the "privileged and entitled groups" that you're blathering about.

I really have no idea what this Gish gallop is all about. Doesn't seem in any way related to my post, so skipping. I'll take it as confirmation though that you didn't practice the thought experiment. 

I'll give you the spoiler alert again though: at no point in time in the history of the world would you have been born into a fairer or more just situation--particularly in the United States. If you knew that you'd be born as a white male then there are times when that would have conferred even greater unfair advantage than it does now, but for literally everybody else today is better. And it is objectively more fair.

And yes, I absolutely think that there's a subset of white males are lashing out against the erosion of their unfair advantage. I'm not one who finds it troubling. I can compete on my own merit just fine, thanks. I don't need a head start.

 

Quote

I'll hand it to ya, your talk is pretty polished, you could very well be the leader of this gaggle of leftist dolts here, but you still say the same stupid, racist things. 

Thanks, I suppose, but you're wrong in that I haven't said anything stupid or racist. 

[Hodad]

24 minutes ago, blackbird said:

When a tree or anything was created, of course it had to have an apparent age.  You can't create something without it having an age.  Age is inherent in everything that was created.  That would explain why the universe had an apparent age when God created it around six thousand years ago.  You just can't accept that there is a supernatural being with infinite power to create a universe.  When it comes to the beginning of the universe and how we got here, science does not have the answers and never will apart form an intelligent designer-creator we call God.  Logic supports this and Scripture verifies it.   The Bible says "the fool hath said in his heart there is no God."  So you see the reason why many people are atheists.

Why would the "apparent age" be ancient? Look, the only way even this^^ silly explanation makes any sense is if you think all of the sciences are wrong. 

Like, you are literally proposing that god formed the world to look billions of years old and then dragged his finger through the faux-aged earth of North America to carve out the Grand Canyon like a kid in cake frosting, tantalizingly revealing layer after layer of his fake, old strata. I mean, holy crap, do you even realize how absurd that sounds? There's sure as shit no logic in it.

No, logic does not support the idea of an all-powerful designer, let alone one who makes things look old for the lulz. There is not a shred of evidence for it. Mankind has imagined thousands of supernatural origin stories to explain the unknown, and there isn't evidence for any of them.

Science doesn't have all the answers (yet) but it has a lot of them, and it is baffling that you'd throw out thousands of years of research and documentation in favor of one (of thousands) old unsupported mythology. 

[blackbird]

37 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Why would the "apparent age" be ancient? Look, the only way even this^^ silly explanation makes any sense is if you think all of the sciences are wrong. 

Like, you are literally proposing that god formed the world to look billions of years old and then dragged his finger through the faux-aged earth of North America to carve out the Grand Canyon like a kid in cake frosting, tantalizingly revealing layer after layer of his fake, old strata. I mean, holy crap, do you even realize how absurd that sounds? There's sure as shit no logic in it.

No, logic does not support the idea of an all-powerful designer, let alone one who makes things look old for the lulz. There is not a shred of evidence for it. Mankind has imagined thousands of supernatural origin stories to explain the unknown, and there isn't evidence for any of them.

Science doesn't have all the answers (yet) but it has a lot of them, and it is baffling that you'd throw out thousands of years of research and documentation in favor of one (of thousands) old unsupported mythology. 

As I said you have not studied the creation side of the argument, so you basically know nothing about it.  Evolution has been soundly refuted by professional and scholars. 

quote

For almost 150 years we have been taught evolution.  The premise of evolution was a fabrication from the beginning.  It was not founded on scientific findings but on rebellion against the truth.  Even the founders and promoters of evolution knew that it was not likely. It was easily debunked by science.  So, we can surmise that evolution, the great hoax, is just that.

 

Why did the theory of evolution begin

The theory did not begin because there was a preponderance of evidence in its favor.  Rather it began as a rebellion against the evidence of creation supported by science. The founders of evolution were not scientists, they were philosophers, so-called.  

They observations to support their theory.  As far as observations go, they are useful in producing good science.  But these philosophers became biased in the observations they used. The choices they used were determined by their already determined bias.  Their choices of observations were only those that supported their predetermined conclusion of evolution. If the observation supported their view, it was chosen.  Those that contradicted their views were rejected.

 

A philosophy

You can see how they turned science into a tool for promoting an agenda.  It was no longer the search for truth that it was intended to be. After all, science is defined as the search for knowledge.

Instead of searching for knowledge and presenting facts, they introduced the interpretation of the facts into the equation.  Science had taken a turn toward alchemy.

The philosophy that spawned evolution was that of secular humanism.  To define it in clearer terms, secular humanism is atheism. It did not settle for being simple atheism, but became “anti-theism”.  That term does not mean that they did not believe in god, but that they were against God.

So, evolution was founded by a philosophy that was openly in opposition to a Creator.  Plainly stated, they were at war against their Creator. The premise of this philosophy makes it clear that they know there is a Creator.  They not only know the fact but they actively fight against His revelation in creation.

 

The illogic of secular humanism philosophy

The conflict

If secular humanists were, as they say, atheists, then that should end the question. If there truly was no Creator, or God, then there is no real logic or reason for life.  It would not matter if someone believed in God or did not believe in God. So, the secular humanist should go on his merry way and enjoy his existence.

Why should he get involved with other people who are doing just fine?  Why would he impose his philosophy on others when it will make no difference in their lives.  Secular humanism says that life ends in oblivion, nothingness. It does not matter if you live a “good” and “moral” life or a wasteful immoral life.

After all, it has been shown that people who profess a belief in God live meaningful and productive lives.  Even if there was no god, that would be worth promoting.

But, the secular humanist is not looking to help people.  They want to defeat God. They are anti-theists.

 

Secular humanism=Evolution

Instead of adopting a “laissez-faire” approach, the humanists promote a false science.  It is called evolution.

In the mid 19th century when evolution was getting its foothold in science, it was easy to promote.  Though design was evident in science, they changed the perspective. Instead of emphasizing design they began to promote “change”.  The reason for this was a treatise that Charles Darwin had penned called On The Origin of Species(1859).

In “On the Origin” Darwin said that all life we see on earth descended from one original life form.  He used the term “evolution” to describe this progress. He presented many false scenarios of how life forms and body types might have evolved.  What scientific evidence he presented was weak, at best, in proving evolution.

 

Change: the champion of evolution

The evidence used for evolution was meager at best.  His whole premise was founded on the change in the length and size of the beaks of finches.  What he defined as evolution in the beaks of finches was reversed in the following generations.  So, in fact, there was no evolution. But, there was a “savior”.

“Change” to the rescue.  Rather than defining evolution as bringing about a new species, it was now defined as simply “change”.  The trick worked. Who could deny that change did not occur in living things? Observation bore out the fact of change.  Soon, it was an accepted thing that “change” proved evolution.

 

The next step

As “change” became the mantra and evolution began to take hold, humanists made their next move.  That move was to make inroads in the education system.

Education was the tool of religion in the founding of the United States of America.  Since it had been successful in the building of the nation, maybe humanists could use it to promote their agenda.  So, education became the tool of the humanist agenda.

 The first step was to get control of the system.  The best way to do that was to get all education under one umbrella.  What better umbrella than that of the government. The end goal was the umbrella of the Federal Government.

This push began in the early 1900s with the emphasis on the local and state governments. That sounded alright since it remained close at home and easy for the populace to control.  But, the Federal government grew and Federal aid extended to states and localities. With that growth came control. Soon Federal aid meant Federal control of curriculum. Guess what philosophy of science took precedence.  If you guessed secular humanism, you were correct.

 

The “coup de gras”

In 1963 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that all references to God had to be removed from the curriculum of Federally subsidized school systems.  That meant that all schools related to any local, state or federal entity could not teach any Biblically related subject.

The Supreme Court of the USA

 

The “coup” was completed.  Only “secular” subjects could be taught in public schools.  That meant that only secular science could be taught in public schools.  The science that fit that bill was that of evolution. The secularists had been successful in morphing their philosophy into a science.  It was a “science” which by then was being shown to have no real science to support it. But, that was OK for them. They had the government backing them.  

 

The TRUTH

There are several truths that must be forthcoming.  The body of science did not cease to grow in knowledge.  As knowledge increased, it became more evident that evolution, the hoax, was not science, but philosophy.  What was the first sound argument against evolution has once again risen as its nemesis.

 

Design

A watch is designed. It does not happen by chance.

William Paley first presented evidence for design in nature.  Darwin was never able to refute him. The only way around the apparent design was to ignore it or make fun of it.  They were able to do this on the macro level for many years. But, as I said, knowledge continued to increase.

As new discoveries in microbiology have come, design has become more and more apparent.  It is not a simple design that thwarts evolution. The complex design found in the simplest living forms is beyond any ever imagined by mankind.  In fact, the complexity of design is beyond any designs of the smartest humans.

 

Evidence of design

Could this happen by chance?

The design evident in even a single protein of a “simple” living cell is astronomical.  The possibility of a single protein coming together by chance is beyond possibility in this universe.  Let me give an example. There are 10>80(10 followed by 80 zeros) atoms in the entire universe. Compare that to the possibility of one protein forming by chance: 10>108(10 followed by 108 zeros).

Can one call himself a logical reasoning person if he believes that could happen by chance?  Yet, we have allowed so-called scientists to tell us that such a thing happened.  Is that what we call a hoax?  That is what evolution is.

 

Continuing evidence

As knowledge about DNA has continued to increase it has become more evident that evolution never happened.

Mutations were supposed to be evolutions “savior”.  As mutations increased in genomes they brought about change in the given species.  Evolutionists hailed this as proof of evolution. Though there was a change in the genome research found out that it was the wrong kind.

Recall that evolutionists defined evolution as change.  In a way mutations were evidence of change, but not evolution.  Darwinian evolution was supposed to trace the growth of complexity in living things.  To become more complex, a living species had to add information to the genome of the DNA.  

Scientific research found that there was no mutation that added information to the genome.  Though there were some that affected no noticeable change in the species, none added information. The facts showed that every mutation subtracted information from the genome.  According to DNA science, Darwinian evolution is impossible.

 

Why is evolution, the great hoax, still accepted and taught?

What a pertinent question.  It is not taught or accepted because it is a scientific fact.  The reason it is promoted is that if you do not accept it as fact, there is only one alternative.  The alternative is that of divine creation.

If one accepts divine creation then one would necessarily need to acknowledge a creator.  In acknowledging a creator one would thereby acknowledge submission to the creator.

Of all the “creator” scenarios there is only one that is logical and fits with scientific laws.  That one is the creation scenario set forth in the Bible. This is why secular humanists refuse to accept the Biblical creation scenario.  They will not submit to the God of the Bible.

 

Secular humanism

By definition secular humanism denies the existence of a deity.  To recognize any deity requires either submission or rebellion. According to the Bible, all creation(including humans) acknowledge a Creator.  But, according to the same Bible, not all submit to His authority.

Secular humanists do not submit to the authority of the Creator of the universe.  Because they are in rebellion, they do not submit to His laws. By their actions, they acknowledge a Creator, but by their words they contradict themselves.

I recommend that you go to brainyquote.com and look up such atheists as Richard Dawkins.  Read through his quotes and see just how many times he contradicts himself. Better yet, check how many times he contradicts scientific facts. You will begin to understand why evolution is the great hoax of the 20th and 21st centuries.

 

Authority and evolution the great hoax

More often than not, secular humanists assert their authority.  Because they are a scientist, you should believe them. They will ask you to set aside your brain and logic just to believe them.  And their reasoning is because they are the authority.

What is the “authority” that you believe is ill-informed?  For the past century, American schools have been force feeding students lies about evolution.  There are many “authorities” on evolution because of this.

There are many people with PhDs in evolutionary science.  It has become evident that many of these people gained their degrees with false dissertations.  By false, I mean this. The subject that they researched and proved has been shown to be false or unverifiable.  They are an “authority” who is been proven to lack correct knowledge.

Even though sound science has disproved every tenant of evolution, it is still taught as fact.

 

Who are you?

Are you willing to surrender your mind and life to those who willing mislead you?  If you are not willing to question “authority” occasionally, then you have done just that.  By question, I do not mean rebel. I mean just what I say. Ask pertinent questions regarding the subject.  

The answers should be logical and not just because the “authority” says so.  It should not be followed by a mantra such as “it evolved” and that is why. If there is not a logical sequence or understanding be ready to look for another answer.

Be willing to listen to answers you do not agree with.  But do not throw out your reasoning and logic. When an answer follows sound reasoning and logic, be willing to endorse it.  Follow the facts, not the philosophy.

 

The conclusion

The day is soon approaching when evolution, the great hoax, will be shown for what it is.  As the secularists hijacked science to promote their agenda, so science has overcome their agenda.  

True science is always logical.  It is the secularists who have introduced illogic into science.  As knowledge grows more prolific it is harder for secularists to lie to the public.  They still do lie and make up fairy tales to promote their materialistic agenda. Their rebellion against the Creator grows more and more evident every day.

You have been created with a magnificent mind of your own.  Your Creator has endowed you with the ability to make your own choices.  You can choose to believe the true record of creation set forth in the Bible, or not believe it.  You can choose to believe the illogical scenario of the secularists about the Big Bang. But, take a little time and search out the truth of the matter.

Do not take my word for it or any other person’s word for it.  Go to the source. Read the Bible. Find out what the Creator says about His creation and what He says about you.

Then read the writings of secularists and decide which really fits the truth.  You make the choice.

 

The Choice

This is your challenge.  After you search and study, then you must make a decision.  There are no fence straddlers. Jesus said it this way, “You cannot serve two masters. You will love one and hate the other.”  You cannot believe the secular humanist and believe the God of the Bible.

Joshua in the Old Testament put it this way.  “Choose you this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

 

I hope that that is your choice.  But, it is your choice.

unquote

Evolution The Great Hoax Science or Philosophy (wisehealthwealth.com)         

Edited October 4, 2022 by blackbird

[blackbird]

42 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Why would the "apparent age" be ancient? Look, the only way even this^^ silly explanation makes any sense is if you think all of the sciences are wrong. 

Like, you are literally proposing that god formed the world to look billions of years old and then dragged his finger through the faux-aged earth of North America to carve out the Grand Canyon like a kid in cake frosting, tantalizingly revealing layer after layer of his fake, old strata. I mean, holy crap, do you even realize how absurd that sounds? There's sure as shit no logic in it.

No, logic does not support the idea of an all-powerful designer, let alone one who makes things look old for the lulz. There is not a shred of evidence for it. Mankind has imagined thousands of supernatural origin stories to explain the unknown, and there isn't evidence for any of them.

Science doesn't have all the answers (yet) but it has a lot of them, and it is baffling that you'd throw out thousands of years of research and documentation in favor of one (of thousands) old unsupported mythology. 

Evolution is not science.  It is a philosophy developed by atheist philosophers.

"Why did the theory of evolution begin

The theory did not begin because there was a preponderance of evidence in its favor.  Rather it began as a rebellion against the evidence of creation supported by science. The founders of evolution were not scientists, they were philosophers, so-called."  

[Rebound]

43 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

https://www.hoover.org/research/what-caused-gas-prices-jump

 

Learn something other than lying.

Let's assess the article.

First, the article says gas prices rose because of inflation. It goes on to say, "if we’re going to blame the entities that caused inflation, they are, in order, the Federal Reserve, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden." However, the article does not address that there are two components of inflation, not one: It is too much money chasing too few goods. We have a major problem with "too few goods" right now, but the article ignores that. Second, the article ignores that inflation is a worldwide phenomenon right now. The US Dollar, in fact, is at its strongest that I ever remember. Both the British Pound and the Euro are worth $1.00. That's the strongest dollar I ever remember, at least against those two currencies.  The US Dollar is also strong against the Chinese RMB, trading at $1 to 7.2 RMB. It was about 1 to 6.5 before. So by those accounts, inflation is weaker in the US than in Europe, the UK and China, correct?

So inflation doesn't make much sense as the reason for oil prices increasing, and your article says that!  "The major cause of gasoline price increases, as the earlier data show, has not been inflation."

"Between the first quarter of 2021 and the fourth quarter of 2021, worldwide consumption rose from 93.9 million barrels per day (mbd) to 99.2 mbd."

Also, they add, "One factor is Biden’s and many European governments’ response in the oil market to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. They have colluded to keep Russian oil off the market."  Personally, I agree with this policy. Paying more for gasoline as my part in checking Russian expansion is a positive thing.

FINALLY, the article addresses Biden's executive policies: "Longer term, Biden will contribute to higher oil prices."

 

SO there we are: All your bullshit, all your lies, all your stupid YouTube links, your childish insults, and what's the result: YOU PROVED THAT YOU ARE WRONG. Yes, maybe in two or three years, oil prices will be higher because of the Keystone pipeline. I doubt it; I think it's more likely the drilling moratoriums. But that's only if the alternative energy plants aren't launched. And the US has been held hostage by oil companies long enough. Remember this one simple fact: America has petroleum energy independence. And that means, the higher oil prices we pay right now is nothing but pure profit in oil companies' pockets.