Jump to content

The high price of gas can be largely traced to Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Then why is the price of gas through the roof in America and Canada.  In B.C. we pay the highest gas price in north America at about $1.90 or $2.00 per litre?  It varies up and down around the two dollar range.  That equates to a a very high price per U.S. gallon too.  B.C. gets it's gas from Washington State just across the border.  

Remember the cost of something is primarily determined by supply and demand.  Biden has taken many actions that limit the growth of production of oil and gas.  That reduces the potential supply.  When you reduce the supply you increase the demand which in turn drives the price up.  The price in north America for gas is determined by the amount being produced and if the demand outpaces the supply the price goes up.  That is exactly what has been happening.

The Biden administration openly admits they are on a course to fight climate change and build a "green economy".   There is the reason.   To claim oil production is near record levels is not reasonable.  Obviously it is not meeting the demand or the price would not have increased to high so fast.  No,  it is Biden's war on climate change and his attempts to reduce gas production that is the problem.  You can't have it both ways.  The Democrats like the Liberals/NDP in Canda live in an alternate reality.  They think they can fight climate change by all their regulations against the energy industry but they are harming the population by driving up the price of energy for home heating and the cost of gas/oil for transportation and everything else.  

The population is not dumb.  Many people know what is going on.

Actually, about half the population is dumb (or of below average intelligence) and the bulk of people regardless of intelligence DO NOT have any idea what is going on. They are worried about day-to-day life. You, for example, are at least superficially interested in politics, but still post baseless nonsense like this. I assume that it is because you are just repeating things that were told to you, because your comments are NOT grounded in fact.

Yes, the price of oil is based on supply and demand. Yes, domestic supply has increased dramatically under Biden. Domestic production today is at near-record levels. We are producing more today than we were in Jan 2019 when gasoline was just $2.23 per gallon. More domestic production and yet gas is 75% more expensive? Perhaps there's more to the picture than domestic supply.

Look, here's a 10 year view. Production drops precipitously under Trump and then is rebuilt under Biden. (And frankly, neither of them have anything to do with it.) But facts are facts.

image.thumb.png.83b11f026bd9709e2570d09d64fa66d7.png

 

Put aside the politics for a minute and just look at the goddamn numbers. I have provided charts. I have provided links. I have provided facts. LEARN SOMETHING.

You give us a simplistic lecture about supply and demand and tell us that Biden is driving up prices by suppressing supply and none of it is remotely factually true. Biden has the right idea about transitioning off fossil fuels, but he is NOT currently suppressing supply and is not driving up prices. 

As before, the pandemic crushed demand, which in turn crushed supply. Wells and sites were shuttered.  Companies were going out of business. Crews were laid off and found other work. You can't just flip the "on" switch and be back at peak production- nor would it be financially wise for the companies to do so. Still, production has been rebuilt. So why are prices high at the pump?

Because regardless of domestic production, oil is a global commodity and is priced globally and supply chains are still crippled and energy giant Russia is at war and there's OPEC in the middle east etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Globally, oil production is down significantly from 2019. It's not a spigot. Demand ramped back up faster than supply, so prices are elevated.

So in summary, yes, "many people do know what is going on" and now YOU can be one of them. 

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Actually, about half the population is dumb (or of below average intelligence) and the bulk of people regardless of intelligence DO NOT have any idea what is going on. They are worried about day-to-day life. You, for example, are at least superficially interested in politics, but still post baseless nonsense like this. I assume that it is because you are just repeating things that were told to you, because your comments are NOT grounded in fact.

Yes, the price of oil is based on supply and demand. Yes, domestic supply has increased dramatically under Biden. Domestic production today is at near-record levels. We are producing more today than we were in Jan 2019 when gasoline was just $2.23 per gallon. More domestic production and yet gas is 75% more expensive? Perhaps there's more to the picture than domestic supply.

Look, here's a 10 year view. Production drops precipitously under Trump and then is rebuilt under Biden. (And frankly, neither of them have anything to do with it.) But facts are facts.

image.thumb.png.83b11f026bd9709e2570d09d64fa66d7.png

 

Put aside the politics for a minute and just look at the goddamn numbers. I have provided charts. I have provided links. I have provided facts. LEARN SOMETHING.

You give us a simplistic lecture about supply and demand and tell us that Biden is driving up prices by suppressing supply and none of it is remotely factually true. Biden has the right idea about transitioning off fossil fuels, but he is NOT currently suppressing supply and is not driving up prices. 

As before, the pandemic crushed demand, which in turn crushed supply. Wells and sites were shuttered.  Companies were going out of business. Crews were laid off and found other work. You can't just flip the "on" switch and be back at peak production- nor would it be financially wise for the companies to do so. Still, production has been rebuilt. So why are prices high at the pump?

Because regardless of domestic production, oil is a global commodity and is priced globally and supply chains are still crippled and energy giant Russia is at war and there's OPEC in the middle east etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Globally, oil production is down significantly from 2019. It's not a spigot. Demand ramped back up faster than supply, so prices are elevated.

So in summary, yes, "many people do know what is going on" and now YOU can be one of them. 

The article I gave the link to has 125 measures Biden took against the oil and gas industry and you just say I post nonsense.   No, I don't think so.  You will have to address the issues in the 125 measures Biden took with a convincing refutation.  Just implying anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant won't cut it.

Here are just four things Biden did.  There are 121 other things to consider that Biden did or said.

"

Biden issued an executive order announcing a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on public lands

or in offshore waters

and reconsideration of Federal oil and gas permitting and leasing practices.

He directed his Interior Department to conduct a review of permitting and leasing policies."

125 Ways the Biden Administration and Congress Have Made it Harder to Produce Oil & Gas - IER (instituteforenergyresearch.org)

So your complete dismissal of facts makes no sense.   We all know one of Biden's central driving policies to fight climate change.  That is obviously what is behind Biden's thinking.  He is an old man who embraces the simplistic solutions of Greta Thunberg and radical environmentalists and rejects realty of the need for as much energy production as possible.  The same thing is happening in other countries.  Europe and the UK is suffering.  They are on a mission to reduce or eliminate fossil fuels and are wrecking the economy of the world in that quest.   Biden is an old follower of the climate cult.

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The article I gave the link to has 125 measures Biden took against the oil and gas industry and you just say I post nonsense.   No, I don't think so.  You will have to address the issues in the 125 measures Biden took with a convincing refutation.  Just implying anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant won't cut it.

Here are just four things Biden did.  There are 121 other things to consider that Biden did or said.

"

Biden issued an executive order announcing a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on public lands

or in offshore waters

and reconsideration of Federal oil and gas permitting and leasing practices.

He directed his Interior Department to conduct a review of permitting and leasing policies."

125 Ways the Biden Administration and Congress Have Made it Harder to Produce Oil & Gas - IER (instituteforenergyresearch.org)

So your complete dismissal of facts makes no sense.   We all know one of Biden's central driving policies to to fight climate change.  That is obviously what is behind Biden's thinking.  He is an old man who embraces the simplistic solutions of Greta Thunberg and radical environmentalists and rejects realtiy of the need for as much enery production as possible.  The same thing is happening in other countries.  Europe and the UK is suffering.  They are on a mission to reduce or eliminate fossil fuels and are wrecking the economy of the world in that quest.   Biden is an old follower of the climate cult.

 

You are ignorant. And obstinate. And dishonest.(WWJD?) When presented with actual, numerical records of oil production that absolutely destroy your premise-- that completely unravel your false narrative about Biden's affect on the oil supply and on gas prices-- you still can't admit that you were wrong. It's not even a debatable matter, and you still can't find the decency within yourself to be wrong -- not even as an anonymous poster on the internet. God forbid.

Whatever. Wallow in idiocy all you want. You're clearly hopeless. Read whatever stupid right wing crap you want. Don't look at actual facts and figures. Seems that they'll just confuse you anyway.

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Actually, about half the population is dumb (or of below average intelligence) and the bulk of people regardless of intelligence DO NOT have any idea what is going on. They are worried about day-to-day life. You, for example, are at least superficially interested in politics, but still post baseless nonsense like this. I assume that it is because you are just repeating things that were told to you, because your comments are NOT grounded in fact.

Yes, the price of oil is based on supply and demand. Yes, domestic supply has increased dramatically under Biden. Domestic production today is at near-record levels. We are producing more today than we were in Jan 2019 when gasoline was just $2.23 per gallon. More domestic production and yet gas is 75% more expensive? Perhaps there's more to the picture than domestic supply.

Look, here's a 10 year view. Production drops precipitously under Trump and then is rebuilt under Biden. (And frankly, neither of them have anything to do with it.) But facts are facts.

image.thumb.png.83b11f026bd9709e2570d09d64fa66d7.png

 

Put aside the politics for a minute and just look at the goddamn numbers. I have provided charts. I have provided links. I have provided facts. LEARN SOMETHING.

You give us a simplistic lecture about supply and demand and tell us that Biden is driving up prices by suppressing supply and none of it is remotely factually true. Biden has the right idea about transitioning off fossil fuels, but he is NOT currently suppressing supply and is not driving up prices. 

As before, the pandemic crushed demand, which in turn crushed supply. Wells and sites were shuttered.  Companies were going out of business. Crews were laid off and found other work. You can't just flip the "on" switch and be back at peak production- nor would it be financially wise for the companies to do so. Still, production has been rebuilt. So why are prices high at the pump?

Because regardless of domestic production, oil is a global commodity and is priced globally and supply chains are still crippled and energy giant Russia is at war and there's OPEC in the middle east etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Globally, oil production is down significantly from 2019. It's not a spigot. Demand ramped back up faster than supply, so prices are elevated.

So in summary, yes, "many people do know what is going on" and now YOU can be one of them. 

Since OPEC reduced the world supply of oil by hundreds of millions of barrels,  Biden should be taking steps to increase production, not reduce it.  It is true the world supply is likely what determines the price, but if OPEC  is cutting back,  Biden should not be reducing production but he should be greatly increasing production to compensate for what OPEC is doing.  Not trying to fight climate change and hurting the American people.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2022 at 9:32 AM, blackbird said:

Since OPEC reduced the world supply of oil by hundreds of millions of barrels,  Biden should be taking steps to increase production, not reduce it.  It is true the world supply is likely what determines the price, but if OPEC  is cutting back,  Biden should not be reducing production but he should be greatly increasing production to compensate for what OPEC is doing.  Not trying to fight climate change and hurting the American people.

The 4 "steps" by Biden that you cited, have NO EFFECT on current production. 

You believe that Biden CAN ORDER the private oil companies to increase production? LMAO

What Biden HAS done, is commit to restoring the strategic reserves at $70/barrel to ENCOURAGE additional production INVESTMENTS by the oil companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2022 at 12:32 PM, blackbird said:

Since OPEC reduced the world supply of oil by hundreds of millions of barrels,  Biden should be taking steps to increase production, not reduce it.  It is true the world supply is likely what determines the price, but if OPEC  is cutting back,  Biden should not be reducing production but he should be greatly increasing production to compensate for what OPEC is doing.  Not trying to fight climate change and hurting the American people.

If that's as close as you can come to conceding the point on the data, so be it.

Again, the reality is that there is a VERY loose relationship between domestic production and global prices. You can see in the same data periods of high production and high prices and low production and low prices. We are a big producer, but also one of many big producers in the global pool. So for the US to single-handedly drive down gas prices in the US we would have to create glut of oil on a global scale.

You see, the problem, I hope? Our production is already near record level. We don't HAVE the production capacity to create a glut. We couldn't do it even if we wanted to.

Not to mention that Biden doesn't have any control over the how much the oil companies produce. He has a long-term agenda for a transition to renewables, but there is zero impact on gas prices today or even in a 10 year window--unless you want to count carbons getting cheaper as more renewables come online. 

To have any real influence on your gas prices, Biden would have to "nationalize" or assert national control over oil company production and exports and dictate that domestic production be refined and sold locally rather than entering the global market. If he were to do that he would have a lever to move gas prices up and down. But that's not realistic, nor is it something I suspect you want a POTUS empowered to do. I sure don't. Hell, the political right pooped a brick when he released oil from the strategic reserve to help relieve gas prices. 

Look, you are fully welcome to not worry about climate change and to pledge lifelong allegiance to the hydrocarbon lifestyle. That's an opinion--an unwise one--but still an opinion. But the facts of oil production and the economic realities of a global market are not really debatable. Blaming Biden for today's gas prices is absurd- detached from all fact and reality. Talk to me in a decade, and we can toast how Biden's investment in renewables made gas so much cheaper!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

 

 

"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

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)

 

 

"

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. 

 

Edited by Hodad
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asbestosis

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

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.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

Funny thing that climate has always changed.  Nothing new there. 

There is NOTHING "funny" about the unprecedented current RATE of change.

In the very distant past, the climate was KNOWN to change due to phenomena like mega-volcanos we have not seen in recorded history.

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

The theory that man is causing it now is purely a theory.  A theory is not science. 

Of course theories are PART of SCIENCE. And evidence CONFIRMS THEM.

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

Science is empirical; that is, experiment and observation. 

And experiments and evidence is gathered based on THEORIES.

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

There has never been any proof that man is causing it. 

There is AMPLE evidence, which is WHY the majority of climate scientist subscribe to the theory

Who are you to dispute ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS? Do you even have a degree in science? I do.

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

The CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere and out of that trace gas, 97% is produced by nature.   Only 3% by man.

We know that old canard. The 97% of CO2 is biological which is continually recycled.

You don't even understand why that makes it different than fossil fuel burning CO2. 

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

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. 

Only that 3% is what is increasing the concentration in the ATMOSPHERE. It is GIGA-TONS per year.

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

That is next to nothing. 

Says you.

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

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.

Yes we know you believe in the magic of god, and ignorantly excuse what man is doing to destroy the environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

"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."

: 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.

^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:

Quote

Joel Kotkin is a fellow in urban studies at Chapman University in Orange, California. He writes about demographic, social, and economic trends in the U.S. and internationally. He is a regular contributor to The Daily Beast and Forbes.com and is on the editorial board of the Orange County Register.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

rainbow lobster.jpg

blue-footed booby.jpg

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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.

rainbow lobster.jpg

blue-footed booby.jpg

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

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.

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?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

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.

Right off the top of my head, I can offer 2 possibilities for "Doppelganger genes."

One is the gene developed in a common ancestor and was strongly preserved because it gave a crucial survival advantage.

Another is, the same genetic structure evolved independently, again because it gave a crucial survival advantage.

Another problem with ^this is, death is most definitely an empirically proven process, No empirical evidence for the FAITH of life after death as described in the that book of MYTHS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, blackbird said:

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.  

 

Don't look for an opinion that fits yours. Ask the damn experts.

The choice to seek and listen to expert opinion confers a distinct survival advantage.

"Don't eat that, it's poisonous, say all the botanists " And you say "Nah, I really wanna eat it. I'm going to look for someone to tell me it's okay."

It's absolutely irrational.

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Well, that is a good question.  I don't think anyone ever really asked me.  I will try to summarize it so as not to bore you.

Perhaps it goes back to my childhood and how I grew up.  I did have an unusual experience but I am not sure it was a determining factor in what I believe.

When I was about six, I visited a friend up the street and when I was in his living room, I noticed a large picture on the wall of several angels.  I didn't think much about it and went home.  Then later, perhaps the same day, I was sitting out in the front yard eating an orange.  When I looked ahead, believe it or not, I saw several what I thought were angels for a couple seconds and they kind of just disappeared into thin air.  This took me by surprise.  I only mention this because I don't know if this had something to do with future beliefs.

Then when I was going to vocational school in Vancouver I made friends with a guy from France.  We were friends for a year or two before he decided to move back to France.  We said good bye.   Then about six months later I got a job and had to travel to Ottawa for a five month course.  When I was there, in the Spring, I decided to take a trip to Montreal for one weekend.  When I arrived in Montreal I was walking down the main drag and went into a bar and who do you think was standing there.  It was Jean, my friend from Vancouver.. who I thought had moved back to France.  He decided to stop in Montreal for a year or so.  He showed me around part of Montreal and we said farewell again as I went back to Ottawa.  Now was this not a one in a 10 million chance I would run into him?

A third strange experience was when I lived up in northern BC, a friend I knew was talking about moving to southern BC.  I suggested the town I grew up in.  He eventually moved and I received a post card from him sometime later.  He told me he was living in an apartment in a house in the town and gave me the address.  Would you believe it if I told you it was the basement suite in the house my dad built and I grew up in?  The town has a population of about 20,000 and what are the chances of that happening?  Now I am not sure these unusual events had anything to do with my thinking, but I guess everything that happens in life could effect our thinking, especially if it is highly unusual.  

When I was young around 12, 13, I was very interested in science, chemistry, astronomy and had my own chemistry lab in the basement.  I did complete chemistry in high school and did well.  I find science interesting.

Now back to 47 years ago.  I married a Christian woman.  To make this shorter, I was listening to a Christian program on the radio alone in the apartment one evening about 1980 (four years after we married) when I heard the gospel.  How Jesus died for my sins and if I believe in him and accepted him as my Savior, I would be saved.   I saw myself as a lost soul.  So I immediately believed the message I heard and asked him to be my Savior and save me.  I believe he did because the Bible says "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"   Romans 

As for evolution versus creation, I read much of the Bible over the years, heard many messages about it, and once we had a visiting Professor Philip Stott come for a week of messages with a slide presentation.  He was an expert on evolution versus creation and travelled around to different countries speaking on it.  I video recorded his four messages that week and still have them.   It all made perfect sense to me.  He was a mathematician and explained how the theory of probability does not support evolution.  It would require more time than there is available in geological history for the right things to come together and life to begin and evolve.   He said it would be like putting a typewriter in front of a monkey and letting him type randomly.  How long would it take for the monkey to type the complete works of Shakespeare?   It just isn't possible by random chances.  That is the same thing with life forming by random chances of the right chemicals starting life.  It just can't happen.  The mathematical law of probability just does not fit with it.  He went into other related subjects to do with the geological time chart, fossil records, geology and so on.  It was a very convincing series of slide presentations.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

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.

 

 

 

 

Well, I did a little research on your creation.com sources, and found this which thoroughly REFUTES them:

Assessing Limits to Evolution and to Natural Selection: Reviews of Michael Behe’s “Edge of Evolution” and John Sanford’s “Genetic Entropy”

Quote

MICHAEL BEHE’S EDGE OF EVOLUTION

(1)   Behe’s Fundamental Error

(2)   Adaptive Responses to Environmental Changes

(3)   Further Critiques of Edge of Evolution

(4)   Status of Irreducible Complexity

(5)   Behe and Intelligent Design

JOHN SANFORD’S GENETIC ENTROPY AND THE MYSTERY OF THE GENOME

(1) Kimura’s Distribution of Mutations

(2) Evidence for Beneficial Mutations

(3) Gene Duplication

(4) Natural Selection: What Sanford Claims

(5) Natural Selection: What Studies Show

Stability of Microbial Genomes

Mutation Accumulation Experiments With Eukaryotes

Fitness Recovery Experiments

(6) Evidence for Genomic Deterioration

James Crow’s Speculation on Human Genetic Deterioration

(7) Synergistic Epistasis and Other Theoretical Considerations

Effects of Synergistic Epistasis

Evidence for Synergistic Epistasis

Sanford’s Treatment of Synergistic Epistasis

Other Issues in Population Genetics

(8) CLOSING THOUGHTS

Bible Interpretation as the Fundamental Issue

Sanford’s Genetic Entropy, on the other hand, is simply wrong from beginning to end. It misrepresents everything it touches: beneficial and deleterious mutations, gene duplication, natural selection, and synergistic epistasis. In all these areas, Sanford avoids engaging the large body of work which directly refutes his viewpoint, and instead cherry-picks a few references that seem to point his way, usually misinterpreting them in the process.

I will read that BEFORE I watch your video which you have not even summarized.

 

Edited by robosmith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,771
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    joebialek
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...