CHRIST promised, in The Gospel of John, that at His Second Coming, just before The End, He would show people clearly about God. He said that just before the Last-Day, when everybody is due to be judged on his/her individual merits, He would come again and publish the Truth of God and enlighten the whole world. The book is now available at thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet (free PDF non religion / non fiction book)
for a buck wheres my car that gets100mpg why is elec bill so high ? misled ilinformed higher ups keep ,under the thumb ,grants money mola keep your mouth shut !
@chuck5511 It is called an electric car - you can buy them right now.
Your electric bill is so high because they deregulated the utility industry, which is why also our grid is falling to pieces. Noprofit in fixing things and no limit on cost increases or speculator to drive up prices for more profit. Squease until the pips squeak - keep squeaking perhaps they will do something about it.
The grants during the Bush administration ddint keep the scientists quiet about AGW, did it?
cutting remark there - purplepoo, it was cute, anyway
John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988–2002) "Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature" ... "For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide" ... oh shit. good day :).
@MrPurplefood That issue is simply not an issue. Ice core records from the past (over a wide time) period showed CO2 LAGGING temperature by 800 years. The present global warming has occurred in a time of the order of 100 years. Clearly what is happening now is not the same as what occurred before.
So does CO2 CAUSE temperature increase or vice versa? The answer is BOTH - and the mecahnisms are well understood.
@MrPurplefood Strange you omitted the key phrase there: "... but then writes that the programme's assertion that "this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC [is] NOT TRUE...."
The origin of this claim is the "Great Global Warming Swindle" which Houghton goes on to pan as propaganda "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming"
@chrisstbtc Yes, a bunch of them happened all at once a few weeks after I posted it. Looks like a little clique got wind of it and all decided to vote en mass against it. Even so - it is 2:1 in favor of it.
i've got a better suggestion then a marxist C02 tax - nothing at all. ahaha, please your being naive, scientists have to spend more time raising money then they do actually researching, you should know that, so the more alarmist, the better.
yes your right, people are dying - a bit over 150000 per day - but guess what, its not from C02.
... listen to the australian parliment. then come back to me on it.
yes, peer revieved, like we know all of the papers from the IPCC's are.
@MrPurplefood Your comment was tagged as spam - I have no idea why. I unspammed it but if it happens again please complain to YT.
Your comment about scientific funding shows how little you know about science. In the US at least that is not true. I worked in space research for 40 years and never applied for a grant of any kind. That would be true of most researchers.
I did listen to the Australian Parliament and all I heard was an accusation by one politican denied by another. So what?
@MrPurplefood "Scientists make alarmist claims - the receive more funding grants" untrue
"Governments spread this proganda, claim people are going to die, then place a tax on it" people are dying already. If you dont like a C tax suggest a better way of curbing fossil fuel use.
"IPCC recieves 10% of the revenue from the Australian Carbon tax" There are no direct payments by UN members to the IPCC. The IPCC is funded from general UN funds & the scientists from their own governments.
I LOVE YOUR VIDEO BUT DR DK SRONG DOES IS REALLY MEAN ANYTHINK WE ARE BUT A SPEC OFF DUST WITHIN THE COSTMOS I HAVE NOW DOUBT THAT THERE IS LIFE OUT THERE THAT IS FAR AHEAD OFF US THE MERE NATURE OFF EVOLUTION IS THAT YOU GROW ON YOUR OWN OWN I FINED IT VERY FUNNY THAT YOU SCIENCE PEOPLE GESS FOR THE MOST PART I WOULD LOVE ONE DAY TO HAVE A GOOD CONVERSATION WITH YOU ANYWAY WITH THAT IN MIND AND ALL THE PHD LLB ECT I LOVE THE VIDEOS THAT YOU PUT OUT THERE DAVE UK
@covertdave123 I am sure there is life out there too but it is not until you understand the vastness of space and its dangers that you will see that interstellar travel is impossible by any means within our present understanding of physics and biology. Our fastest spacecraft would take several hundred thousand years to get to the nearest start and anyone on board would be irradiated to death by cosmic rays. The amountof energy needed to do it faster is incredible. SETI has not found a thing.
@drkstrong ''within our present understanding of physics and biology'' many things are impossible, but in a 100 or 1000 years of science evolution, that will certainly change, what makes us sure, other intelligent civilizations haven't achieve interstellar travel? not necesery by distance but by manipulating space time through massive generated and pointed gravity. we don't even know what gravity trully is... (could be a wave? becouse I think graviton is a joke..)
@HASHEAVEN However assuming there is such a thing isnt science that is science fiction. Now some science fiction has become science fact but it remains science fisction until demonstrated otherwise.
Take Star Trek's communicators - there are now cell phones. Verne invisaged going to the moon, we did it only 100 years later. But he also wrote about a journey to the center of the Earth & finding dinosaurs there, we now know that is not possible. Every scifi idea does not necessarily come true
@drkstrong You are absolutely right Dr, some sci-fi are really rediculus, but some revolutionary inspiring ideas by open minded scientists, brought tech, knowlege, and changed they way we think today. As far as interstellar travel, it is not as rediculus as dinosaurs in the center of the earth, furthermore we already know that intense gravity can bend space-time, we already use the gravity of celestial bodies to help our spaceships orbit,...
@HASHEAVEN Until the equations show that you can use the effect to travel in space and time and it is demonstrated to work then it is science fiction.
@drkstrong ...and eventually, the rockets we use today, wont be as usefull in the future, given the need to explore more distant planets. Sure I'm getting excited imaging of science of the future, but we have a long road ahead, maybe some day we could find a way to use antimatter reactors to power, sorry for going off-topic, and thank you for the time and effort you put, to inform and educate us, have a nice day dr.
thanks for the video,, that was a good idea to check the names,, isnt there some kind of accountability or am I living in 1984? Thanks for your time and all the great links
@EndNuclearAgenda21 No, the oregon petition folks did not want accountability because they knew that the numbers would not hold up. In fact one of the peopel I knew on the list did not know his name was on the petition (probably put their by one of his students as a joke) tried to get it removed but it is still on the list.
I have written to the OP folks several times asking for clarification on several points but they do not answer.
My understanding of global warming is that the waters are warming,since the earth is 70% water its considered global.Warming waters are melting the polar ice caps& mean more precipitation in some areas,not necessarily that it doesn't get cold, just that their will also be more snow,&rain.I think it is more cyclic but,7 billion ppl on the earth contribute to this cycle along w/the pollution of industry affecting our water, air and food supply.What we do to the earth,we do to ourselves.
@drkstrong I think it goes even beyond that...did you know that the planets in our solar system are also warming... So while we quibble down here as to whether global warming is real or not...the planets are warming as well...Some will no doubt equate this with the end of the world.For me,as a Hermetic,as above so below,everything is interconnected &we are in part of the heavens.
Global warming is happening but has nothing to do with carbon emissions... this is another lie and ponzie scheme to rip off ignorant people. The reason is our Sun is cyclic and is emitting increased radiation flares.. the entire solar system is warming up, not just earth. Wisdom: Never believe ANYTHING the US Government and it's politicians claim.. there known THUGS and "BIG LIARS". Remember 9-11 ! Brilliant.
@greg357159 Pity the Sun cant explain many of the GW fingerprints: Cooling of the upper atmosphere (it should be warming fastest if the Sun did it); it doesnt explain why the greatest warming has been during the winter, at night, & at high latitudes (the solar model would predict the exact opposite)
The hottest year on record 2010 was during the quietest period of solar activity for 100 years.
It is the politicians who are claiming the AGW is not real - so by your logic AGW is real.
@AntiTurd I'm in the Northeast also and we get it heavy everyday here and the rain has been crazy during the summer and now into late fall. All it does is rain and any fool who looks up can see the misty sky and the planes at work. At night in the fall you would see every faint star in the sky because there is no humidity this time of year. Now look up at night and the chemical mist blocks out mostly everything but a couple planets like Venus.
@Robin18us The weather is odd but its not due to spraying - if you live in the NE as I do you are in 1 of the busiest air corridors on the planet so you will see contrails if the weather conditions are right at the altitude that the planes are flying at (calm winds, cooler temperatures, & high humidity). No amount of spraying could change the humidity levels (it would make GW worse - WV is a GHG) - the amount of water needed would be impossible to maintain. Humidity is determined by temperature
@drkstrong So what is your opinion regarding chemtrails, Dr. Strong? Are you saying that there is no spraying taking place, whatsoever, and that those who suggest otherwise are just part of a grand conspiracy? Just curious...
@eagle1023 Nothing has been proven when it so easily could be. So I dont believe they exist in the sense of someone spraying chemicals deliberately to harm us or do geoengineering.
It is part of the same anti government paranoia associated with UFOs, HAARP, NIBiru, etc. We saw many of the same folks running around eariler this year worrying about Elenin or the ned of the Mayan Calendar. They need to take a couple doses of reality and get back to me in the morning (of their understanding).
@drkstrong I'm not sure that I agree with you on this one. I'd like to believe that it's all just conspiracy, but there has been information presented that makes me scratch my head. Former FBI Special Agent in Charge, Ted Gunderson had much to say on this phenomena as does Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, former Director of Intelligence for the U.S. Army. Also, a study conducted by Purdey M. identifies the following: Elevated silver, barium and strontium in antlers, vegetation and soils (contd.)
@drkstrong sourced from CWD cluster areas: do Ag/Ba/Sr piezoelectric crystals represent the transmissible pathogenic agent in TSEs? I've also run across a video which identifies links to govt. documentation of Geo-engineering for Mitigating Climate Change: youtube dot com /watch?v=gIPgdZcQUws
Elenin, Nibiru and other conspiracies aside, just some food for thought. Now I must admit, I did only attend a public school and community college, so I may just be dazed and confused. lol (poke)
@eagle1023 That is a result of industrial pollution - those are all used in the electronics industry.
Point of reference - the antarctic ice cores can be dated by the higher levels of lead found in some strata from the time when the Romans opened up a lead smelting industry.
@drkstrong nah doc spraying exists ,i myself have seen much evidence of this its for a joint american uk radar program,you only have to look at any airport and you will see the proof ,its kept hush hush because it costs billions and green peace would have a field day in the courts .money is everything to these people
@drkstrong I was unclear whether you were saying HAARP doesn't exist, or if you just meant it wasn't part of any conspiracy theory. If you were saying it doesn't exist, I was supplying proof that it does exist. If you agree it exists, that is all, carry on. However, if you would like to see some of the cool projects they are doing with it, the video link I gave shows a few interesting things it can do (however, some side effects could cause unpredictable weather pattern changes).
@eagle1023 the spraying from planes is a water barium copper mix i think.its for a radar mapping program ,operation sumthing sumthing ,cant remember the name but basically the metals in the atmosphere enhance radar capability,all air transport company's spray this stuff on mass
@drkstrong the spraying from planes is a water barium copper mix i think.its for a radar mapping program ,operation sumthing sumthing ,cant remember the name but basically the metals in the atmosphere enhance radar capability,all air transport company's spray this stuff on mass .could elevated levels of reflective ,conductive metals in the atmosphere be adding to the effect?and if so why aren't they factored in when calculating air density,thermal conduction
..owns the mass media, which means that most of the information the public AND the scientific community gets to hear is exactly what 'big oil' wants them to hear.
I have become very skeptical of both mass media AND the scientific community, because they have been bought and paid for by oil profiteers.
So, who should we believe?
(Cheers, Dr Strong, for your awesome chnanel! I love it!!!)
@crazy8sdrums Where do you get the impression that science is paid for by the energy, oil, gas, and coal industries? They indeed spend a lot of money but mainly to undermine the scientific community - they are on very different side of the fence (except a few toadies who will do or say anything for $s or political dogma).
Do I ask this to challenge your view of this global warming study? No. It is pretty obvious that we pollute our Earth on a massive scale, and even though we have become more cautious about it in the last couple decades, it still is not enough. Hydrocarbons are NOT the right solution for energy.
The problem is that most, if not all, of modern science is funded in large part by those who profit from using oil-based energy. Additionally, big oil also owns the mass media... (cont)
Although it is outside the scope of this video, I want to share an observation... (because it is relevant when defining the word 'science'.)
If 'science' is testable and observable, how can we deem the concepts of 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' as being scientifically valid? Neither are 'testable' as they have proven to be completely unobservable.
Similar goes for subatomic 'particles'. If observation alters the outcome of the test, doesn't that detract from it being 'scientific'? (cont)
Someone needs to ask why are they doing aerial spraying to reduce global warming since global warming doesn't exist. Most of the destruction to crops, animals, trees, water and food contamination is being caused from Chemtrails, and geo-engineering is an excuse to do this, not the reason. The reason most would never believe. Stop chemtrails or suffer the consequences.
@Robin18us yea theyre spraying like crazy here east coast usa.i filmed that shit finally cus you tell your regular brainwashed zombie sheeple mind controlled bug eyed floride drinking comunist schooled homo is ok thinking moron they think im insane. well i got the proof now fart breath
i could give a shit that the SCIENTISTS say one way or the other---I have eyes and I can see that the world is warming up and the shit is is hitting the fan...wake up people -don't listen to these lying ass-wipes.
the earth is 6000 years old.prove me wrong.anyone.global warming is a lie.wake up zombie sheeple time is almost up.Jesus is Lord.Jesus is your only chance.nothing else matters
Isotopes, fossils, continental drift, sedimentary rock formations, Human habitations dating to over 100,000 years ago, distant (>6000 LY) stars visible, Sun's position on the Main Sequence, ...... So proved you wrong. Now what?
@drkstrong All of those can be explained by Creation Scientists....Who by the way win about 7 out of 10 debates with Evolution Scientists as can be seen here on youtube. I went through High school hearing all about evolution and never converted because the evidence didn't convince me....Missing Links in just about all the classes and Phylas, reliability factors with the dating methods and several other reasons but to each their own. We're all religious.
@someguy6978 There is no such thing as creation science. It cant be tested and there is no observational evidnce or mathematical model so it aint science, it is superstition.
I hope you dont take any medications or flu injections - because most depend the theory of evolution.
@drkstrong medications or flu injections do NOT depend on evolution theory (nor do they depend on creation theory either). However, even if they did depend on evolution theory, that would be a hindrance to the theory, since flu vaccines do not work, and in fact are actually harmful to most people. Also, to say creation science can not be tested is incorrect. It is origins that can not be tested (whether creation model or evolution model). Your definition also makes evolution not science.
@TheBartman47 My wife works in microbiology and suggests you read some basic biology text books. The fact that they have to make up a different vaccine every year shows that the flu virus is evolving. The vaccines have to be made to block the new strains so depend on understanding the evolution of the virus, so depend on evolution theory.
Evolution is observatble and testable and can be reproduced by experiment. Thus is science. Again crack a biology book and become more informed.
@drkstrong Are you sure about the science of evolution? If Darwin's theory is correct, then how is it that so many human beings fail to evolve where intellectual capacity, comprehension skills or serious thought/inquiry are concerned? After reading some of the responses you've accumulated with this video offering, I'm seeing the devolution of a species - far from evolution. ;) Thanks for keeping intellectual honesty alive!
@eagle1023 This is soul school we are only just steping out of a long dark age. It takes many lives to learn all the lessons a mature soul needs to learn before graduation--look up Itzak Bentov he's one-he died in airplane crash just as he was putting out his new view of the universe-his wife has put out the rest
@drkstrong I'm quite knowledgeable on biology and well aware of strain variations, just as there are many varieties of dogs. This is NOT evolution. True evolution would require an addition of NEW genetic code, not simply rearangement or variation or even loss of genetic code. Creation theory regularly affirms that there are indeed many variations of flu virus, etc. but this is where the line is drawn: a virus can not evolve into a dog. That has never been observed or tested and isn't scientific
@TheBartman47 Each generation is a new genetic code - as the DNA and RNA are not copied exactly. So each generation is the missing link between the last and the next - the best variations for the environment at the time survive and breed.
@drkstrong and I am the missing link between my son and my father (duh). My son did not evolve from me, he got a variation of copied components of genetic code from me. You keep giving examples of variation in species, which all creationist agree is good science, but you still haven't given a true example of evolution. All the varieties of dogs, from Great Dane to Chihuahua, all came from a common ancestor (a dog), but NOT from a fish or banana ancestor which is the evolution model.
@TheBartman47 But the dog did come from a fish as there was life in the sea long before it appeared on land - you can follow the origins of dogs and wolves back tot he miacids and before that to therapids and so on back in time to their ocean origins. Just look it up.
@drkstrong HA, now I've got you... please observe, demonstrate, or repeat the test to prove your claims that a dog came from a fish. You can't do it, and therefore, it's not scientific.
@TheBartman47 Sorry you just got yourself because if you follow the directions I just gave you you can see all the stages how a dog can be traced back to a fish.
@drkstrong You still don't understand that simply drawing lines between things is not proof. By the same methods, I could "prove" that cars evolved from bicycles. Again, prove with a direct observation, demonstration, and a repeatable test to change a fish into a dog. If you can't take a fish and perform the experiment right there in the lab and come out with a dog, it is not scientific. Look, I freely admit that creation theory is unprovable, but evolution is too for the same reason.
@drkstrong I have read paleontology books, and they still use examples proven fake and fraud years ago. I suggest you take a critical look at some of the things these books include instead of swallowing it hook, line, and sinker. Example in the supposed horse evolution chart, the number of ribs varies within the series, up and down, between 15, 19 and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six. There are Clydesdales and miniature horses living today.
@TheBartman47 The variations in dogs, horses, sheep, cows, etc are the result of man taking advantage of evolution and choosing to breed to excentuate changes and mutations. Just like the apple trees - many poorer, a few better.
@drkstrong I agree most variations far removed from the original are poor (a chihuahua dog is totally useless and would be the first dog eaten by a predator out in the wild). But again, variations are NOT evolution. The general theory of evoultion proposes that a dog can come from a fish. Creation theory states dogs come from dogs and can have great variation in their appearance and form, but they're still a dog. A great dane and a chihuahua are dramatically different, but they're both dogs.
@TheBartman47 Are you being deliberately dense? The theory of evolution says that different forms of animals evolve from earlier version over thousands of generations, not instantly. Thus each generation inperseptibly different from the the last (unless you look at the DNA)
Humans have about 0.5% dna range. A chimp's dna is over 98% of human dna. A Dog 75%
As it takes about 10MY to change 2 %, it means we had a common ancestor with dogs over 100 My ago.
@drkstrong Wow, you're way out of date on your statistics. Better go look up just what the current estimated percentage of similarity of chimp DNA to humans is. Also, what about those who believe in puncutated equilibrium version of evolution? That was dreamed up because there were so many problems and impossibilities with your version of "inperseptibly different" version. However, no verifiable evidence exists to back up either type.
@TheBartman47 I gave you a way to look at the evidence - you ignore it and keep stating the same old same old over and over again. This thread is about global warming - start one on evolution and we can discuss it there - better yet I'll have my wife who works in the field of micro biology set you straight but first read some biology books - for your own sake.
I also gave early on an example of evolution where the product is not the same creature as the original. The Flu Virus.
@drkstrong you are obviously closed minded to any correction in your preconceived notions. You are so blind to your own example of the flu virus... It's still a flu virus!!! It is the same type creature! Yes, it has changed from the original flu virus, (microevolution, which all creationists agree happens and is scientific), but it is still a flu virus. It has not changed into something that is not a virus. You are the one restating the same junk over and over, and I HAVE read biology books.
@drkstrong You're giving percentages but you're not including the percentage of that genetic make up that is essential to life...(Junk DNA). All Living things have a large percentage in common...Even plants. Their similarities are used to theorize evolution when the same similarities point to a single source.
@someguy6978 Don't assume I'm claiming that evolution claims a Dog can evolve into a cat...I have read on the theory and I realize this isn't the claims being made. Simply making a point to show that to me the evidence is against evolution and small changes that have been observed to show evolution are not permanent changes....They are adaptations and not evolution. Darwins Finches...They're beaks grew in size and shortened repeatedly for example...Those changes were not permanent.
@drkstrong Again we disagree, Models and predictions can be made using creation Science. Your bias is a result of your faith which don't attend. Evolution is simply a theory that says because things are similar, they are likely related although there are exceptions. I also disagree that Medications and flu Injections are based on Evolution...They are based on a field of Science that Spawned Evolution. There are people with Biology degrees that dispute the theory of Evolution entirely.
@someguy6978 Models can be amd eof anything. I can predict every football result fot he next decade. None of that means that they are right. Science is TESTIBLE AND OBSERVABLE.
Please give a single repeatable test of creation science. Please give us an observation of creation science.
@drkstrong I might be able to help you out with the experiments and tests actually....(I've got Google) First I'm curious as to the tests of Evolution...
@someguy6978 I I just did a google search & got 3.5 million hits - you arent looking very hard
There was a contest was between an evolutionary model & designers to create the smallest efficient radio transmitter. The engineers produced several very efficient designs based on decades of experience. The model stared with random wires & randomly evolved a million designs. Took the best 100 & evolved them randomly many times. The model won - it was smaller &much more efficient but looked very odd
@drkstrong Only problem is...None of those tests show evolution...None that I saw anyway...They can just as easily be used to test Creation.
The design the device the engineer used had the base components needed to operate though. Inserting random wires and components otherwise is highly unlikely to work.
The fact is that Evolution and Creation are both based on Science and Faith....I personally ascribe to the creation explanation.
@someguy6978 Evolution can't be tested or observed....There are elements of science which Evolution has latched onto in order to appear "Scientific" and those elements can be tested but the theory of evolution itself can not...Unless I missed something....
@someguy6978 Apparently you did not read the discussion
The test was simple random wires - pass a current and see waht they do. Choose any that work and evolve them randomly and test again. Select the best and keep doing the same thing over an over again until the design meets the requirements. In fact NASA flew one of these on its first microsat program - it worked perfectly.
@drkstrong So they first established the ones that work?
That's Akin to a Doctor getting a living person and surgically re attaching an extra arm to the persons stomach or something and claiming that because he was able to make the arm work, evolution must be true.
@drkstrong So you're saying that enough opportunities occurred for evolution to work?
That's your belief, I personally can't wrap my mind around that...The odds are too great and I don't have that much faith. I believe that changes happen within a closed system but although a Dog may change in shape and size...It's still a Dog. This is why there are numerous insect fossils "from millions of years ago" that look exactly like they do today.
@someguy6978 Some species last for 100 millions of years - if there is no pressure on their ecological niche then changes dont have much effect in fact might be bad so the same line dominates. But if the environment becomes unfavourable to the base design then those with adaptations to the new environemtn thrive and the old line dies out.
@drkstrong Speaking of which, According to creation the entire planet was basically wrapped in a layer of water which would create a hydroponic system and as you know, plants and life in general, gets bigger in a Hydroponic system...This would explain the size of Dinosaurs pre flood. The earth has went through all kinds of changes though, I find it hard to believe that the same insect could survive best as is through extreme heat and cold
@bernzeppi Why do u say Jesus didn't know anything about physics? He made some miracles that indeed have to do with physics. Do you know nothing about science? Science is in the bible.
@drkstrong and observable and repeatable test of creation science is done every day by farmers and ranchers. Corn crops keep producing corn, and cows keep having more cows, just as the creation theory predicts. Evolution theory says these can produce completely different TYPES of animals (not just different species, which again is simply another variation of the same type). Genetically modified organisms is a good example of why evolution doesn't work. GMO seed are sterile by the next crop.
@TheBartman47 GMO are sterile to the next crop because GMO crops are designed to be sterile as a safety measure - it is a legal requirement.
Having lived in a farming area (we grew cider apples), I learned by the time I was about 7 that the only way to get an identical apple tree was to propagate by cuttings or grafting. If I planted seeds from our apples we might get a similar apple, or a better one or a completely usueless one (the most common outcome). Each was different form the parents.
@drkstrong GMO are sterile not for safety, but for financial reasons (forces the farmer to always buy seed from monsanto instead of saving some of their crop).
You still miss the point... all those different apples you mention are still apples! You NEVER once got an orange tree or a pear tree (or a partridge in a pear tree). Why do you keep using a strawman argument? Creation theory does NOT say apples will be identical, but evolution says apples can turn into oranges!
@TheBartman47 But they are not sterile because they are not working to evolution but becayuse their designers want them to be.
Actually it is you again who miss the point, the changes are not instant not do they change from one existing thing to another they evolve over many generations and eventually become different things.
The descentants of a creature that lived 30 million years ago, pierolapithecus, became chimps, humans, Gorillas, and the other great apes.
@drkstrong You can not directly observe, demonstrate, or test that. No one is going to live for 30 million years to wait for evolution to happen. It must be accepted on faith that these claims actually happened 30 million years ago.
@drkstrong No one can "prove" the civil war happened either, in the strictest since of the word, but there is much evidence that leads to a reasonable conclusion that the civil war happened. I could dig up Abraham Lincoln and see the bullet hole, I could rumage through old photographs, etc. But what can you show me that indicates one animal can have offspring of a completely different type than itself? Why don't we see any evolution today? Why are ALL observed mutations harmful and de-evolving?
@drkstrong "they arent"? Please name one mutation that is beneficial then. (oh, and if you think the standard answer to this challenge is sickle cell anemia because it makes one resistant to malaria, that is like saying people with amputated feet is beneficial because now they won't get athleet's foot.)
@TheBartman47 You are confusing long term evolution with the individual steps. The change in the apples shows that change can and does take place. If that goes on for long enough you no longer have an apple but something else.
@drkstrong That's never been shown, only theorized when in fact evidence suggests that a species can only adapt to a certain point and if it's environment is still too harsh, that species goes extinct. A Dog can come in all shapes and sizes but it's obvious, it's still a Dog....All of those changes are predetermined and none are permanent. Kinda like our immune system..It can change to a degree to fight bacteria but it has a limit which is why some types of bacteria are deadly.
@drkstrong It is you who are confusing macroevolution with microevolution. Microevolution happens all the time (variation in apples) but macroevolution does not happen, has never been observed nor tested in a lab (going from an apple to something not an apple). The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate macroevolution. All evolutionist ever do is pass it off as taking millions of years. Evidence of microevolution is NOT evidence of macroevolution. There are genetic boundaries preventing such.
@drkstrong Any changes you noted in the apple can be over time bred out of it and it will return to it's original form. If all life evolved in a similar way than even though they are far apart on the evolutionary chain and I realize evolution doesn't claim that they are related but just to try and make a point...A Dog can not be bred into a cat and vice versa...Or a Zebra etc etc...They will always be and evidence shows that they have always been what they are today.
@drkstrong but if we evolved from apes why did we loose two sets of cromazones, chimps and apes have two more than us also they are 5 times our strength in comparison .why would we loose that strength and genetic material?its like we were re engineered at some point to be smarter in terms of problem sorting but weaker overall it does'nt make sense .and every other animal fits into a food chain .we fit no where.
@someguy6978 You say GW is not man made based on what? The fact that it has gotten colder and warmer in the past (BTW all of that evidience depends on the Earth being very old) is irelevant because all those chanegs are understood by natural variations and the factors that made it warmer in the past are not operating at the moment and for th emost part cant act that quickly (<50 years)
@drkstrong that proves nothing at all.carbon data is unreliable,research it. Better yet watch one of Kent Hovind's lectures or debates,he can say it much better than i can
@AntiTurd I just did. He is a snake oil salesman - very slick and has an ego the size of the planet. He says nothing you can check and certainly nothing scientific.
@drkstrong search this Evolution Creation The Truth and throw away the closed mind befor you watch it.everything you said can be disproven.your just a victem of puplic school brainwashing its not your fault
@AntiTurd I have looked at these sites (mainly for their amusement value) and they are scientific trash. If it can be disproven - then take just one and try to disprove it. Otherwise you are making unsubstaniated claims. This isnt poker where buff and bravado count, it is science - you need evidence. You have none.
PS I did not go to your public your pathetic public school system.
@drkstrong dude you obviously didnt watch anything i pointed you to.i see your mind is made up .its a shame but the bottom line is either you believe in God or you believe in evolution.and why in the world did you send me links to global warming nonsense.lmao you totally got off the subject.any moron with 3 or more working brain cells knows global warming is a hoax.what is kind of funny is you uploaded a movie saying global warming is a scam then you try to say its real..lol later
This has been flagged as spam show
CHRIST promised, in The Gospel of John, that at His Second Coming, just before The End, He would show people clearly about God. He said that just before the Last-Day, when everybody is due to be judged on his/her individual merits, He would come again and publish the Truth of God and enlighten the whole world. The book is now available at thewayhomeorfacethefiredotnet (free PDF non religion / non fiction book)
asianbodyart 2 weeks ago
id prefer this without the silly music
MrSammythehammy 1 month ago
@MrSammythehammy "Bolero" isnt silly it is beautiful!
drkstrong 1 month ago
@drkstrong I agree with DK....
TheGuardianDestroyer 1 month ago
elec cars over priced short ranged ,you win ,changing chanels why are cancer ,meds sideeffects worse than the actual diese?
chuck5511 1 month ago
for a buck wheres my car that gets100mpg why is elec bill so high ? misled ilinformed higher ups keep ,under the thumb ,grants money mola keep your mouth shut !
chuck5511 1 month ago
@chuck5511 It is called an electric car - you can buy them right now.
Your electric bill is so high because they deregulated the utility industry, which is why also our grid is falling to pieces. Noprofit in fixing things and no limit on cost increases or speculator to drive up prices for more profit. Squease until the pips squeak - keep squeaking perhaps they will do something about it.
The grants during the Bush administration ddint keep the scientists quiet about AGW, did it?
drkstrong 1 month ago
@drkstrong like i said greed
chuck5511 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Get some thermodynamics into ya:
en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Latent_heat
Do the calculations yourself:
kentchemistry . com/links/Energy/HeatVaporizat ion . htm
Y'see pilgrims, nature offers no free rides.
As the temperature of the earth increases more water evaporates... this translates into more rain, hail, snow... more floods.
You who pay attention know that hail happens on a hot humid day!
Now, can anyone explain why?
bernzeppi 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
were all doomed were all sheeple
chuck5511 1 month ago
@drkstrong
yes, and i love the way he was talking about global warming in that quote "[is] not true" :).
MrPurplefood 1 month ago
@bernzeppi
cutting remark there - purplepoo, it was cute, anyway
John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988–2002) "Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature" ... "For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide" ... oh shit. good day :).
MrPurplefood 1 month ago
@MrPurplefood That issue is simply not an issue. Ice core records from the past (over a wide time) period showed CO2 LAGGING temperature by 800 years. The present global warming has occurred in a time of the order of 100 years. Clearly what is happening now is not the same as what occurred before.
So does CO2 CAUSE temperature increase or vice versa? The answer is BOTH - and the mecahnisms are well understood.
garethb1961 1 month ago
@MrPurplefood Strange you omitted the key phrase there: "... but then writes that the programme's assertion that "this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC [is] NOT TRUE...."
The origin of this claim is the "Great Global Warming Swindle" which Houghton goes on to pan as propaganda "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming"
drkstrong 1 month ago
greed greed and more greed money talks poltians and lackies suck for buck
chuck5511 1 month ago
@chuck5511 Absolutely - all that oil money buying a few scientists to spread lies to discredit AGW
drkstrong 1 month ago
looks like 32 people here are lord monckton fans......................and have a IQ of less than 100.
chrisstbtc 2 months ago
@chrisstbtc Tut, Tut! You are insulting people with an IQ of less than 100! :)
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong last count 147!
chuck5511 1 month ago
Comment removed
chrisstbtc 2 months ago
look at the rating on this video... its sad.... just goes to show you how little common sense people have and why they are so ez to control
chrisstbtc 2 months ago 2
@chrisstbtc Yes, a bunch of them happened all at once a few weeks after I posted it. Looks like a little clique got wind of it and all decided to vote en mass against it. Even so - it is 2:1 in favor of it.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drikstrong
i've got a better suggestion then a marxist C02 tax - nothing at all. ahaha, please your being naive, scientists have to spend more time raising money then they do actually researching, you should know that, so the more alarmist, the better.
yes your right, people are dying - a bit over 150000 per day - but guess what, its not from C02.
... listen to the australian parliment. then come back to me on it.
yes, peer revieved, like we know all of the papers from the IPCC's are.
MrPurplefood 2 months ago
@MrPurplefood Your comment was tagged as spam - I have no idea why. I unspammed it but if it happens again please complain to YT.
Your comment about scientific funding shows how little you know about science. In the US at least that is not true. I worked in space research for 40 years and never applied for a grant of any kind. That would be true of most researchers.
I did listen to the Australian Parliament and all I heard was an accusation by one politican denied by another. So what?
drkstrong 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrPurplefood 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrPurplefood 2 months ago
@drkstrong
Scientists make alarmist claims - the receive more funding grants
Governments spread this proganda, claim people are going to die, then place a tax on it
IPCC recieves 10% of the revenue from the Australian Carbon tax
yeah, your right, they don't directly pay the scientists, but it sounds like everyone in that chain is a winner.
MrPurplefood 2 months ago
@MrPurplefood "Scientists make alarmist claims - the receive more funding grants" untrue
"Governments spread this proganda, claim people are going to die, then place a tax on it" people are dying already. If you dont like a C tax suggest a better way of curbing fossil fuel use.
"IPCC recieves 10% of the revenue from the Australian Carbon tax" There are no direct payments by UN members to the IPCC. The IPCC is funded from general UN funds & the scientists from their own governments.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@MrPurplefood hey purplepoo... the Australian carbon tax hasn't even kicked in yet.
the government is still figuring out the details.
Where on earth do you get your figures????
You need to stop listening to them right away.
I hope you are not making this shit up yourself!
bernzeppi 1 month ago
@bernzeppi
UN IPCC - there's your evidence
MrPurplefood 2 months ago
@MrPurplefood Are you claiming that the UN IPCC funds this research? If so you are completely wrong they fund no science research at all.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@bernzeppi
please, don't be ignorant, who funds this science?
MrPurplefood 2 months ago
@MrPurplefood Oh do tell!
Who?
And your proof please....
I wait with baited breath!
bernzeppi 2 months ago
I LOVE YOUR VIDEO BUT DR DK SRONG DOES IS REALLY MEAN ANYTHINK WE ARE BUT A SPEC OFF DUST WITHIN THE COSTMOS I HAVE NOW DOUBT THAT THERE IS LIFE OUT THERE THAT IS FAR AHEAD OFF US THE MERE NATURE OFF EVOLUTION IS THAT YOU GROW ON YOUR OWN OWN I FINED IT VERY FUNNY THAT YOU SCIENCE PEOPLE GESS FOR THE MOST PART I WOULD LOVE ONE DAY TO HAVE A GOOD CONVERSATION WITH YOU ANYWAY WITH THAT IN MIND AND ALL THE PHD LLB ECT I LOVE THE VIDEOS THAT YOU PUT OUT THERE DAVE UK
covertdave123 2 months ago
@covertdave123 I am sure there is life out there too but it is not until you understand the vastness of space and its dangers that you will see that interstellar travel is impossible by any means within our present understanding of physics and biology. Our fastest spacecraft would take several hundred thousand years to get to the nearest start and anyone on board would be irradiated to death by cosmic rays. The amountof energy needed to do it faster is incredible. SETI has not found a thing.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong ''within our present understanding of physics and biology'' many things are impossible, but in a 100 or 1000 years of science evolution, that will certainly change, what makes us sure, other intelligent civilizations haven't achieve interstellar travel? not necesery by distance but by manipulating space time through massive generated and pointed gravity. we don't even know what gravity trully is... (could be a wave? becouse I think graviton is a joke..)
HASHEAVEN 2 months ago
@HASHEAVEN However assuming there is such a thing isnt science that is science fiction. Now some science fiction has become science fact but it remains science fisction until demonstrated otherwise.
Take Star Trek's communicators - there are now cell phones. Verne invisaged going to the moon, we did it only 100 years later. But he also wrote about a journey to the center of the Earth & finding dinosaurs there, we now know that is not possible. Every scifi idea does not necessarily come true
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong You are absolutely right Dr, some sci-fi are really rediculus, but some revolutionary inspiring ideas by open minded scientists, brought tech, knowlege, and changed they way we think today. As far as interstellar travel, it is not as rediculus as dinosaurs in the center of the earth, furthermore we already know that intense gravity can bend space-time, we already use the gravity of celestial bodies to help our spaceships orbit,...
HASHEAVEN 2 months ago
@HASHEAVEN Until the equations show that you can use the effect to travel in space and time and it is demonstrated to work then it is science fiction.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong ...and eventually, the rockets we use today, wont be as usefull in the future, given the need to explore more distant planets. Sure I'm getting excited imaging of science of the future, but we have a long road ahead, maybe some day we could find a way to use antimatter reactors to power, sorry for going off-topic, and thank you for the time and effort you put, to inform and educate us, have a nice day dr.
HASHEAVEN 2 months ago
@covertdave123 Englisch is not your first language is it?
bernzeppi 2 months ago
ahh i see, but maybe we should review the UN IPCC's scientists as throughly as we have the oregan petition, the results would be quite interesting.
MrPurplefood 2 months ago
@MrPurplefood Already been done in spades - they found nothing
drkstrong 2 months ago
@MrPurplefood You ignore the fact of peer review... a way tougher test than is being applied here.
You don't know about peer review do you?
Oh, I'm asking the wrong person.
bernzeppi 2 months ago
saving the world from global warming is like saying: we'll stop the earth rotation because USA want 24/24h day light...
baboonsquadron 2 months ago
thanks for the video,, that was a good idea to check the names,, isnt there some kind of accountability or am I living in 1984? Thanks for your time and all the great links
EndNuclearAgenda21 2 months ago
@EndNuclearAgenda21 No, the oregon petition folks did not want accountability because they knew that the numbers would not hold up. In fact one of the peopel I knew on the list did not know his name was on the petition (probably put their by one of his students as a joke) tried to get it removed but it is still on the list.
I have written to the OP folks several times asking for clarification on several points but they do not answer.
drkstrong 2 months ago
enjoyed the stats of Mercury , not warming either ...
emerald1one1 2 months ago
My understanding of global warming is that the waters are warming,since the earth is 70% water its considered global.Warming waters are melting the polar ice caps& mean more precipitation in some areas,not necessarily that it doesn't get cold, just that their will also be more snow,&rain.I think it is more cyclic but,7 billion ppl on the earth contribute to this cycle along w/the pollution of industry affecting our water, air and food supply.What we do to the earth,we do to ourselves.
braithmorgan 2 months ago
@braithmorgan Mostly correct - the land is warming about twice as fast as the oceans but as you say most of ht eplanet is water so that is the driver
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong I think it goes even beyond that...did you know that the planets in our solar system are also warming... So while we quibble down here as to whether global warming is real or not...the planets are warming as well...Some will no doubt equate this with the end of the world.For me,as a Hermetic,as above so below,everything is interconnected &we are in part of the heavens.
braithmorgan 2 months ago
@braithmorgan The planets are not warming my lecture on that subject:
Intro: watch?v=NWlqcePhWjk
Inner Solar System: watch?v=Js_M_eHZ5l8
Gas Giants: watch?v=hvAtAesaFS4
drkstrong 2 months ago
Oh, here is a video of genetics in the engineering laboratory:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ex4O5z_ig2g
It's pretty old but that only proves this has been going on for a long time.
bernzeppi 2 months ago
It's amusing to see global warming discussion always devolve into a creationist squabble!
The same dunces that are deniers are creationists... mostly they never finished school.
Bwaaahahahahaaaar!
bernzeppi 2 months ago
@bernzeppi :)
drkstrong 2 months ago
thought someone was on a holiday ..
emerald1one1 2 months ago
@emerald1one1 See any SUN TODAY videos?
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong hooked long ago , gathering a Lot of Freckles ..
emerald1one1 2 months ago
@drkstrong yes ! there is a fine video at Space weather.com of the comet Love joy .
emerald1one1 2 months ago
? spray to counteract the radiation( japan skies) the noaa charts ,or sun effects ~
emerald1one1 2 months ago
Global warming is happening but has nothing to do with carbon emissions... this is another lie and ponzie scheme to rip off ignorant people. The reason is our Sun is cyclic and is emitting increased radiation flares.. the entire solar system is warming up, not just earth. Wisdom: Never believe ANYTHING the US Government and it's politicians claim.. there known THUGS and "BIG LIARS". Remember 9-11 ! Brilliant.
greg357159 2 months ago
@greg357159 Pity the Sun cant explain many of the GW fingerprints: Cooling of the upper atmosphere (it should be warming fastest if the Sun did it); it doesnt explain why the greatest warming has been during the winter, at night, & at high latitudes (the solar model would predict the exact opposite)
The hottest year on record 2010 was during the quietest period of solar activity for 100 years.
It is the politicians who are claiming the AGW is not real - so by your logic AGW is real.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@greg357159 You got one thing right... you ARE ignorant.
bernzeppi 2 months ago
@bernzeppi "TARD"
greg357159 2 months ago
good work
ladycress 2 months ago
@AntiTurd I'm in the Northeast also and we get it heavy everyday here and the rain has been crazy during the summer and now into late fall. All it does is rain and any fool who looks up can see the misty sky and the planes at work. At night in the fall you would see every faint star in the sky because there is no humidity this time of year. Now look up at night and the chemical mist blocks out mostly everything but a couple planets like Venus.
Robin18us 2 months ago
@Robin18us The weather is odd but its not due to spraying - if you live in the NE as I do you are in 1 of the busiest air corridors on the planet so you will see contrails if the weather conditions are right at the altitude that the planes are flying at (calm winds, cooler temperatures, & high humidity). No amount of spraying could change the humidity levels (it would make GW worse - WV is a GHG) - the amount of water needed would be impossible to maintain. Humidity is determined by temperature
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong So what is your opinion regarding chemtrails, Dr. Strong? Are you saying that there is no spraying taking place, whatsoever, and that those who suggest otherwise are just part of a grand conspiracy? Just curious...
eagle1023 2 months ago
@eagle1023 Nothing has been proven when it so easily could be. So I dont believe they exist in the sense of someone spraying chemicals deliberately to harm us or do geoengineering.
It is part of the same anti government paranoia associated with UFOs, HAARP, NIBiru, etc. We saw many of the same folks running around eariler this year worrying about Elenin or the ned of the Mayan Calendar. They need to take a couple doses of reality and get back to me in the morning (of their understanding).
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong I'm not sure that I agree with you on this one. I'd like to believe that it's all just conspiracy, but there has been information presented that makes me scratch my head. Former FBI Special Agent in Charge, Ted Gunderson had much to say on this phenomena as does Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, former Director of Intelligence for the U.S. Army. Also, a study conducted by Purdey M. identifies the following: Elevated silver, barium and strontium in antlers, vegetation and soils (contd.)
eagle1023 2 months ago
@drkstrong sourced from CWD cluster areas: do Ag/Ba/Sr piezoelectric crystals represent the transmissible pathogenic agent in TSEs? I've also run across a video which identifies links to govt. documentation of Geo-engineering for Mitigating Climate Change: youtube dot com /watch?v=gIPgdZcQUws
Elenin, Nibiru and other conspiracies aside, just some food for thought. Now I must admit, I did only attend a public school and community college, so I may just be dazed and confused. lol (poke)
eagle1023 2 months ago
@eagle1023 That is a result of industrial pollution - those are all used in the electronics industry.
Point of reference - the antarctic ice cores can be dated by the higher levels of lead found in some strata from the time when the Romans opened up a lead smelting industry.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong Oh, I see. That's an interesting theory.
eagle1023 2 months ago
@drkstrong nah doc spraying exists ,i myself have seen much evidence of this its for a joint american uk radar program,you only have to look at any airport and you will see the proof ,its kept hush hush because it costs billions and green peace would have a field day in the courts .money is everything to these people
MrBrianDunbar 2 months ago
@drkstrong are you saying you don't believe HAARP exists? watch?v=u9ZT0Zk6m-s
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@TheBartman47 It exists, so what?
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong I was unclear whether you were saying HAARP doesn't exist, or if you just meant it wasn't part of any conspiracy theory. If you were saying it doesn't exist, I was supplying proof that it does exist. If you agree it exists, that is all, carry on. However, if you would like to see some of the cool projects they are doing with it, the video link I gave shows a few interesting things it can do (however, some side effects could cause unpredictable weather pattern changes).
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@eagle1023 the spraying from planes is a water barium copper mix i think.its for a radar mapping program ,operation sumthing sumthing ,cant remember the name but basically the metals in the atmosphere enhance radar capability,all air transport company's spray this stuff on mass
MrBrianDunbar 2 months ago
@drkstrong the spraying from planes is a water barium copper mix i think.its for a radar mapping program ,operation sumthing sumthing ,cant remember the name but basically the metals in the atmosphere enhance radar capability,all air transport company's spray this stuff on mass .could elevated levels of reflective ,conductive metals in the atmosphere be adding to the effect?and if so why aren't they factored in when calculating air density,thermal conduction
MrBrianDunbar 2 months ago
(continued)
..owns the mass media, which means that most of the information the public AND the scientific community gets to hear is exactly what 'big oil' wants them to hear.
I have become very skeptical of both mass media AND the scientific community, because they have been bought and paid for by oil profiteers.
So, who should we believe?
(Cheers, Dr Strong, for your awesome chnanel! I love it!!!)
crazy8sdrums 2 months ago
@crazy8sdrums Where do you get the impression that science is paid for by the energy, oil, gas, and coal industries? They indeed spend a lot of money but mainly to undermine the scientific community - they are on very different side of the fence (except a few toadies who will do or say anything for $s or political dogma).
drkstrong 2 months ago
(continued)
Do I ask this to challenge your view of this global warming study? No. It is pretty obvious that we pollute our Earth on a massive scale, and even though we have become more cautious about it in the last couple decades, it still is not enough. Hydrocarbons are NOT the right solution for energy.
The problem is that most, if not all, of modern science is funded in large part by those who profit from using oil-based energy. Additionally, big oil also owns the mass media... (cont)
crazy8sdrums 2 months ago
Although it is outside the scope of this video, I want to share an observation... (because it is relevant when defining the word 'science'.)
If 'science' is testable and observable, how can we deem the concepts of 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' as being scientifically valid? Neither are 'testable' as they have proven to be completely unobservable.
Similar goes for subatomic 'particles'. If observation alters the outcome of the test, doesn't that detract from it being 'scientific'? (cont)
crazy8sdrums 2 months ago
@crazy8sdrums The concepts you mention are testable, in fact NASA is planning missions to test the very theories of dark energy and dark matter.
CERN and Fermi Labs have been finding subatomic particles for decades.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@crazy8sdrums Ah.. you'd be wrong there.
Dark matter and dark energy can't be seen with our eyes because it seems photons don't directly interact with them.
However, because they both warp spacetime (have gravity) the create gravitational lensing, a concept inferred by Einstein's relativity.
Here:
watch?v=7xKFrdzhM2Y
and
watch?v=vIHDsrVECfE
So you see... you can see dark matter.
How wrong can you be?
bernzeppi 2 months ago
Someone needs to ask why are they doing aerial spraying to reduce global warming since global warming doesn't exist. Most of the destruction to crops, animals, trees, water and food contamination is being caused from Chemtrails, and geo-engineering is an excuse to do this, not the reason. The reason most would never believe. Stop chemtrails or suffer the consequences.
Robin18us 2 months ago
@Robin18us yea theyre spraying like crazy here east coast usa.i filmed that shit finally cus you tell your regular brainwashed zombie sheeple mind controlled bug eyed floride drinking comunist schooled homo is ok thinking moron they think im insane. well i got the proof now fart breath
AntiTurd 2 months ago
i could give a shit that the SCIENTISTS say one way or the other---I have eyes and I can see that the world is warming up and the shit is is hitting the fan...wake up people -don't listen to these lying ass-wipes.
toetag88 2 months ago
@toetag88 While I agree witgh you seniments - I dont agree with the name calling. You are being grossly unfair to ass wipes! :)
drkstrong 2 months ago
99% of all americans are wrong,they spend like money is water,and cry when they are broke,a rich person is rich because of saving more then they use.
imatelly 2 months ago
@imatelly 100% of people, not just americans, are wrong about something
drkstrong 2 months ago 2
the earth is 6000 years old.prove me wrong.anyone.global warming is a lie.wake up zombie sheeple time is almost up.Jesus is Lord.Jesus is your only chance.nothing else matters
AntiTurd 2 months ago
@AntiTurd You are way off topic but ....
Isotopes, fossils, continental drift, sedimentary rock formations, Human habitations dating to over 100,000 years ago, distant (>6000 LY) stars visible, Sun's position on the Main Sequence, ...... So proved you wrong. Now what?
drkstrong 2 months ago 2
@drkstrong All of those can be explained by Creation Scientists....Who by the way win about 7 out of 10 debates with Evolution Scientists as can be seen here on youtube. I went through High school hearing all about evolution and never converted because the evidence didn't convince me....Missing Links in just about all the classes and Phylas, reliability factors with the dating methods and several other reasons but to each their own. We're all religious.
someguy6978 2 months ago
@someguy6978 There is no such thing as creation science. It cant be tested and there is no observational evidnce or mathematical model so it aint science, it is superstition.
I hope you dont take any medications or flu injections - because most depend the theory of evolution.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong medications or flu injections do NOT depend on evolution theory (nor do they depend on creation theory either). However, even if they did depend on evolution theory, that would be a hindrance to the theory, since flu vaccines do not work, and in fact are actually harmful to most people. Also, to say creation science can not be tested is incorrect. It is origins that can not be tested (whether creation model or evolution model). Your definition also makes evolution not science.
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@TheBartman47 My wife works in microbiology and suggests you read some basic biology text books. The fact that they have to make up a different vaccine every year shows that the flu virus is evolving. The vaccines have to be made to block the new strains so depend on understanding the evolution of the virus, so depend on evolution theory.
Evolution is observatble and testable and can be reproduced by experiment. Thus is science. Again crack a biology book and become more informed.
drkstrong 2 months ago 3
@drkstrong Are you sure about the science of evolution? If Darwin's theory is correct, then how is it that so many human beings fail to evolve where intellectual capacity, comprehension skills or serious thought/inquiry are concerned? After reading some of the responses you've accumulated with this video offering, I'm seeing the devolution of a species - far from evolution. ;) Thanks for keeping intellectual honesty alive!
eagle1023 2 months ago
@eagle1023 This is soul school we are only just steping out of a long dark age. It takes many lives to learn all the lessons a mature soul needs to learn before graduation--look up Itzak Bentov he's one-he died in airplane crash just as he was putting out his new view of the universe-his wife has put out the rest
ladycress 2 months ago
@drkstrong lol I think some of these people are not fully evolved to understand you.. ha ! Ha!
o0PocoMax0o 2 months ago
@drkstrong I'm quite knowledgeable on biology and well aware of strain variations, just as there are many varieties of dogs. This is NOT evolution. True evolution would require an addition of NEW genetic code, not simply rearangement or variation or even loss of genetic code. Creation theory regularly affirms that there are indeed many variations of flu virus, etc. but this is where the line is drawn: a virus can not evolve into a dog. That has never been observed or tested and isn't scientific
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@TheBartman47 Each generation is a new genetic code - as the DNA and RNA are not copied exactly. So each generation is the missing link between the last and the next - the best variations for the environment at the time survive and breed.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong and I am the missing link between my son and my father (duh). My son did not evolve from me, he got a variation of copied components of genetic code from me. You keep giving examples of variation in species, which all creationist agree is good science, but you still haven't given a true example of evolution. All the varieties of dogs, from Great Dane to Chihuahua, all came from a common ancestor (a dog), but NOT from a fish or banana ancestor which is the evolution model.
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@TheBartman47 But the dog did come from a fish as there was life in the sea long before it appeared on land - you can follow the origins of dogs and wolves back tot he miacids and before that to therapids and so on back in time to their ocean origins. Just look it up.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong HA, now I've got you... please observe, demonstrate, or repeat the test to prove your claims that a dog came from a fish. You can't do it, and therefore, it's not scientific.
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@TheBartman47 Sorry you just got yourself because if you follow the directions I just gave you you can see all the stages how a dog can be traced back to a fish.
Do try to pay attention.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong You still don't understand that simply drawing lines between things is not proof. By the same methods, I could "prove" that cars evolved from bicycles. Again, prove with a direct observation, demonstration, and a repeatable test to change a fish into a dog. If you can't take a fish and perform the experiment right there in the lab and come out with a dog, it is not scientific. Look, I freely admit that creation theory is unprovable, but evolution is too for the same reason.
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@TheBartman47 It is not "simply drawing lines between things" - read a few paleontology books.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong I have read paleontology books, and they still use examples proven fake and fraud years ago. I suggest you take a critical look at some of the things these books include instead of swallowing it hook, line, and sinker. Example in the supposed horse evolution chart, the number of ribs varies within the series, up and down, between 15, 19 and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six. There are Clydesdales and miniature horses living today.
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@TheBartman47 The variations in dogs, horses, sheep, cows, etc are the result of man taking advantage of evolution and choosing to breed to excentuate changes and mutations. Just like the apple trees - many poorer, a few better.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong I agree most variations far removed from the original are poor (a chihuahua dog is totally useless and would be the first dog eaten by a predator out in the wild). But again, variations are NOT evolution. The general theory of evoultion proposes that a dog can come from a fish. Creation theory states dogs come from dogs and can have great variation in their appearance and form, but they're still a dog. A great dane and a chihuahua are dramatically different, but they're both dogs.
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@TheBartman47 Are you being deliberately dense? The theory of evolution says that different forms of animals evolve from earlier version over thousands of generations, not instantly. Thus each generation inperseptibly different from the the last (unless you look at the DNA)
Humans have about 0.5% dna range. A chimp's dna is over 98% of human dna. A Dog 75%
As it takes about 10MY to change 2 %, it means we had a common ancestor with dogs over 100 My ago.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong Wow, you're way out of date on your statistics. Better go look up just what the current estimated percentage of similarity of chimp DNA to humans is. Also, what about those who believe in puncutated equilibrium version of evolution? That was dreamed up because there were so many problems and impossibilities with your version of "inperseptibly different" version. However, no verifiable evidence exists to back up either type.
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@TheBartman47 More unsubstaniated assertions.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong You made the unsubstantiated assertions. I challenged your statistics and the burden of proof is on you.
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@TheBartman47 I gave you a way to look at the evidence - you ignore it and keep stating the same old same old over and over again. This thread is about global warming - start one on evolution and we can discuss it there - better yet I'll have my wife who works in the field of micro biology set you straight but first read some biology books - for your own sake.
I also gave early on an example of evolution where the product is not the same creature as the original. The Flu Virus.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong you are obviously closed minded to any correction in your preconceived notions. You are so blind to your own example of the flu virus... It's still a flu virus!!! It is the same type creature! Yes, it has changed from the original flu virus, (microevolution, which all creationists agree happens and is scientific), but it is still a flu virus. It has not changed into something that is not a virus. You are the one restating the same junk over and over, and I HAVE read biology books.
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@drkstrong You're giving percentages but you're not including the percentage of that genetic make up that is essential to life...(Junk DNA). All Living things have a large percentage in common...Even plants. Their similarities are used to theorize evolution when the same similarities point to a single source.
someguy6978 2 months ago
@someguy6978 Don't assume I'm claiming that evolution claims a Dog can evolve into a cat...I have read on the theory and I realize this isn't the claims being made. Simply making a point to show that to me the evidence is against evolution and small changes that have been observed to show evolution are not permanent changes....They are adaptations and not evolution. Darwins Finches...They're beaks grew in size and shortened repeatedly for example...Those changes were not permanent.
someguy6978 2 months ago
@drkstrong Again we disagree, Models and predictions can be made using creation Science. Your bias is a result of your faith which don't attend. Evolution is simply a theory that says because things are similar, they are likely related although there are exceptions. I also disagree that Medications and flu Injections are based on Evolution...They are based on a field of Science that Spawned Evolution. There are people with Biology degrees that dispute the theory of Evolution entirely.
someguy6978 2 months ago
@someguy6978 Models can be amd eof anything. I can predict every football result fot he next decade. None of that means that they are right. Science is TESTIBLE AND OBSERVABLE.
Please give a single repeatable test of creation science. Please give us an observation of creation science.
Good Luck!
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong I might be able to help you out with the experiments and tests actually....(I've got Google) First I'm curious as to the tests of Evolution...
someguy6978 2 months ago
@someguy6978 Then look them up - they abound
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong I tried to find an example of a repeatable test or experiment proving Evolution....Couldn't find any.
someguy6978 2 months ago
@someguy6978 I I just did a google search & got 3.5 million hits - you arent looking very hard
There was a contest was between an evolutionary model & designers to create the smallest efficient radio transmitter. The engineers produced several very efficient designs based on decades of experience. The model stared with random wires & randomly evolved a million designs. Took the best 100 & evolved them randomly many times. The model won - it was smaller &much more efficient but looked very odd
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong Only problem is...None of those tests show evolution...None that I saw anyway...They can just as easily be used to test Creation.
The design the device the engineer used had the base components needed to operate though. Inserting random wires and components otherwise is highly unlikely to work.
The fact is that Evolution and Creation are both based on Science and Faith....I personally ascribe to the creation explanation.
someguy6978 2 months ago
@someguy6978 Evolution can't be tested or observed....There are elements of science which Evolution has latched onto in order to appear "Scientific" and those elements can be tested but the theory of evolution itself can not...Unless I missed something....
someguy6978 2 months ago
@someguy6978 Evolution is both observed AND tested!
In fact it is used in engineering both biological and non-biological.
Your flue vaccine for instance.
You are a complete dunce aren't you?
You can't have finished school.
What a whack-job!
bernzeppi 2 months ago
@someguy6978 Apparently you did not read the discussion
The test was simple random wires - pass a current and see waht they do. Choose any that work and evolve them randomly and test again. Select the best and keep doing the same thing over an over again until the design meets the requirements. In fact NASA flew one of these on its first microsat program - it worked perfectly.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong So they first established the ones that work?
That's Akin to a Doctor getting a living person and surgically re attaching an extra arm to the persons stomach or something and claiming that because he was able to make the arm work, evolution must be true.
someguy6978 2 months ago
@someguy6978 So does evolution - the new forms - the ones that work live the ones that dont dont.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong So you're saying that enough opportunities occurred for evolution to work?
That's your belief, I personally can't wrap my mind around that...The odds are too great and I don't have that much faith. I believe that changes happen within a closed system but although a Dog may change in shape and size...It's still a Dog. This is why there are numerous insect fossils "from millions of years ago" that look exactly like they do today.
someguy6978 2 months ago
@someguy6978 Some species last for 100 millions of years - if there is no pressure on their ecological niche then changes dont have much effect in fact might be bad so the same line dominates. But if the environment becomes unfavourable to the base design then those with adaptations to the new environemtn thrive and the old line dies out.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong Speaking of which, According to creation the entire planet was basically wrapped in a layer of water which would create a hydroponic system and as you know, plants and life in general, gets bigger in a Hydroponic system...This would explain the size of Dinosaurs pre flood. The earth has went through all kinds of changes though, I find it hard to believe that the same insect could survive best as is through extreme heat and cold
someguy6978 2 months ago
@someguy6978 How would you test creation?
Why doesn't god send me a message?
How come Jesus knew nothing about quantum physics?
How come human bones aren't found below dinosaurs in the fossil record... god created man first didn't he?
Why did god create a 2 headed child recently?
bernzeppi 2 months ago
@bernzeppi Why do u say Jesus didn't know anything about physics? He made some miracles that indeed have to do with physics. Do you know nothing about science? Science is in the bible.
Licmycat 2 months ago
@drkstrong and observable and repeatable test of creation science is done every day by farmers and ranchers. Corn crops keep producing corn, and cows keep having more cows, just as the creation theory predicts. Evolution theory says these can produce completely different TYPES of animals (not just different species, which again is simply another variation of the same type). Genetically modified organisms is a good example of why evolution doesn't work. GMO seed are sterile by the next crop.
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@TheBartman47 GMO are sterile to the next crop because GMO crops are designed to be sterile as a safety measure - it is a legal requirement.
Having lived in a farming area (we grew cider apples), I learned by the time I was about 7 that the only way to get an identical apple tree was to propagate by cuttings or grafting. If I planted seeds from our apples we might get a similar apple, or a better one or a completely usueless one (the most common outcome). Each was different form the parents.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong GMO are sterile not for safety, but for financial reasons (forces the farmer to always buy seed from monsanto instead of saving some of their crop).
You still miss the point... all those different apples you mention are still apples! You NEVER once got an orange tree or a pear tree (or a partridge in a pear tree). Why do you keep using a strawman argument? Creation theory does NOT say apples will be identical, but evolution says apples can turn into oranges!
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@TheBartman47 But they are not sterile because they are not working to evolution but becayuse their designers want them to be.
Actually it is you again who miss the point, the changes are not instant not do they change from one existing thing to another they evolve over many generations and eventually become different things.
The descentants of a creature that lived 30 million years ago, pierolapithecus, became chimps, humans, Gorillas, and the other great apes.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong You can not directly observe, demonstrate, or test that. No one is going to live for 30 million years to wait for evolution to happen. It must be accepted on faith that these claims actually happened 30 million years ago.
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@TheBartman47 Nobody is going to live 150 years so the american civil war did not happen? Lunacy.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong No one can "prove" the civil war happened either, in the strictest since of the word, but there is much evidence that leads to a reasonable conclusion that the civil war happened. I could dig up Abraham Lincoln and see the bullet hole, I could rumage through old photographs, etc. But what can you show me that indicates one animal can have offspring of a completely different type than itself? Why don't we see any evolution today? Why are ALL observed mutations harmful and de-evolving?
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@TheBartman47 They arent.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong "they arent"? Please name one mutation that is beneficial then. (oh, and if you think the standard answer to this challenge is sickle cell anemia because it makes one resistant to malaria, that is like saying people with amputated feet is beneficial because now they won't get athleet's foot.)
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@TheBartman47 I gacve you one earlier - the apple trees we used to grow.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong that's not evolution, they're still apples.
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@TheBartman47 You are confusing long term evolution with the individual steps. The change in the apples shows that change can and does take place. If that goes on for long enough you no longer have an apple but something else.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong That's never been shown, only theorized when in fact evidence suggests that a species can only adapt to a certain point and if it's environment is still too harsh, that species goes extinct. A Dog can come in all shapes and sizes but it's obvious, it's still a Dog....All of those changes are predetermined and none are permanent. Kinda like our immune system..It can change to a degree to fight bacteria but it has a limit which is why some types of bacteria are deadly.
someguy6978 2 months ago
@drkstrong It is you who are confusing macroevolution with microevolution. Microevolution happens all the time (variation in apples) but macroevolution does not happen, has never been observed nor tested in a lab (going from an apple to something not an apple). The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate macroevolution. All evolutionist ever do is pass it off as taking millions of years. Evidence of microevolution is NOT evidence of macroevolution. There are genetic boundaries preventing such.
TheBartman47 2 months ago
@drkstrong Any changes you noted in the apple can be over time bred out of it and it will return to it's original form. If all life evolved in a similar way than even though they are far apart on the evolutionary chain and I realize evolution doesn't claim that they are related but just to try and make a point...A Dog can not be bred into a cat and vice versa...Or a Zebra etc etc...They will always be and evidence shows that they have always been what they are today.
someguy6978 2 months ago
@drkstrong but if we evolved from apes why did we loose two sets of cromazones, chimps and apes have two more than us also they are 5 times our strength in comparison .why would we loose that strength and genetic material?its like we were re engineered at some point to be smarter in terms of problem sorting but weaker overall it does'nt make sense .and every other animal fits into a food chain .we fit no where.
MrBrianDunbar 2 months ago
@drkstrong And Global Warming may be happening but it's not man made. It's gotten hot in the past and cold as well for that matter.
someguy6978 2 months ago
@someguy6978 You say GW is not man made based on what? The fact that it has gotten colder and warmer in the past (BTW all of that evidience depends on the Earth being very old) is irelevant because all those chanegs are understood by natural variations and the factors that made it warmer in the past are not operating at the moment and for th emost part cant act that quickly (<50 years)
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong Actually none of that evidence is predicated on a old world. The middle ages for example had a very hot period
someguy6978 2 months ago
@someguy6978 That has nothing to do with a new world either.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong that proves nothing at all.carbon data is unreliable,research it. Better yet watch one of Kent Hovind's lectures or debates,he can say it much better than i can
AntiTurd 2 months ago
@AntiTurd I just did. He is a snake oil salesman - very slick and has an ego the size of the planet. He says nothing you can check and certainly nothing scientific.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong search this Evolution Creation The Truth and throw away the closed mind befor you watch it.everything you said can be disproven.your just a victem of puplic school brainwashing its not your fault
AntiTurd 2 months ago
@AntiTurd I have looked at these sites (mainly for their amusement value) and they are scientific trash. If it can be disproven - then take just one and try to disprove it. Otherwise you are making unsubstaniated claims. This isnt poker where buff and bravado count, it is science - you need evidence. You have none.
PS I did not go to your public your pathetic public school system.
drkstrong 2 months ago
@drkstrong Hey! Hey Hey!!! I went to one of those pathetic public school system. lol
How are you doing today Dr Strong. lol Keep up the good work!!
o0PocoMax0o 2 months ago
@drkstrong dude you obviously didnt watch anything i pointed you to.i see your mind is made up .its a shame but the bottom line is either you believe in God or you believe in evolution.and why in the world did you send me links to global warming nonsense.lmao you totally got off the subject.any moron with 3 or more working brain cells knows global warming is a hoax.what is kind of funny is you uploaded a movie saying global warming is a scam then you try to say its real..lol later
AntiTurd 2 months ago
@AntiTurd How could I have not watched something I quote from?
In case you hadnt noticed it s you that is off topic - this is a thread about global warming.
drkstrong 2 months ago