Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Would you bet on Evolution?

I have been told by believers in Darwinian evolution that it is a fact and that it is how life came about from non-life. So in an effort to research it as fairly as possible I went to that secular source of all knowledge; Wikipedia. I thought that if anywhere would provide a pro-evolution view Wikipedia would be the place, and Wikipedia lived up to my expectations in that regard.

To get started I simply went to the evolution page on Wikipedia.
To find the very origin point of life according to evolutionary theory, the starting point if you will, the very first organism, I thought the best place to look is on the evolutionist "tree of life" which is supposed to graph the accent of life from its first origins according to evolutionary theory.
So here is the evolutionist's supposed tree of life as presented by Wikipedia.

You may need to zoom in to read the text on the picture.
Even when you do you will find it confusing because the tree does not actually tell us what is at the root. Yes thats correct, the first life form is unidentified by evolutionary theory.
So if you try to take the next step and see what that first life-form evolved into next, you will find that it is going in two different branches, but the forks in those branches which represent the next step in evolution are not identified either, so you don't know what is the first step and you don't know what the second step is either, then you go to the next branch and you find that fork is not identified either. In fact NONE of the the forks in the branches of the evolutionist “tree of life” are identified to show what the alleged common ancestors are of the eventual final life forms.
Well lets ignore that obvious hole in their evidence, and go to the lowest identifiable life form in the tree presented to us.
It is the the Nonoarchaeum Equitans and here is what Wikipedia has to say about it. (and remember they are pro-evolution)

“Nanoarchaeum equitans
is a species of tiny microbe, discovered in 2002 in a hydrothermal vent off the coast of Iceland by Karl Stetter. Since it grows in temperatures approaching boiling, it is considered to be a thermophile. Nanoarchaeum appears to be an obligatory symbiont on the archaeon Ignicoccus; it must be in contact with the host organism to survive. Its cells are only 400 nm in diameter, making it the next smallest known living organism, excepting possibly nanobacteria and nanobes, whose status as living organisms are controversial. Its genome is only 490,885 nucleotides long; the smallest non-viral genome ever sequenced next to C. ruddii's in 2006.” (emphasis added)

Now considering that it has 490,885 nucleotides, and there are four types of nucleotides (A,T,G & C) then the chance of getting these connected in the right sequence by accident is 4 to the power of 490,885. which is a number big enough to blow up my calculator, so I could not calculate it exactly but it is something in the order of 10 to the power of 30,000. which means a 1 with 30,000 zeros added after it.

Here is the details on its symbiont partner organism

Now what about that even smaller proteobacterium the C.ruddii? I hear you ask.
Well here is the article about it on Wikipedia.
It lives in a symbiotic relationship with psyllids (plant sap eating insects)
But hold on, this is the smallest non-viral genome ever sequenced and the closest to that all important first life form, so why is it dependent upon its survival for a higher life form to first exist that it can be in symbiotic relationship with? And also how can the psyllid have come about before the arrival of the C.Ruddi which it needs to digest its food?
Now the C.Ruddi only has a DNA nucleotide sequence of 159,662 pairs so the chances of getting this to happen by chance are much better at just 4 to the power of 159,662.
Again the number is big enough to blow up my calculator but it comes out to something like 10 to the power of 9000, which is a 1 with 9000 zeros added after it.

Then when you look at the psyllid (plant sap eating insect) you will find that it first requires plants to have existed that they can feed from. (sounds logical to me)

Well maybe we are barking up the wrong tree with these symbiont forms of life. What we need is to look at the smallest free-living form of life.
It is the Mycoplasma Genitalium and here is the article about it on Wikipedia:
The following is a quote from that article:
Mycoplasma genitalium is a small parasitic bacterium which lives on the ciliated epithelial cells of the primate genital and respiratory tracts. M. genitalium is the smallest known free-living bacterium, and the second-smallest bacterium after the recently-discovered endosymbiont Carsonella ruddii. Until the discovery of Nanoarchaeum in 2002, M. genitalium was also considered to be the organism with the smallest genome.[1]” (emphasis added)

Well well well, it is not symbiotic, but it is parasitic, and so it still needs higher forms of life to survive. In fact it is living in the genitalia of a higher life form which means that it is parasitic on sexually reproducing life forms; so was it the ancestor of the sexually reproducing animal or was it a descendant of them? Considering that it needs the host in order to survive, it must have waited a long time for these sexually reproducing life forms to come along before it could first evolve.
Additionally to this nightmare of logic, the number of nucleotide base pairs for the Mycoplasma Genitalium is 582,970.
Sorry but thats worse than all the others. There is statistically no chance of its DNA sequence being randomly generated by evolutionary processes; and it owes me a new calculator!

For point of reference, your chances of winning the lottery are 1 in 45,379,620 which is 4.5 times 10 to the power of 7.
So compare that with 10 to the power of 9000 (or more) to win the evolutionary lotto.  Realistically you got no chance at all.

You wouldn't bet your life on winning the lottery, so don't bet your life on evolution; its a long odds horse, and a nag which is sure to die before it finishes the race. In fact with odds like that it will probably die before it reaches the starting gate.
Is there a divine Creator of life? You can bet there is.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Proof that Evolution fails - Dean Kenyon

Even though abiogenesis had been proven false by Ferdinand Cohn within 20 years of Darwin’s The Origin of Species being released, evolutionary theory not allowing itself to acknowledge design, still needed to come up with a theory how the very first life could have come about in the absence of an Intelligent Designer. Over 100 years later in 1969 Dean Kenyon with co-author Gary Steinman became the darlings of evolutionary discussion with their book Biochemical Predestination. In that book Kenyon proposed that the chemical properties of amino acids caused them to be attracted to each other forming the long chains that became the first proteins and, this proposed that life was, effectively, inevitable. Predestined by nothing more than chemistry. Evolutionists ate up the idea and for at least the next decade biochemical predestination dominated evolutionary theories of abiogenesis.
Dean Kenyon received a BSc in physics from the University of Chicago in 1961 and a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University in 1965. In 1965-1966 he was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, a Research Associate at NASA-Ames Research Center. In 1966 he became Assistant Professor at San Francisco State University until 1969.
In 1969, Kenyon and coauthor Gary Steinman published Biochemical Predestination, a book on the origins of life advocating a theory of natural chemical evolution. The book gained international attention putting well and truly abiogenesis back on the map of evolutionary theory. Kenyon was promoted to Associate Professor at SFSU from 1969 to 1974. In 1974 he was a Visiting Scholar to Trinity College, Oxford

In 1976 Prof Kenyon was confronted by one of his students with the challenge of how abiogenesis worked in the absence of DNA. Prof Kenyon concluded upon deep consideration that it couldn’t work. The reality that Professor Kenyon had to face was that DNA is the instructions of how to build life, and without those instructions just having the basic elements available could not produce the end product of life, so one needs to explain where the instructions came from. Dr Kenyon realized that his theory of biochemical predestination simply could not work and that the information found in DNA could only be generated from an intelligent source. DNA could simply not be produced by random processes. In 1980, the SFSU Department of Biology had a dispute with Prof Kenyon over a presentation of Intelligent Design theories in Biology module 337 Evolution. The ID theories provide a solution to the source of DNA design by simply proposing the obvious, that an intelligent source designed the DNA. At that time, Kenyon challenged anyone and everyone on the faculty to debate him. But a vote was had instead to prevent teaching of Intelligent Design theories. 

In 1989 Professor Kenyon released with co-author Percival Davis the book “Of Pandas and People” providing arguments in support of Intelligent Design. The book caused a great controversy, not least because of Prof Kenyon’s previously idolized status within the evolutionary camp. Having its lead proponent pull the rug from under abiogenesis theory has sent shock waves throughout the evolutionary camp and reactionary elements have sought to prevent any further questioning of evolutionary theory. To this end evolution supporters have gone on a campaign to attempt to ban the teaching of Intelligent Design theories in schools and universities.
Regardless of the efforts of evolutionists to keep Darwinian theory alive in some likeness of artificial life support, it appears that Darwin's theories are breathing their last breath and will soon be relegated to the shelf along side of so many other theories that have come in and out of favor over time.

Proof that Evolution fails- Ferdinand Cohn

Ferdinand Cohn – the Jewish microbiologist and plant physiologist in 1876 disproved the idea that life could evolve from non-living materials.

Ferdinand Cohn started his higher studies at the University of Breslau where, as a Jew, he could not be admitted to the candidacy for the doctor’s degree. So instead he received his Ph.D. from the University of Berlin, at the young age of 19. In 1850 Cohn was named lecturer at the University of Breslau. He became extraordinary professor there in 1859 and finally became ordinary professor of botany at the university in 1871.

In 1866 Cohn founded and in 1872 became the director of the Institute of Plant Physiology at the University of Breslau; this was the first institute of plant physiology in the world. Cohn’s early research centred on the unicellular algae, the simplest forms of plant life. He applied to these organisms the principle that the phases of growth of microscopic plants could be learned only by observing every stage of their development under the microscope.

Just as differences in the youthful and adult appearance of an oak or a fern are traced by direct observation, so he studied the growth patterns of unicellular algae. His accounts of the life histories of a number of algae species were of permanent value, and in 1855 he helped to establish the existence of sexual processes in algae, specifically in Sphaeroplea. He also instituted marked reforms in the classification of algae.

About 1868 Cohn started to study bacteria. From his accurate studies of their bodily form he was among the first to arrange the different varieties of bacteria into genera and species on a systematic basis. In 1870 Cohn founded a new journal entitled Beitr├Ąge zur Biologie der Pflanzen (“Contributions to the Biology of Plants”), in which he played such a large part that it came to be known as “Cohn’s Beitr├Ąge.” Many of the founding papers of bacteriology were to be published in this journal.
Among Cohn’s most striking contributions was his discovery of the formation and germination of spores (called endospores) in certain bacteria, particularly in Bacillus subtilis. He was also the first to note endospores’ resistance to high temperatures, and by his observations he was able to refute contemporary experiments that seemed to lend support to the theory of “spontaneous generation”.

Spontaneous Generation as defined at the time meant the ideas both that; life could generate from non-living matter (eg: primordial soup), or that life could generated from dead organic matter, (eg: random protein strings or dead DNA matter). Cohn explained the quick reappearance of bacteria in thoroughly boiled flasks of hay and turnip–cheese infusions by speculating that the bacteria within them had thermo-resistant spores and were thus able to survive the boiling intact, after which they reverted to their normal reproductive stages. This theory was later proved to be correct. He was thus able to refute other bacteriologists’ assumptions that all the bacteria in the boiled infusions had been killed by the heat, and he showed the fallacy of their reliance on abiogenesis & heterogenesis as the only remaining explanations.

Ferdinand Cohn’s testable and repeatable experiment proved that abiogenesis (as proposed in the primordial soup theory) does not work. Furthermore his experiment also proved that heterogenesis (self generating life from proteins like those in the Urey/Miller experiment) also does not work. It may be possible to get some useless assorted proteins (and toxic bi-products) but they won’t come to life.

This same principle is employed every day by companies in packaging food products in cans. Canned meat or vegetables are packed into tin cans and heated up enough to kill off even the thermo resistant bacteria. Irradiation is sometimes used also. These cans of veritable “primordial” soup contain lots of proteins, amino acids, DNA, & chromosomes, but when you open it up there is no life. This is because neither abiogenesis nor heterogenesis work. Open a can of tinned soup and see for yourself. There is no life in the can because evolutionary theory cannot explain the existence of life.

Here is a definition of Abiogenesis from

"the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation."

To put it simply, life was created, and created with such intelligence that it is adaptable to survive.
Christians agree that changes within species occur. Christian and Jews have been selectively breeding animals for thousands of years to get particular desirable traits. This speciation is fact, but there is not evidence at all to support wild theories like Darwin's claim that all life came from some primordial soup.
Let us not forget the sound science of Ferdinand Cohn that disproves abiogenesis each time we open a can of food.

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Why does God allow bad things to happen?

One of the most common objections to Christianity is the question, "Why does God allow bad things to happen?".
So maybe it is worth us taking a look at it for a while.

Since I like to philosophize about things I guess I should first ask the question, what do we mean by "bad"?

Here are a some of the many definitions listed at

bad 1 [bad] adjective,worse, worst; (Slang) bad·der, bad·dest for 36; noun; adverb

1. not good in any manner or degree.
2. having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible: There is no such thing as a bad boy.
3. of poor or inferior quality; defective; deficient: a bad diamond; a bad spark plug.
4. inadequate or below standard; not satisfactory for use: bad heating; Living conditions in some areas are very bad.
5. inaccurate, incorrect, or faulty: a bad guess.
6. invalid, unsound, or false: a bad insurance claim; bad judgment.
7. causing or liable to cause sickness or ill health; injurious or harmful: Too much sugar is bad for your teeth.
8. suffering from sickness, ill health, pain, or injury; sick; ill: He felt bad from eating the green apples.
9. not healthy or in good physical condition; diseased, decayed, or physically weakened: A bad heart kept him out of the army.
10. tainted, spoiled, or rotten, esp. to the point of being inedible: The meat is bad because you left it out of the refrigerator too long.
11. having a disastrous or detrimental effect, result, or tendency; unfavorable: The drought is bad for the farmers. His sloppy appearance made a bad impression.
12. causing or characterized by discomfort, inconvenience, uneasiness, or annoyance; disagreeable; unpleasant: I had a bad flight to Chicago.
13. easily provoked to anger; irascible: a bad temper.
14. cross, irritable, or surly: If I don't have my morning coffee, I'm in a bad mood all day.
15. more uncomfortable, persistent, painful, or dangerous than usual; severe: a bad attack of asthma.
16. causing or resulting in disaster or severe damage or destruction: a bad flood.
17. regretful, contrite, dejected, or upset: He felt bad about having to leave the children all alone.
18. disobedient, naughty, or misbehaving: If you're bad at school, you'll go to bed without supper.
19. disreputable or dishonorable: He's getting a bad name from changing jobs so often.
20. displaying a lack of skill, talent, proficiency, or judgment: a bad painting; Bad drivers cause most of the accidents.
21. causing distress; unfortunate or unfavorable: I'm afraid I have bad news for you.
22. not suitable or appropriate; disadvantageous or dangerous: It was a bad day for fishing.
23. inclement; considered too stormy, hot, cold, etc.: We had a bad winter with a lot of snow.
24. disagreeable or offensive to the senses: a bad odor.
25. exhibiting a lack of artistic sensitivity: The room was decorated in bad taste.
26. not in keeping with a standard of behavior or conduct; coarse: bad manners.
27. (of a word, speech, or writing)

a. vulgar, obscene, or blasphemous: bad language.
b. not properly observing rules or customs of grammar, usage, spelling, etc.; incorrect: He speaks bad English.
28. unattractive, esp. because of a lack of pleasing proportions: She has a bad figure.
29. (of the complexion) marred by defects; pockmarked or pimply; blemished: bad skin.
30. not profitable or worth the price paid: The land was a bad buy.
31. Commerce. deemed uncollectible or irrecoverable and treated as a loss: a bad debt.
32. ill-spent; wasted: Don't throw good money after bad money.
33. counterfeit; not genuine: There was a bad ten-dollar bill in with the change.
34. having the character of a villain; villainous: In the movies the good guys always beat the bad guys.
35. Sports. failing to land within the in-bounds limits of a court or section of a court; missing the mark; not well aimed.
36. Slang. outstandingly excellent; first-rate: He's a bad man on drums, and the fans love him.

You will note that many of the definitions relate to the moral or qualitative value of something as a measure of its worth, but the more relevant definitions to the question "why do bad things happen?" are those definitions that focus on things which affect people, such as pain or suffering. I have highlighted in bold those definitions which I think are most relevant.

Lets examine (as an example) the following definition taken from above:
12. causing or characterized by discomfort, inconvenience, uneasiness, or annoyance; disagreeable; unpleasant: I had a bad flight to Chicago.

By this definition, a flight to Chicago might be considered "bad" because of maybe turbulence, or maybe the food did not taste nice, or maybe it the flight was delayed or diverted, or maybe the person got sick during the flight. Anything which causes "discomfort, inconvenience or uneasiness etc is a "bad" thing.

So lets ask ourselves, should God have prevented all those potential things from happening, and if he did not then does he not care?

Well then, should God prevent planes from being delayed? Well there must be a reason that the plane was delayed, maybe it was because of a late arrival at check-in. So to prevent that now God has to control the person who was running late so that they will be on time. Why were they late? Maybe they slept in. Is God responsible for controlling that? Well lets assume He is, so now God can be everybody's personal alarm clock in the morning to make sure that nobody is ever late again.

Okay well what about the air turbulence, should God have prevented that? Well the air turbulence is caused by weather patterns, which are governed by the seasons, the day and night, by ocean currents, and by land forestation, by solar activity levels, by cloud cover patterns, by geothermal activity and more, so what we are asking is for God to change all those things, which the survival of the planet depends upon, so that we can have a clear flight path without turbulence. Lets assume for a moment that God does that for us. Won't we then complain about how He has wrecked the rest of the world and only left us with clear skies?

So what about getting sick, should God be responsible for that?
All those bacteria everywhere, and we go and do something as simple as use a public amenity without properly washing our hands afterwards and then we get sick from some terrible bacteria. Should God be responsible for that? Well lets assume so. Maybe God should be responsible for cleaning public amenities, or maybe he should be responsible for washing our hands. Why should we in our supreme status be humbled to the level of doing these things ourselves? Maybe a better solution would be if God would just get rid of all the bacteria in the world. Then there would be no more problems would there? Well maybe, except the fact that we actually need bacteria to digest food in our stomachs, and we need bacteria to break down and decompose all the waste and dead things in the world. So I guess if we want all life in earth to die and fill up the earth with an undecomposable heap of garbage its a good idea.

Well you may be thinking now that those arguments make sense but what about the really nasty stuff?
What about if the plane crashed and everybody on board died. Shouldn't God have prevented that?

Well again we need to look at the fact that the plane crashed for a reason. There could be many possible reasons for a plane crash, but lets take for example one actual event that I recall happening where the tail of a plane fell off because the plane had been services and during the service, the bolts that hold the tail on had been replaced with non-genuine "equivalent parts" which turned out to actually be inferior to the genuine product. Was God responsible for checking those bolts? Was God responsible for installing those bolts? Was God responsible for choosing to install those bolts instead of the genuine bolts? Was God responsible for those bolts being represented as equivalent to the genuine bolts? Was God responsible for manufacturing those bolts? Was God responsible for designing those bolts?
At which point along the long chain of responsibility does God take control of people and say to them, "Hey you stay at home today and I will do your job for you and send you the pay-cheque as if you had actually done the work yourself". Maybe God should just put everyone out of work and do it all himself.
We can just send Him a list of all the things we want done and they will magically and perfectly be done.
Sure everyone in the world will be unemployed, but at least no disastrous mistakes will every happen again.

Well those things might be easily explainable, but what about the things which come from inside, like when you love someone and they reject you. That sort of suffering is probably as painful as anything else isn't it?
Should God step in and stop people for treating each other in hurtful ways, stop them from saying and doing things that hurt each other?

Well lets look at what it is about love that is so great, and why it hurts so much when we are rejected or treated hurtfully.

Would you enjoy being loved by someone who had been given a frontal lobotomy?
Would you enjoy being loved by someone who you knew actually hated you, but had undergone hypnosis therapy to brain-wash them into loving you involuntarily?
Would you pay an actor to pretend to love you?
Would you enjoy being loved by a robot that looked and sounded exactly like a human, but which loved you only because it had been programmed to and had no other choice?
They would each be passive and easily manipulated to tell you whatever you wanted to hear from them.

The reason that love is so rewarding is because the other person has chosen to love us voluntarily, not by compulsion, and this gives us a sense of self worth, a true sense of being loved.
God has created humans in His own image, and as much as we want to be loved by others by choice, so God wants to be loved by us by choice, not by compulsion. This is why God has given all people free-will to choose to do either right or wrong, to either love or to hate, to be kind or to be mean.

Yes it hurts when people choose to be unkind, but without that choice, we would be living in a world without love, and that would be the worst thing imaginable.
The Bible states, in 1 John 4:7-10.
"Dear friends, let us love one another, because love comes from God. Whoever loves is a child of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. And God showed his love for us by sending his only Son into the world, so that we might have life through him. This is what love is: it is not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the means by which our sins are forgiven."

God himself endured the trials of this unkind, unloving world, through the life of his Son, Jesus Christ.
Lets us accept the trials of this life, for we know that without free-will, there is no love, but God has come and revealed his love to us in Jesus Christ our Lord.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

G20, Climate Change, and the New World Order

In 2009 the G20 Pittsburgh summit revealed the G20 as being the leading group of controlling interests in the world economy. So to understand where the world is heading we should understand a little about what the economic and political vision is among the G20 leaders.

Protestors against the G20 claim that the G20 represent global capitalism, and they the protestors are opposing big corporate greed, but do the G20 really represent this political position of extreme capitalism portrayed by protestors?

Well first lets look at what capitalism means
Definitions vary, but the following from seems a reasonable summary.

"Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), is privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in markets; and profits distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries."

So Capitalism might be summarised with the following basic principals:
1. Commodities, materials, property, and money belong to individuals and individuals decide how, when and where they want to use, or spend their wealth
2. People are able to freely trade with others with their labour, goods, materials or wealth
3. Governments should have minimal interference in the first 2 principals

So now lets look at a definition of Socialism.
Again definitions vary but here is one from

"Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources. A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and method of resource allocation; often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labor expended or individual contribution."

So Socialism might be summarised with the following basic principals:
1. Commodities, materials, property, and money belong to the community, and the community should decide how, when and where they want to use, or spend the wealth.
2. The community will decide who gets what based on who is the most needy.
3. Governments (in a role of representing the community) will strictly control and administer principals 1 and 2 so that individuals don't seek their individual interest above the collective interest of the community.

Now that we understand Capitalism and Socialism, let's cast our gaze back at the G-20.

The G-20 is made up of the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries:

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America; The European Union, who is represented by the rotating Council presidency and the European Central Bank, is the 20th member of the G-20.

Of the 19 countries in the G-20, only 7 could be said to be ruled by conservative governments, which means that 12 of the 19 are libertarian or left central governments that are disposed to favouring the incorporation of strong elements of socialist principals into governance.
The European Union is governed by the European Parliament which consists of 736 members including 7 major parties, and other non-party members. The balance of conservative to libertarian members in the European Parliament is approximately even, so this does not change the great imbalance of libertarian to conservative representation in the G-20.

Together, member countries represent around 90 per cent of global gross national product, 80 per cent of world trade (including EU intra-trade) as well as two-thirds of the world's population. The G-20's economic weight and broad membership gives it a high degree of legitimacy and influence over the management of the global economy and financial system.

These factors have allowed the socialist libertarian movement to initiate a push for world governance which will redistribute the world's wealth in a socialist manner. Taxing richer nations to redistribute their wealth to poorer nations.

The mean by which this is to be achieved is the Kyoto protocol, the Copenhagen Agreement, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which will allow the United Nations to tax green house gas producing nations and give that money over to non-producing nations.
There is no agreement among scientist that climate change is either at problematic levels or that it is caused by human generated carbon emissions.

Leaders around the world including Kevin Rudd, Barack Obama, and Gordon Brown are all talking about a New World Order. This New World Order with global governance by the United Nations has been proposed for decades and is only now coming to fruition as socialist libertarians have gained the balance of global power.
This New World Order turns the whole world into one community and shares the wealth among that whole community, not on the basis of supply and demand, but upon the socialist principal of who has the most need.
This New World Order grants power supreme to those at the top that are enforcing this new global taxation of carbon emissions.

If there really was a problem with humans burning carbon based fuels, then the logical solution would be to stop issuing mining licenses, drilling licenses, export licenses, approvals for port expansions, because the amount of carbon being consumed can only be as much as we dig or drill out of the ground. Governments are not slowing down production of coal and oil, but they are increasing production. That is as plain evidence as you should need to know that carbon fuel use is not a problem.
The only reason that the politicians of the world are promoting the climate changes "crisis" is to give them an excuse to implement a socialist New World Order and a global taxation system.

Vladimir Lenin, drawing on Karl Marx's ideas of "lower" and "upper" stages of socialism defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Shouldn't Lenin's words ring warning bells among the free world, that the current push toward socialism is actually a transition to communism?

If you reflect upon history then you will know what happens when you give socialists absolute power.
Should we really risk giving socialist libertarians control of the world?