blackbird

The principle of complexity is the same. A basic cell for example has enormous amounts of data stored in it in order to control how it functions. This never happened by chance. It required an intelligent designer. The theory of evolution claims a process of natural selection causes an organism to evolve into a higher species. This has not been proven. The opposite is true. When a living thing mutates it loses information. It never increases in information. So the long strings of data in a cell could not have increased by mutations. Something had to have placed the data there in the beginning. Evolution cannot create data in cells. There is no mechanism to do that. The complexity of the human eye is a good example. There is no mechanism to create that other than an intelligent designer creating it in the beginning. There are no fossils that show things evolved from one species to another. So there is no fossil record to support the claim that man evolved from from some simpler life form.

The evidence for God is in the fact that the complex life forms all required an intelligent designer. If you found a wrist watch lying on the ground, you would assume that someone designed it. It never happened by chance. The natural world and humans are the same. They all required an intelligent designer. That is actual physical evidence for God. What is it about it that you don't see it? Did someone tell you what to believe? Natural selection, a foundational claim of evolutionists, has been shown to not be evolution at all. Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)

Sorry to disappoint you again, but the fossil record does not prove evolution. The fossil record shows the species that lived but not evolved. There is no evidence in fossils that anything evolved. You never read anything. The evidence refutes evolution. " Refuting Evolution—Chapter 2 A handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M. Variation and natural selection versus evolution Refuting Evolution chapter 2: Variation and natural selection versus evolution (creation.com)

Were you created by an intelligent designer or are you just an accidental blob of chemicals? If you find yourself in hell, which I hope you don't, perhaps you will realize you were wrong. Maybe there is more to it than you thought. The complex creation is all around you. Why can't you see it? Extremely complex things like human cells with massive amounts of information don't just happen by chance. Sorry it so hard for you to wrap your head around that.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no evidence for evolution. The claim that natural selection is a part of evolution has been refuted. That destroys the theory. Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com) The evidence for God is all around you in the creation.

Canada is a post national state. That is the problem. Canada has stopped believing it is a sovereign nation and now belongs to the U.N. Billions of dollars of our tax money goes to fund and support the third world. The message is out there that Canada is very generous and will support you. Any immigrant or illegal migrant is free to come to Canada and receive government support. No wonder they come in massive numbers from the third world. Who wouldn't? The word is out that Canada will support you.

Carbon dioxide is not pollution or toxic fume. It is a normal part of the atmosphere. Plants and trees require CO2 to survive.

"But whether variation is selected naturally by the environment, or artificially by breeders for a particular trait, it remains just that, ‘selection’ from existing genetic information. Nothing new is created." "Today’s Darwinists point to mutations as the mechanism which provides this novelty from which ‘Natural Selection’ selects. Evolutionists should then focus on mutations to defend their theory, instead of ‘Natural Selection’. When pressed for examples of novel genetic information or body organs created by mutation, they typically point to instances such as wingless beetles4 on islands, or the flightless cormorant on the Galapagos islands.5 The problem with these examples is obvious. While they may confer a benefit to the creatures in a specific, very unusual environment, nothing ‘new’ is added to the DNA or creatures’ body parts. They actually involve a loss or corruption of existing genetic information.6" Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)

If you haven't studied it, then how do you know? Do you take the word of humanists who have no proof of anything? quote Natural Selection (≠) Evolution This is an important ‘equation’ that all people should be aware of, namely ‘Natural Selection does not equal (≠) Evolution. Christians should know it so they do not get conned, and evolutionists should know it as a reminder that they still have lots of work to do to be able to claim that they have a mechanism for evolution. If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing. How often we hear an example of natural selection being used as proof of evolution. Changing sizes, colours, skin patterns and shapes are often paraded as evolution’s honour roll. This bait-and-switch tactic has been so often exposed for what it is, it’s a wonder that it is still used, or that people are still taken in by it. The very term should put people on their guard that something is missing. If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing. Think of being asked to select cards from a pack. You could select cards from a pack every second for the rest of your life and all you would only ever produce is different groups of the same cards. You would not have created anything new—only re-arranged cards, or removed cards or added cards from another pack. If an illusionist asks you to select a card from a pack, and surprises you with something new, you know it is an illusion, a sleight of hand. We need to learn to see the evolutionists’ sleight of hand when they claim to have pulled something ‘new’ out of the pack. Selection is always from a pre-existing series or range; it creates nothing new. This illustration applies equally to ‘selection’ in the biological context. The all-wise Creator knew the different environments that His creatures would have to adapt to after the Fall and Curse, and particularly after the Flood of Noah, in order to survive. He included in the genetic information of each ‘kind’ of creature He created a smorgasbord of variety in their makeup. This includes those features that would interact with the environment: the overall size of a plant, animal or person; the size of individual organs or limbs such as beaks and noses, leaf sizes, skin colours, hair and feather lengths, textures and colours. All of these and many more variations were programmed into the DNA of His creatures in order that as populations of the various kinds moved into new environments, expression of those variations enabled individuals to survive those environments. Individuals with those variations then passed them on to their young. When these variations and the habitat of the population expressing that variation are distinct enough, we might distinguish different ‘species’. In all of this selection process, new information is never added. It can be conserved or lost, but never gained. unquote Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)

So childish.

We are not talking about "pollution". Some oppose the forest industry. The forest industry has brought good-paying jobs to tens of thousands of people and allowed them to live meaningful lives, raise families, own homes, vehicles, send their kids to be educated and have careers. It is what made life possible for much of the population of B.C. It has provided lumber to build millions of homes in Canada and other countries. I wouldn't call that "pollution". Shows complete ignorance or childish behavior. You don't respect human rights. What you say is drivel.

No, I don't think it is a superior theory. You have not studied the subject. The reason it has been widely accepted is because most people are secular humanists in the western world. The government and education systems are full of secular humanists. I don't need to develop any theory. To begin with most of the world's religions are false religions. Interestingly the Bible has been the most opposed book among all the religion's holy books or writings. It was fanatically fought against down through history. It was banned by the Roman Empire for centuries. It was even forbidden to be possessed by a lay person in the Catholic Church for centuries. Many people willingly gave their lives to defend it. It is probably the most sold book in history. There are countless people who can testify how it changed their lives. The Bible account of creation is the only account that makes rational sense. There are a number of reasons which I already stated. One important reason is the subject of irreducible complexity. There are things in life forms such such as the human eye that could not have come about by evolution because the complexity of the human eye is such that it required an intelligent designer. The same principle applies to countless things. The bottom line is faith based on reason points to an intelligent designer, not random chance processes as in the theory of evolution. I am aware that is not the popular opinion in society. Another theory which is more speculation is the Big Bang Theory. There is absolutely no proof to support the Big Bang theory.

The theory of evolution has had earth-shattering impacts over the last approximate 165 years. It has been put in school curriculums and used to brainwash the population and turn them against God and Christianity. I could not think of something which has had a more negative influence on the world. It is a major tool of atheists and probably Communists. " Also called Darwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859," Darwinism - Wikipedia Probably most scientists, who have not really studied the subject in any depth, agree with it. But there are scientists who have rejected it. Still, education systems continue to teach it as if it were fact. The teaching of evolution theory shapes students’ beliefs and choices | CEPR About two-thirds of Americans believe in the theory of evolution to some degree. British Columbia is the only jurisdiction to have an explicit policy banning creationist instruction-- --bchumanist.ca it seems B.C. has the most anti-Christian education system around. B.C. also has some of the worst drug overdose death rates in the country and has become quite a Socialist province.

We know that. What does that prove? Globalization does not make people free. They just fall under a different dictator.

Except some theories are phony.

"“The Commission must walk a very fine line in its work,” said Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue, a Quebec judge, referring to the top-secret nature of much of the evidence. Foreign interference inquiry must walk ‘very fine line’: commissioner (msn.com) I think we can expect anything that might embarrass the liberals will not be made public. Most of the hearings will be behind closed doors. Therefore the enquiry will accomplish nothing.

That is why the WEF and globalism must be opposed. Globalism will take away everyone's freedom.

Why? The theory of evolution has been debunked as a fraud. If you think it hasn't been debunked, give the proof. Prove evolution is a fact. You are free to do so, but we know you can't. So your only solution is to dismiss it with a trite, meaningless comment. You probably know nothing at all about it.

Sounds like a form of Marxism. Normally government taxes on income, not what people have already earned and paid taxes on. Maybe you are not aware people with a lot of wealth don't just put it in a bank account where it will earn no interest. Their money would depreciate with inflation. No, they invest it in companies and the stock market that creates thousands if not millions of jobs for other people. If you start tampering with that, like the Commie NDP would do, you will actually destroy jobs because rich people will simple go to some other country and take their investments and money with them. They will calculate how much they will lose and how much they will save by going elsewhere.

I would guess your only reason for saying you oppose logging and the forest industry in response to my post is because you oppose God, the Bible, and Christianity. There would be no other rational reason for saying that. Where did you come from that you hate God and the Bible so much? Makes one wonder what kind of upbringing you had as well. Could not have been Canada which is generally accepting of the Christian believers. In Canada, freedom of religion and freedom of speech are Charter Rights, under the Constitution. If you don't accept that, what are you doing here? You need to look at yourself. You are obviously driven by hate, which is self destructive. God can change that, but it is up to you to take steps to do that. " You may wonder, “Why would people oppose Christians? Christians care about and help their neighbors. They are good workers on the job. They are good citizens. Why is there such intense opposition toward Christianity and Christians?” The answer is that there is an evil spiritual being, the devil, who is at work in the world to oppose God and His Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. As Paul later explained to this Ephesian Church, “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places”(Eph. 6:12)." Lesson 49: Why People Oppose the Gospel (Acts 19:21-41) | Bible.org

Does that mean you oppose logging and the forest industry or do you believe it contributes to climate change? God created man and told him to go forth and multiply and have dominion over the earth. -Genesis The forests are a god-given resource for the benefit of mankind. So some deforestation from logging, forest fires, and insects is a normal part of life. It has no significant affect on climate in the scheme of things. Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is only about 0.1 to 0.2% of atmospheric greenhouse gases, so it is nothing to worry about. Nature provides the other 99.8% of greenhouse gases including water vapour. Trees are re-planted after logging and eventually regrow as well. Canada's fossil contribution of CO2 is only about 1.5% of mankind's fossil emissions. It is next to nothing and won't affect global warming. There are other things that determine the earth's temperature. The obsession with what man is doing is misguided and a result of man's narcissism and inflated ego. Man is not all there is to the world and does not control the climate.

"The Online Harms Act threatens freedom of expression in Canada. Our team of lawyers is preparing to submit a comprehensive report on the negative impacts of the Online Harms Act to Parliament. Our team will also be preparing a constitutional challenge to at least some parts of the Act unless Parliament heeds our advice and makes significant changes. The Justice Centre stands ready to provide legal representation to Canadians whose freedom of expression is violated by this Act." Home | Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca) If you believe in defending your freedom of expression, you should sign the online petition at the link and if possible send a donation to them of any amount. You could be ordered to pay $50,000 plus up to $20,000 to a "victim" who felt offended or hurt by what you said. This $70,000 maximum does not include any legal costs you may incur to defend yourself. The complainant, however, is under no such risk. The Justice Centre is worth supporting to fight this bill.

You've been blocked.

I have a fair plan for carbon taxation. Government should ask everyone if they support carbon taxes. Those that want carbon taxes should pay double and those who are opposed pay no carbon taxes. That would be the fair way to do it. Freedom for everyone.

Political parties hire political lobbying firms to work on their behalf. That is normal. So attending a caucus meeting for the people they are working for would be normal. Every major party would do that. That would not include Loblaws. Loblaws is a grocery chain. They would not be in caucus meetings. Special interest groups do not go to caucus meetings.