blackbird

Immigrants say it's not their fault. LOL. What would we expect them to say?

The media seems to periodically publish another fictitious article as if it is genuine science, but in reality is only fiction or speculation. That is much the same as Darwinism. If one cares to look, Charles Darwin really knew little to nothing about biology or science around his claim of how life came to be as it is today. Biology in the 1800s was actually very primitive and had very little knowledge. But fast forward to today and we periodically see a new strange speculation on the news feed such as this one: "Alien life may not be carbon-based, new study suggests Self-sustaining chemical reactions that could support biology radically different from life as we know it might exist on many different planets using a variety of elements beyond the carbon upon which Earth's life is based, a new study finds. On Earth, life is based on organic compounds. These molecules are composed of carbon and often include other elements such as hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur. However, scientists have long wondered if alien life might evolve based on significantly different chemistry. For example, researchers have long speculated that silicon might also serve as a backbone for biology. Related: The search for alien life "It's important to explore these possibilities so that we have an idea of what all forms of life can look like, not just Earth life," study senior author Betül Kaçar, an astrobiologist, bacteriologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told Space.com" Alien life may not be carbon-based, new study suggests (msn.com) Once a society rejects the Biblical account of creation, which was a supernatural event, in favour of man-made speculation or theories, then they are on a slippery slope. The theory of evolution or Darwinism is a downward spiral for society in many ways. It is a rejection of absolutes and truth. It leads to a hopeless existence and living for nothing because according to these defeatists there is nothing. Life was just a cosmic accident. Now they are coming up with speculation that life could have developed in other ways besides the kind of life we know of on earth. They are so easily deceived into believing anything.

Watched a lengthy CBC report on the affordability crisis in Canada. There are rent strikes, evictions and large rent increases. Much of these apartments buildings are owned or controlled by large corporations and investors. Some buildings are becoming more run down and upkeep and renovations have been neglected for years. What is the solution? Often once they get tenants to leave, the building is renovated and receives large rent increases to cover the costs as well as a return for investors. The companies who are the landlords have said they do not see themselves as some kind of social agency or subsidized rent service. The investors behind the companies see it as a business like any other business and feel they deserve to get a fair return on their investments the same as any other company. This seems to be clearly a responsibility of the federal government which created this housing shortage and rent/mortgage crisis. How did this situation develop and what has been the federal government's part in creating this crisis? It is getting to the point where the only solution seems to be the federal government nationalizing these apartment buildings. This it could become a Communist system like east Germany was. On top of all this, immigration has been huge and is adding tremendous pressure on housing because of the lack of availability in major cities in Canada. Affordable housing is vanishing. Are these landlords to blame? | CBC.ca

I am pro life for pre-born babies. But first degree murderers are not the same thing. It appears you don't understand the difference between capital punishment for first degree murder and killing innocent babies.

"Dr Robert Carter, is a marine biologist and geneticist. He’s studied Darwin’s work, examined the Galapagos Islands firsthand, and debated the origins of life with skeptics." If Darwin Knew This, Would He Still Be a Darwinist? · Videos · Creation.com You are completely incorrect to say Dr. Carter is not qualified. He is about as qualified as one can get on the subject of Darwin and evolution. You simply don't want to watch or listen to anything contrary to your own personal view. Very narrow-minded IMO .So you want me to watch something on your tube that you recommend but say you won't watch anything I recommend. Hardly reasonable or fair. Only your opinion counts.

When we start looking at the complexity of a single cell, we begin to see this is a vast manufacturing plant with various processes and structures which is controlled by a vast information system. quote This article is about the biological macromolecule. For other uses, see RNA (disambiguation). A hairpin loop from a pre-mRNA. Highlighted are the nucleobases (green) and the ribose-phosphate backbone (blue). This is a single strand of RNA that folds back upon itself. Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a polymeric molecule that is essential for most biological functions, either by performing the function itself (non-coding RNA) or by forming a template for the production of proteins (messenger RNA). RNA and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) are nucleic acids. The nucleic acids constitute one of the four major macromolecules essential for all known forms of life. RNA is assembled as a chain of nucleotides. Cellular organisms use messenger RNA (mRNA) to convey genetic information (using the nitrogenous bases of guanine, uracil, adenine, and cytosine, denoted by the letters G, U, A, and C) that directs synthesis of specific proteins. Many viruses encode their genetic information using an RNA genome. unquote This is just part of an article. RNA - Wikipedia At this point I think it is fair to believe this extreme complexity had to have a designer-Creator. I don't believe there is any known mechanism that could be called evolution which would design and produce such an incredibly complex cell or basic life structure. I believe this type of thing falls into the category of irreducible complexity. I would conclude evolution had no part in this.

This is where I would question that. Take a look at this short 4-1/2 minute video clip on ATP synthase operating in a cell. If one accept evolution as a fact, then how could all this kind of machinery come into existence? I don't think there is any clear answer on that. Also, where did the very molecules come from? All of these things require vast amounts of information stored in parts of the cell to operate. I don't think how all that came to be has been understood. Bing Videos

The fact is a living organism cannot even exist if it didn't have a complex structure to begin with. So where did they come from?

When you say Darwin's original hypothesis, I assume you mean his theory of evolution by natural selection. In advocating natural selection, I don't think he had any evidence at all to back that up. When you say evolution is one of the best supported theories in science, have you read or watched any videos that refute evolution from a rational or scientific point of view? You obviously believe science supports evolution. Did you watch the 48 minute video I gave the link for? What do you think of the subjects he addressed in the video? He mentions irreducible complexity. Do you understand there are very complex things in a cell for example that could not be reduced in complexity to a simpler cell? So how could evolution produce something that complex? Is there any information anywhere that describes how evolution could produce something as complex as the machinery in a cell?

I admit that sentence was not correct. I was not meaning to "lie" or mislead you. I apologize. What I should have said was scientists have added to the theory since the 1960s. I should have said Darwin's theory was made without him having any knowledge of biology because there was practically no knowledge of biology at the time of his theory. I apologize for that incorrect statement. I will agree with you most scientists still hold to the basic belief of the theory of evolution based on natural selection as far as I know. I think we really need to examine this very closely to understand what exactly it is saying. I admit I have very limited knowledge. But I do understand there is shocking complexity (as the scientist in the video calls it) in the most basic life forms such as a cell. I am going to watch the video link I gave again and pay as close attention as I can.

Very sad that you cannot see the difference between killing innocent babies and cold-blooded first degree murderers who deserve capital punishment. You have more sympathy for murderers than innocent people. Twisted.

One thing you may be amazed to learn from this very knowledgeable scientist on this video is this: The complexity of the most basic life forms require a vast amount of information. He explains how this works. Every cell has a factory of processes that are taking place and each process is governed by a chain of information. You don't get this information randomly or by chance. It just doesn't happen that way.

How could it be false? It is talking about the supernatural and that is how everything was created out of nothing. I believe we need to be patient and give everyone a chance to consider this because not everyone has the faith to believe in the supernatural events recorded in Holy Scripture. I apologize if I have not been as patient as I should have been.

Why bring in a list of fields without any concrete evidence or detail of what you are saying about anything? Wouldn't it make more sense to choose one particular subject that you claim proves something and discuss that. That would make more sense than jumping all over the place and not really focusing on anything in particular. I suggest focusing at least for now on evolution and creation. We have to focus on one thing because of the complexity of the subject. We can have a more useful conversation if we discuss one subject at a time because in order to reply, we need to read up about it in order to have something useful to say. You may agree with that. I understand the Genesis account of creation as something that happened literally in six days. That is the way the Bible tells it. It is not given as some kind of metaphor or symbolic thing. It is meant to be taken literally. It is not something you can subject to some kind of scientific analysis or experiment. The creation event was a supernatural event. When God created the universe and life of course it had to be supernatural because everything had to come from nothing. That eliminates any possibility of trying to explain it from a scientific point of view. Science is limited to the material universe with experiment and the natural. The Bible deals with the supernatural. The beginning or origin of the universe and life can only be rationally explained by God creating it out of nothing. The complexity of everything points to God. Complexity of the creation required a designer-Creator. The kind of complexity that has been found in the past century for example is so great that it could not have happened by accident. It required vast amounts of information in the formation of life for example. That is one reason why it would make sense to learn a bit about things like DNA and the other terms in the basic building blocks of life to understand the complexity. By knowing that you might understand how they could not have happened by chance. When you deny that the supernatural is how it happened, you must have something rational to put in its place. There is nothing that could explain how we got here that makes any real sense. I came across a good video conversation on evolution between a highly qualified scientist and the interviewer. You might find this interesting. From what he says, most scientists who know anything about it have discarded Darwin's theory of evolution in favour of new theories, what some call Darwinism 2.0. It has become very difficult for scientists for defend Darwin's original theory of evolution in light of the modern growth in knowledge of life, etc. At the time of Darwin, scientists did not understand the complexity of things as they do today. Scientific knowledge has increased exponentially. He talks about that and was asked what Darwin would have thought if he had lived in today's world with all the knowledge we have. He gives an interesting answer. Now, we should probably look into the meaning of things like DNA and other terms to get a better appreciation of the complexity of the basic life forms. But this video is a good way to start. There are many more videos that delve into various aspects of this on the same website, creation.com. Enjoy. If Darwin Knew This, Would He Still Be a Darwinist? · Videos · Creation.com

Under liberal rule Canada has a soft-on-crime government that allows dangerous offenders and people who are mentally ill and a danger to society to go free. This resulted in another man being stabbed to death and a second man had his hand cut off by a mentally ill person who had sixty encounters with police. This happened in downtown Vancouver a couple days ago. In spite of all the flowery words from the government ministers, they are doing nothing about it.

The state is not governed by any particular religion, but every MP holds beliefs be it some religious belief system or some other ism or ideology such as liberalism or Socialism. God is recognized as part of our system of government quote The preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the introductory sentence to the Constitution of Canada's Charter of Rights and Constitution Act, 1982. In full, it reads, "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law" unquote This statement does not elaborate on what it means or which God it is referring to.

While Canada is a secular country in the sense the government does not have a state religion or support a particular religion, the government has through history adopted many of its laws based on Judeo-Christian civilization. Individual members of Parliament and government hold personal beliefs which they use to guide them in their governing. That is the way it always has been.

It is not the business of individual Christians to exercise capital punishment. But it is the responsibility of the state to enforce laws and justice for evil doers. The state must maintain law and order. Capital punishment sends a clear message. quote Old Testament Examples Throughout the Old Testament we find many cases in which God commands the use of capital punishment. We see this first with the acts of God Himself. God was involved, either directly or indirectly, in the taking of life as a punishment for the nation of Israel or for those who threatened or harmed Israel. One example is the flood of Noah in Genesis 6-8. God destroyed all human and animal life except that which was on the ark. Another example is Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18-19), where God destroyed the two cities because of the heinous sin of the inhabitants. In the time of Moses, God took the lives of the Egyptians’ first-born sons (Exod. 11) and destroyed the Egyptian army in the Red Sea (Exod. 14). There were also punishments such as the punishment at Kadesh-Barnea (Num. 13-14) or the rebellion of Korah (Num. 16) against the Jews wandering in the wilderness. The Old Testament is replete with references and examples of God taking life. In a sense, God used capital punishment to deal with Israel’s sins and the sins of the nations surrounding Israel. The Old Testament also teaches that God instituted capital punishment in the Jewish law code. In fact, the principle of capital punishment even precedes the Old Testament law code. According to Genesis 9:6, capital punishment is based upon a belief in the sanctity of life. It says, “Whoever sheds man’s blood by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man.” The Mosaic Law set forth numerous offenses that were punishable by death. The first was murder. In Exodus 21, God commanded capital punishment for murderers. Premeditated murder (or what the Old Testament described as “lying in wait”) was punishable by death. A second offense punishable by death was involvement in the occult (Exod. 22; Lev. 20; Deut 18-19). This included sorcery, divination, acting as a medium, and sacrificing to false gods. Third, capital punishment was to be used against perpetrators of sexual sins such as rape, incest, or homosexual practice. Within this Old Testament theocracy, capital punishment was extended beyond murder to cover various offenses. While the death penalty for these offenses was limited to this particular dispensation of revelation, notice that the principle in Genesis 9:6 is not tied to the theocracy. Instead, the principle of Lex Talionis (a life for a life) is tied to the creation order. Capital punishment is warranted due to the sanctity of life. Even before we turn to the New Testament, we find this universally binding principle that precedes the Old Testament law code. New Testament Principles Some Christians believe that capital punishment does not apply to the New Testament and church age. First we must acknowledge that God gave the principle of capital punishment even before the institution of the Old Testament law code. In Genesis 9:6 we read that “Whoever sheds man’s blood by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man.” Capital punishment was instituted by God because humans are created in the image of God. The principle is not rooted in the Old Testament theocracy, but rather in the creation order. It is a much broader biblical principle that carries into the New Testament. Even so, some Christians argue that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus seems to be arguing against capital punishment. But is He? In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is not arguing against the principle of a life for a life. Rather He is speaking to the issue of our personal desire for vengeance. He is not denying the power and responsibility of the government. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is speaking to individual Christians. He is telling Christians that they should not try to replace the power of the government. Jesus does not deny the power and authority of government, but rather He calls individual Christians to love their enemies and turn the other cheek. Some have said that Jesus set aside capital punishment in John 8 when He did not call for the woman caught in adultery to be stoned. But remember the context. The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus between the Roman law and the Mosaic law. If He said that they should stone her, He would break the Roman law. If He refused to allow them to stone her, He would break the Mosaic law (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). Jesus’ answer avoided the conflict: He said that he who was without sin should cast the first stone. Since He did teach that a stone be thrown (John 8:7), this is not an abolition of the death penalty. In other places in the New Testament we see the principle of capital punishment being reinforced. Romans 13:1-7, for example, teaches that human government is ordained by God and that the civil magistrate is a minister of God. We are to obey government for we are taught that government does not bear the sword in vain. The fact that the Apostle Paul used the image of the sword further supports the idea that capital punishment was to be used by government in the New Testament age as well. Rather than abolish the idea of the death penalty, Paul uses the emblem of the Roman sword to reinforce the idea of capital punishment. The New Testament did not abolish the death penalty; it reinforced the principle of capital punishment. unquote Capital Punishment: A Christian View and Biblical Perspective (probe.org)

Another random stabbing in Vancouver today apparently. These murderers have no fear.

I think the position of the BC Conservatives is fairly well known on climate change. The leader John Rustad said a day or two ago he accepts the fact climate changes, but doesn't believe it is a crisis that many make it out to be. He doesn't believe carbon taxes will change the weather. Conservatives don't believe that enabling people with hard drugs by selling them to whoever wants them is the solution. Conservatives believe treatment should come first. I have not heard that they have a policy to oppose vaccines. I doubt that they have a position on vaccines other than they don't believe vaccination should be mandatory for adults. They likely believe it should be individual choice. Don't think they oppose vaccination. Vaccination is useful to protect seniors and immune compromised people from serious illness. Just don't force adults to receive it.

Nonsense. I heard the U.S. has 400 million guns, which is far more guns than the population including all children. In the U.S. people are legally allowed to carry guns, some concealed handguns. There is no comparison between Canada and the U.S. Americans have a gun culture. The right to carry or own guns is even in the American Constitution. Canadians do not have such a right. It is a privilege to own a gun in Canada and hand guns have been outlawed. The number of murders in the U.S. is extremely high, like about 40,000 a year. So that has nothing to do whether we should or shouldn't bring back capital punishment. That is an American problem. It is a result of mental problems and the wide proliferation of guns in the U.S. Where do you come up with is garbage? The USA executes more inmates combined than any other Western democracy, and still has the highest violent crime rate. Of course it has the highest violent crime rate. That is because the reasons for it are a different culture than Canada. They have a gun culture as I already explained. It is right to carry guns and there are 400 million guns in America. Guns everywhere. Of course there is going to be a lot of murders and there are. However, it is just common sense that in Canada, capital punishment for first degree murder would make potential murderers think twice. It would discourage a lot of murderers. Just common sense for anyone who can think. Its exponentially superior than the American system. Are you an American? The justice system in Canada has serious problems. One of the main problems is it takes too long to complete court cases. There is a serious shortage of judges and staff. The system is too slow overall. This has nothing to do with the American system. Canada doesn't run its justice system according to how the U.S. operates its system. We are a separate country. Pure nonsense. Just change the system. Drastically speed up the trial system and reach a conviction. If guilty the convicted murder could be given MAID in the prison at a very small cost. It costs millions of dollars to keep a person in prison for life (until he gets parole). So it is obvious millions of dollars would be saved. How much do you think it costs to give MAID to someone? A few hundred dollars most likely. Lots of people could be hired to give MAID to convicted murderers at a very low cost. It is painless and an easy way to go. More nonsense. It would be easy to write a law to have a panel of highly educated experts to create a system that uses the latest scientific methods such as DNA and ensure there is no error. If there is any doubt at all the experts could commute the sentence to life in prison with no parole. But if there is clearly no doubt after a thorough review by an impartial panel of experts, then MAID should be carried out. That is no longer an excuse to not have capital punishment.

Why try to use the U.S. as some kind of guide? The U.S. is a free-for-all with gun ownership and shootings. People are often legally allowed to own assault weapons, and many carry hand-guns as a normal part of life. They have something like 40,000 murders per year in the U.S. So it is ridiculous to compare Canada to the U.S. Of course there is no comparison. But we don't want any murders in Canada. The best way to discourage murder is to make sure the would-be killers know the penalty will be the death sentence. This would have an impact on the thinking of many. The public would feel much safer. When I said faster trials, I never said denying justice. But we know the justice system is a disaster in Canada now. Trials are often dragged out for years. Cases have been dismissed on the basis of them taking too long. There is a right to a speedy trial. Just get it done. The cost of keeping convicted murderers locked up could be immensely reduced as well. It costs millions of dollars to keep prisoners in prisons for years. Another reason for improving the justice system making it more efficient and faster. We should not be looking for soft-on-crime excuses to escape doing the right thing, which is capital punishment for first degree murder. Keeping them in prison is not only expensive, but it endangers others who could become a target. This soft-on-crime approach just encourages organized crime and random murders. There are shootings daily by organized criminals. The other day a gunman shot countless bullets into a home and recorded it on his camera and played it on social media. No fear at all. Criminals have the upper hand. Let's do the right thing and put some fear into the system. Of course it will have an impact on potential murderers as well. As for mistakes, today there are very accurate ways of determining guilt or innocence with DNA. The science has improved greatly. That has become a very accurate tool. Liberals and left need to wake up and get on with it and stop being soft-on-crime. Canadians are fed up with it. The law now offers MAID which kills over 10,000 people per year. Why no concern about that? What is the bleeding heart for convicted murderers for? Capital punishment would be given to a relatively few compared with the number of deaths in the failing health care system and MAID. Concern for murderers is irrational. What about the killing of 80,000 or 100,000 pre-born babies a year? I don't see people weeping for them. There would be relatively few executions for first degree murder. Look at all the overdose deaths per year in B.C. alone. Capital punishment would likely be given to a very small number. It could discourage murders and save lives. Even if it doesn't there are good reasons why it should be done. The principle that justice will be done will bring comfort to the whole population of Canada. A report says there may be more deaths of people in need of proper health care than from drug overdoses. Yet, we don't see people too concerned about that. Why all the sympathy for a relatively small number of murderers receiving capital punishment while thousands may be dying per year because of a failing health care system? Get your priorities straight! Assisted suicide is wrong, but capital punishment for first degree murder is not. Wake up and stop the misguided sympathy for serious criminals. Many people are dying who shouldn't be in our failed public health care system. That is something to be concerned about; not the fictitious rights of murderers.

Almost every day we hear of horrendous murders being committed in Canada. If the offenders are caught, they know they will be sentenced to a certain number of years. They also know they may only serve half of their sentence and then get out on parole. This is not protecting Canadians. This also makes victims of the relatives who must constantly live with what was done to their loved one as they see the offender get off relatively lightly and then walk free. They often are required to re-live the horror because they must go to parole board hearings, sometimes, repeatedly and hear the whole thing over and over. We need the return of capital punishment for first degree murder. The situation is out of control and there is no fear of the consequences. Canada needs to put the safety of the public ahead of everything else and stop trying to invent some kind of rights for criminals and forget the victims. Also the justice system should be greatly speeded up to get the trials done expeditiously.

"1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. " Genesis 1:1 KJV This is believed to have been written by Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God. "16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy 3:16 KJV

quote 4 Criteria for Determining a New Testament Book The early church used four criteria to determine the canonicity of a New Testament book. First, each book was written by an apostle or one closely associated with an apostle. Second, the contents of these books were revelatory in nature. Third, these books were universally recognized by the church in their teaching and preaching ministry. Fourth, these books were considered inspired because they bore the marks of inspiration. unquote Books of the Bible - How They Were Chosen as Canon (biblesprout.com)