blackbird

"Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a “Dissent” statement expressing skepticism about Darwin’s evolution theory, sparking fresh controversy over an idea that is at the core of many people’s worldview. The significant announcement, made last month, has been all but ignored by the establishment media. But it is making waves nevertheless." Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American

"About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do. The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion. Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found." "Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe." Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline | Live Science Whether the ones that believe in God believe in evolution or creation is another question.

I don't know. I would be just be guessing because I have not spoken to them. But from what I know most scientists are probably pagans and exalt man's reasoning above God's word. I prefer to believe God and his written revelation. The Bible says the fool does not believe in God. "24 O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches." Psalm 104:24 KJV "19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. {established: or, prepared} 20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew." Proverbs 3:19 KJV "1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1 KJV

You think an eye can function and make it possible to actually see and give the detailed image in full colour to the brain without an enormous amount of data in a cell? We call it data but of course it is not literally 1s and 0s on a piece of paper. It is still data stored in the cell and like the experts tell us it is vast amounts of information that would fill encyclopedia Britannica many times over. What is so difficult to accept about that? If you don't believe it, do some research on information in cells or ask a biologist. We are talking about complex structures of massive amounts of information or data that only an infinitely powerful intelligent designer Creator could make. Sadly Dawkins had a mental block that prevented him from seeing the handiwork of God in the creation. chromosome definition: a threadlike structure of nucleic acids and protein found in the nucleus of most living cells, carrying genetic information in the form of genes. A gene is a region of DNA that encodes function. A chromosome consists of a long strand of DNA containing many genes. A human chromosome can have up to 500 million base pairs of DNA with thousands of genes.

"DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." - Bill Gates (Microsoft) "Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information." - Richard Dawkins "The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal... What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy. It is the literal truth." - Richard Dawkins ---From the book "Darwin's Universe - From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing -- Survival for Nothing" by Yan T. Wee The cells are the building blocks of whatever living organism they are a part of and therefore they each have a specific function and are enormously complex. Each cell must be able to multitask. They have vast amounts of information stored in them so that they can do what they are designed to do. There is enough information in the cell of a lily seed or a salamander sperm to fill the Encyclopedia Britannica sixty times over. - P.129 "Darwin's Universe". The cells in an eye would be different than the cells in a tongue or a liver, etc. Each cell was designed to do a certain function and is enormously complex. Even in the human eye is enormously complex and each part would have its own unique cells in order to function and operate in conjunction with the other parts of the eye. One doesn't need to be a biologist to get the drift of that.

The idea of a Creator is not unreasonable or fantastic. It makes complete sense. Biologists found in the past 50 years or so that even the cell is extremely complex with vast amounts of strings of data that regulate how it functions. All this could not have happened by Darwinian evolution or chance. It required an intelligent designer to put the information in the cells. Evolution does not create information. That is one thing about it that dooms the theory. Life in the world required a vast amount of information to be placed there from the beginning. Only an intelligent source could have provided that information.

Who do you think created the complex universe with all of intricate laws of physics and gravity that keeps the planets in precise orbits around the sun and gives us the four seasons we need to grow crops and live on earth? Hardly could have all happened by pure chance or cosmic accident. The big bang is a flawed theory because it still doesn't explain how a complex universe with the laws that govern it came to be. Explosions do not create order. They create disorder. It also still doesn't explain where it all came from. Had to have a beginning and a Creator.

9 Things to Know about the Fall of Man (crosswalk.com)

No, bible believers do not believe in purgatory. It is not taught in the Bible. There are only two places, heaven and hell. Rome has built a vast empire of wealth on the teaching of purgatory and indulgences that the people can receive if they continue to pay for them. Why would they give that up? It has brought them untold wealth. Read the book "The Vatican Billions" by Avro Manhattan available free to read on the internet if you can find the right website. Here is what a different website says about the wealth of the Vatican. "One of the world’s 7 remaining absolute monarchies, Vatican City is not only the smallest state in the world, but also the richest state in the world, so rich that it could end world hunger not only once, but twice. There is no doubt, however, that between the church’s priceless art, land, gold and investments across the globe, it is one of the wealthiest institutions on Earth. The amount of Church-owned land, in square kilometers, across the globe — an area slightly bigger than the huge province of Alberta in Canada. Properties include Vatican embassies, churches, cathedrals, monasteries, schools and convents. [All tax free.] Thirty years ago the Vatican bank had 10 BILLION dollars invested in foreign companies. The vaults hold at least one metric ton of gold. 31 million dollars was seized from the Vatican bank by Italian authorities during an investigation into money laundering. 2 BILLION dollars was paid out as settlements by the church for sex-abuse cases just in the United States. In 2011 one offering, the Peter’s Pence, brought in 86 million dollars. The Sistine Chapel, offers a look at how difficult it is to appraise all of this. Estimates range from $400 billion all the way up to $2 trillion for just this one masterpiece. [How can the papacy call for corporations to be more generous? “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls….” Rev. 17:4.]" THE UNCALCULABLE WEALTH OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (eternalgospel.org)

I don't know what Trump believes. I am not going to judge him.

I will have to get the dictionary out. Sorry I must have hit the wrong key and posted a page before I typed it.

Good question. The explanation for this requires more than I can give on here. If you want to know, there are many websites that explain. It is rooted in the Fall of Man. "Originally man was made to be the created image of God, to live in union with God’s divine life, and to rule over all creation. Adam and Eve's failure in this task is their sin which has also known as "the fall of man". The Fall of Man in Genesis 3: Bible Meaning Explained (christianity.com) You said "who among us hasn't lied at some point". That is a fact. It is because of our fallen, sinful nature. That is why unless a person is redeemed, they will go to hell. The Bible makes it clear. There are only two places to go, heaven or hell.

I went to a walk-in clinic in Winnipeg one day a number of years ago. I was just visiting relatives in the area and don't live there. The waiting area was small and crowded. I believe I went in for a relatively small matter. What I got in the walk-in clinic was the Norwalk Virus and was sick as a dog that night.

I can only go by what the KJV Bible says about it. Doesn't sound like a state of being. Sounds like an actual place. "Matthew 13:50 - And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." "Revelation 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. John 3:16-18 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Let me be clear. I agree the health care system needs a lot more money. But that alone will not fix a bad system. It might improve it marginally, but it needs far more than money. The attached article explains why doctors are frustrated with all the red tape and extra hoops they must jump through continuously. Cutting Red Tape Could Let Canadian Doctors Provide 55.6 Million More Patient Visits per Year: Report (theepochtimes.com) The problem with a public health care system is it is bureaucratic with endless rules, red tape, administration that blocks innovations and unions that block changes and individual initiatives. Some doctors on the Vancouver Island are frustrated with their island administrator because he or she is causing them problems. The higher administrator backs that administrator 100% and so the system is paralyzed. They are not listening to the doctors on the front line. The system is paralyzed partly because administrators are stubborn, not innovative or inventive, refuse to change or allow any changes or freedom to use personal judgment and initiative. Being part of a public system, they prefer to hide behind the safety of massive rules, procedures, regulations, and red tape. Job security, pensions, and avoiding changes that could cause some upheaval, all contribute to the paralysis. There is no excuse for an emergency department to have only one doctor when people are waiting for six hours to be seen and there are other doctors in the community just working in their offices. Another example of bureaucratic paralysis. They kept the temperature turned down in the waiting areas of the ER probably to discourage people from going there and save a few dollars on heating, which by the way, they spend in many other ways. One doctor to see patients and many nurses running around doesn't sound rational. Some doctors are overworked and others far fewer patients. Yet people can't get a family doctor. The system is really dysfunctional and needs major changes. Since it is largely a public system run at the top by politicians and bureaucrats, I am doubtful it will be changed much. As you said there are many other demands by the population besides health care and politicians do not really give it the priority it requires. They are doling out money rapidly for all kinds of other things and spending time on many other issues. That's the trouble with a public system and why Canada ranks far worse than many other countries. Our political leaders have let the health care system go down to an abysmal state in the last number of years and done next to nothing to stop the disaster. Why should I believe they are suddenly going to change their attitude? I don't hold out much hope for the meeting today in Ottawa. They might throw more federal money at the system, but that won't fix all the problems. It requires far more than money. It requires the will of our political leaders, which I don't see. They are divided as is the population who have been constantly fed with propaganda. The NDP is more interested in placating the health care unions than fixing the system.

If you think Jesus would have been a liberal, you are dead wrong. However, we must get past the hurdle of you saying you don't believe in God. The belief is a guaranteed ticket to hell unless changed. All the more reason for you to study the Bible, its origin, message, and meaning. Google "is the Bible from God and why"?

There is a time for forgiveness. But that doesn't mean criminals should not receive justice for their crimes. I suppose the liberal ideology is forgive them and let them off. What a hopeless view of the world. No wonder it is in such a mess. Let the criminals do what they want eh? Maybe do some research as to what Genesis 9:6 KJV means and why God ordered capital punishment for murderers. Should not be too hard to figure out. Try Googling it and find some commentaries. The real answer is to read the Bible, particularly the New Testament and believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior and start studying his word, pray, and resist the Devil.

No. God ordained capital punishment for murderers back in Genesis when human government was ordained. See Genesis 9:6 KJV. I have yet to hear an explanation as to why that is no longer valid. The liberal idea of rehabilitating someone who murdered an innocent person is bizarre. Where is the justice in that? What is un-Christian is liberal theology that perverts justice and constantly lets dangerous criminals out on bail or parole or gives a very lenient sentence for serious crimes. Canadians are sick of it. Nobody feels safe in the cities.

I am too. But I doubt that special appointments to talk about islamophobia will stop insanity and criminals. Maybe they could appoint a commissioner to plead with drugs addicts and repeat offenders to stop their assaults and crimes. Armed guards and capital punishment would do more ... and locking up insane persons in institutions for life.

You are ignoring the reality that the superpowers each have thousands of nuclear missiles read to go. Any nuclear war would wipe out much of the world's population and destroy all major cities and leave the rest of the world in rubble.

Canadian doctors spend over 18 million hours a year on unnecessary administrative work (cfib-fcei.ca) This is just more evidence that bureaucracy in the public system is destroying health care for millions of people.

"Matthew 5:9 - Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.Romans 12:18 - If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Mutually assured destruction is nonsensical. Practically nobody thinks that way.

Nonsense. You haven't seen what sort of equipment was on the balloon and are just making up assumptions. China claims it was some sort of weather research civilian balloon. So perhaps it did have some sort of propulsion and solar system on it for that purpose. Lets wait until we see the facts, if they are even made public before jumping to conclusions. It is exactly your kind of false accusations that politicians and media in the west are making which make international relations more strained at a time when we should be reducing conflict. Let's wait until there are some facts.

these negatives are not "fantasy world" as you claim. These are facts that you choose to ignore. You need calm down and come back to reality. These are some of cons (negatives) of a PR system: "List of the Cons of Proportional Representation 1. It makes things easier for extreme parties to gain representation. Under the system of proportional representation, any party with a high enough percentage of the vote will receive a seat in the government. That structure makes it easier for extremist views to find official representation. The seldom receive access to the majority coalition and rarely earn an absolute majority, but there is always the possibility that their voiced opinions will gain traction with the general population. 2. It can create political gridlock, just like in any other system of government. Coalition governments are encouraged to compromise and pursue centrist views. The reality of this type of governing, however, is that each party wants to have its own way with things. That creates a system of government that tends to be indecisive and weak because everyone argues for their own best interests. More gridlock, instead of less, can be created, especially if more than two parties are involved in the coalition. 3. It does not provide direct representation to specific communities. Under the system of proportional representation, seats are not awarded based on community or district voting. That means those who serve in the government are less likely to focus on local issues as they have no local representation responsibilities. It creates a system of government where more voices can be heard, but fewer actually receive a listening ear. Many communities under this system can come away feeling like they don’t matter to the governing coalition. 4. It is not always wise to compromise. Even in countries that have encouraged proportional representation, some of the largest changes that have occurred in those societies happened when an absolute majority was present within the government. There are times when a strong majority in the government is required to push through needed reforms. 5. It can be an unstable form of government. Italy has proportional representation built into their government structures. Over the last 4 decades, the government has been forced to dissolve its parliament 8 times. In Belgium, the negotiations required after their 2010 election to form a governing coalition took 18 months to complete, leaving a crippled government in its place where nothing got done. Having more voices can be a good thing, but it can also create a discord that makes it impossible to government. These proportional representation pros and cons have certain benefits that allow for greater inclusion and variety. At the same time, greater inclusion can also lead toward higher levels of extremism within the government, while encouraging more gridlock if the political parties are unable to find a pathway toward compromise." 12 Proportional Representation Pros and Cons – Vittana.org There are several serious negatives from a PR system. A big one is it is more undemocratic than FPTP because it give the power to political parties to choose many of the MPs and removes the electoral choice from the ridings.

There are several problems with so-called proportional representation. 1. It is proportional in the sense the proportion of the vote that a party gets determines who the representatives are in the legislature. For example if a small fringe party gets 3% of the vote, then according to the PR system, they would be entitled to 3% of the number of MPs. That means more fringe parties get to have MPs and the larger parties would end up with fewer MPs. That's the reason one country has around 14 parties represented in the legislature and is unable to reach agreement on which parties form the government or pass a law. With that kind of system, rarely does one party get a majority of MPs. It is almost impossible to win a majority government because of the number of small parties. So in one sense, you can see how democracy is harmed. The will of the majority is taken away with the PR system in an attempt to give every fringe group or party a voice and vote. You end up with nobody having any real authority or power to govern. You need to seriously consider this. Countries often face serious crisis or urgent matters that require a majority to take action. If the legislature is always tied up by a pile of minorities trying to manipulate the system and blackmail the government to get their way, nothing can get done. The government is paralyzed. We are getting a little sample of this with the NDP-Liberal coalition. The NDP is holding the government hostage in a way in order to get their demands through. 2. In a PR system, the voters in an individual riding lost their democratic rights. In a PR system, it is not the majority of the voters in a riding that determine who the MP is. The votes are counted and each fringe party gets to take some of the votes and use those votes. Each fringe party's votes are added together from all ridings and those are what determines how many MPs the fringe party gets. This is done at the expense of the people in each riding who did not vote for those fringe parties. So its not really democratic any more. You end up with small parties having MPs even though they did not win any one riding. A small number of people in each riding gets to pick MPs from small parties. Those votes are used by the party and the party selects who the MP will be, not the voters. That's not democracy either. 3. The MPs selected by the PR system are chosen by the small parties. That means they are not accountable directly to any one riding. The MPs chosen that way were not chosen by the voters in one riding. They were chosen by the national party. So they are not accountable to the people. They are accountable only to the party. That's not democracy either.