blackbird
-
Posts
7,945 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
1 hour ago, eyeball said:
As I've said before, they teach it because it's a superior theory that's been able to outcompete any other for 165 years now.
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.
1 hour ago, eyeball said:Have you tried developing a theory that says religious belief is a better foundation for society than science?
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.
-
1 hour ago, eyeball said:
You're trying to pin something on the word theory itself to cancel it somehow. It's just a thing, it's what people do with it that matters.
Phoney people may posit a theory with made up facts and baseless assumptions but usually unsuccessfully. When they are successful its usually the fault of the people that accept it.
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,"
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.
-
21 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Meanwhile under globalization, the number of human beings living under the thumbs dictators is rising.
70% OF THE GLOBAL POPULATION LIVE UNDER A DICTATORSHIP
https://adigaskell.org/2022/06/28/70-of-the-global-population-live-under-a-dictatorship/
We know that. What does that prove? Globalization does not make people free. They just fall under a different dictator.
-
37 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Because theories are not frauds they're explanations that compete with other theories for things.
Fraud and theory are not even synonymous with one another.
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.
-
1 hour ago, eyeball said:
Yeah we started figuring this out years ago at WEF. It's why we need to create international networks of cooperation to prevent tax avoidance of the type you're talking about.
That is why the WEF and globalism must be opposed. Globalism will take away everyone's freedom.
-
4 minutes ago, eyeball said:
The thread's title eliminates any need to even think about the topic.
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.
-
11 hours ago, eyeball said:
You people are so suspicious that virtually every tax is a scam to you.
To tell you the truth though I'd be happier if there were only two taxes, both progressive, on consumption and on your accumulated wealth. Say, 1% on anything between $1 million up to $10 million. 2% from $10 million to $100 million, 3% from $100 million on up and so on.
Nothing on personal income, just wealth and consumption, with provisions for some redistribution to people with little to no wealth at all.
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.
-
11 hours ago, cougar said:
YES
[quote]God created man and told him to go forth and multiply and have dominion over the earth. -Genesis [/quote]
This is so i-Diot-iC, it sends shivers down my spine
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
-
9 hours ago, cougar said:
Wonder why you missed deforestation as a factor.
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.
-
1
-
-
"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.
-
3 hours ago, Black Dog said:
You are an astonishingly stupid person who believes in fairy tales and Facebook memes.
You've been blocked.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:
She and her lobbying firms are lobbying conservative caucus and attending conservative caucus meetings while also lobbying for Loblaws and who know what else.
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.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:
"Semites" is the word for certain Arabs, it has nothing to do with religion, and most muslims and Israelis are equally "semitic".
Technically you are correct from a historical view that Jews and Arabs are semites. But the common use of the term in society is that antisemitism refers to being anti Jew.
That use developed over the past 2,000 years and is held by most of the world. Most of the world is anti-Jew. Nobody takes it to mean anti Arab.
-
3 minutes ago, Gaétan said:
Lobbying firms are intermediaries to sell products or to obtain corporate benefits from governments, and it is disturbing that the bosses of these firms are advising anyone who aspires to be prime minister.
I don't think you understand politics. Politicians talk to all kinds of people to gain political support. There is nothing wrong with that. The NDP meets with union leaders as well. That is just how politics works. It doesn't mean these lobbyists you refer have any particular influence more than anyone else with politicians.
-
5 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Have you submitted your conclusions and why they matter to the IPCC?
I mean it's entirely possible this forum really does have the brightest critically thinking people on the planet but how would anyone know if you keep it all to yourselves?
One has to be certified with certain qualification and credentials that few people probably have and hold a certain position to submit anything to the IPCC. Also, since the IPCC is a body of the U.N., a submission would probably have to go through certain channels to be approved and by the Canadians ambassador to the U.N. Thought you would know that.
-
Came across a rather odd article that admits science makes mistakes.
quote
Oh, science, how low hast thou fallen! Not really. Actually, we’re living in a golden age of science that hopefully will only keep progressing indefinitely into the future. But that doesn’t mean that, in order to get to such heights, science hasn’t made plenty mistakes of mistakes in the past—or in the present. In fact, the self-correcting, self-regulating scientific method relies on making mistakes, not because it is fundamentally a bad method, but because we, as humans, are fundamentally flawed beings. We learn by trial and error, and the truth always hides deep beneath a host of naive assumptions and biased opinions which always threaten to corrupt facts and evidence. unquote
10 Times When Science Got It All Horribly Wrong - Cultura Colectiva
Then the article goes on to make this absurd statement:
It claims evolution and climate-change (I assume they mean man-made) are proven facts, when anyone with half a brain knows these things are completely unproven.
"That’s because those are well-proven facts that present the best possible explanations for all the variables at hand, as no alternative theory can reliably explain the phenomena in question. If science doesn’t have the answer, you can bet religion or alternative medicine doesn’t either.
So the first part of the article is correct in saying science makes lots of mistakes, but then shows there ignorance by claiming certain things (that they agree with like the theory of evolution and climate change by man) are "proven" facts. Sad really.
There are atheists or secular humanists who have no understanding of how the universe required an intelligent designer and no understanding that there is a reason why God created mankind. It was not all just a cosmic accident and we are not just accidents of the chemicals. The article gives a little bit of truth but destroys its credibility with all the false claims.
-
1 hour ago, Gaétan said:
Lobbyists are selling their products to the Conservatives even before they are elected to form government
NDP MPs call for investigation into lobbying firm with ties to top Conservative adviser
NDP MPs call for investigation into lobbying firm with ties to top Conservative adviser | CBC News
Are you talking about political lobbying firms or what kind of lobbying? Lobbying for what? All major political parties use political lobbying firms to communicate their messages.
Also, politicians communicate with firms of all kinds to gain support. That is how politics and campaigning works. Nothing untoward about that unless you can prove some kind of corruption.
-
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:
Those are some great facts... now if you could just get them into a Bible of some
What he posted was false. He pulled the 4% out of the air. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 0.04% of all gases. Google it. You support trash.
-
1 hour ago, Aristides said:
So it's only 4%, it's just a number, what counts is the effect it has.
Where did you get that figure? Out of a hat. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04% of all gases. Big difference between 4% and 0.04%.
Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the world’s atmosphere. Not 0.4% or 4%, but 0.04%!
scitechdaily.com
I assume there is a credible way to determine that percentage. The problem is you assuming it has a certain effect without any proof.
Guesses or presumptions are not proof of anything. How many times do I have to tell you?
-
1 hour ago, Legato said:
Climate conferences are a great chance for all the elite liberals to suck back drinks, cocktails, and enjoy the finest foods imaginable and luxurious accommodations in the best hotels while hob knobbing and boasting about all their great fake accomplishments with their fellow elites.
-
2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:
Blackbird you suck at science.
"Since 1750, humans have increased the abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by nearly 50 percent."
You have a problem with that claim. One website reports the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is 720 billion tons or 720 GT. Out of that man contributes 6 GT. That means man's contribution is only about 0.8 % of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Yet you claimed humans increased the amount of CO2 by nearly 50%. Something is wrong with your figures. It is total BS. You suck big time with your "facts".
But if you look at different websites you will sometimes find wildly different figures.
That is a problem because who do you believe?
One figure that seems fairly constant is 0.04%. The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04% of all the gases. That is a consistent figure. But that is not the amount the man emits. The figure I found for man's emission is about 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. That means 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural.
So before you accuse me of sucking at science, you need to double check your own figures and facts.
-
6 minutes ago, Aristides said:
You can slow the change by contributing less to its causes.
This will not go away just because you want it to.
1. Good luck with that. Nobody can affect climate change no matter what they do. It is a waste of money to be trying. Use the money to adapt and mitigate the effects.
2. Climate change is natural. Of course it will not go away because I want it to. Learn to adapt to newer weather patterns.
Total fossil emissions in the world is only 0.1% to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
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.