blackbird
-
Posts
7,942 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
This topic is a bit difficult to sum up in a few sentences because of its nature. It does require some time reading and studying the reasons why the theory of evolution is false.
But just to summarize very briefly:
1. The principle of irreducible complexity is a principle which says something extremely complex could not come about by purely random chance processes, which is what part of the theory of evolution claims. The eye for instance is so complex and has amazing abilities. It could not have come about without an intelligent designer. Many scientists have accepted this fact and have rejected the theory of evolution on that basis.
2. The evidence that all species of life evolved is not in the fossil record. Many people thought when they found some bits and pieces that they had found proof of prehistoric man or some ape man, but many of those findings have later been proven to be false. One case was a tooth was found and from that paleontologists surmised what the skull must have been and from that what the rest of the body was. Then they surmised how he lived and on and on. It was later discovered that it was not a human or prehistoric man's tooth at all. It was a pig's tooth. This kind of thing has happened repeatedly in history.
3. A mathematician-professor, Philip Stott, who is a very knowledgeable speaker on the subject has written a lot of material refuting the theory of evolution and the old earth claims. As a mathematician, he concludes there is not enough time in the claimed age of the universe for atoms, molecules, and the basic building blocks of life to come together by random chance to create life and evolve. The law of probability is against it happening.
But for extensive details and explanations on this there are two websites that have countless articles and videos:
Scripture & Science HOME | Reformation International College (refcm.org)
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Gaétan said:
This what you say but it is not what the scientists says. The guy who has no proof of what he says is you. You shouldn't pay attention to the science of polluers.
No. You can't give any proof of anything you said. What I said is just as valid as anyone else's opinion who gives no proof regardless of their titles and credentials. That's just logic and common sense.
-
3 hours ago, Gaétan said:
What companies want is to make profits until the sky is full of smoke and there are no more resources, it is up to our representatives to tell them this is not possible or Poilievre has no desire to do anything to allow us to have a viable future at least not in appearance, where is the conservatives' plan, if they don't talk about it it's because they don't have no plan, these 4 wasted years with Poilievre and it's getting hotter and hotter and you won't be able to breathe fresh air this summer because of the forest fires. Climat change is a big threat and Poilievre never said he'll do anything against it, he is a dangerous guy, he is heartless, it doesn't matter to him that people suffer of pollution or anything else, he never asked for a cease fire in Gaza, he is a criminal worse than Trudeau.He said that he wants to build houses for people but it is just to be elected by ambition ,I gave you the proof that he is heartless, do you think he cares about us?
You gave no proof at all about anything. Man cannot control the climate. Climate has always changed. That is normal.
Sure it may be very hot and dry in the late spring or summer, but that is natural. Fossil fuels only contribute 0.1 to 0.2 % CO2 to the earth's greenhouse gases, not enough to make any difference. 99.8% of greenhouse gases are from nature, not from mankind. Nobody can control that.
Man will continue to use fossil fuels for the foreseeable future because that is what supports life on earth. We cannot stop using fossil fuels, travelling, eating agriculture, heating our homes, flying, shipping necessities of life. So man cannot change the minute amount of greenhouse gases he emits. It is not enough to affect climate change. Man would have to disappear to stop releasing CO2.
Do you have any proof at all that man is causing excessive global warming?
Or did you hear Trudeau, Liberals, or the liberal-controlled media or the NDP say so?
We are being scammed by climate alarmist politicians. They are helped by alarmists like you. You owe me a lot of money.
-
6 hours ago, Gaétan said:
With the conservatives there will be so many greenhouse gases in the air that the trees in the forests will all burn. Poilievre is an arsonist.
How do you know this? Any proof?
-
6 hours ago, Aristides said:
You are saying MIT speculates but you know better.
Speculation is not proof. No government should impose taxation that makes people poorer or force people to change their lives based on speculation. That is totalitarianism.
Many people speculate that UFOs with aliens often visit earth.
Many scientists speculate that the universe was created by a big bang or that man evolved from an accidental mixing of some chemical in a pond.
Many speculate that Marxism or Socialism are better systems even though such systems are evil and have proven very destructive and harmful.
Many believe all fossil fuels should be banned based on pure speculation. That would end life on earth. Life depends on fossil fuels which are used for everything.
Millions of people are being harmed based on pure speculation.
There are endless speculations made in the world.
-
2 minutes ago, Aristides said:
Your facebook post it bogus.
That is your own personal claim, but it is bogus.
3 minutes ago, Aristides said:A: It maintains all greenhouse gasses are the same when they are anything but.
I don't think I said all greenhouse gasses are the same. I understand there are different greenhouse gases. CO2, methane, water vapour, etc.
4 minutes ago, Aristides said:B: It ignores the impact of warming due to human generated gases have on the amount of water vapour in the air.
That is pure speculation. The human generated gases are miniscule. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is massive as a large portion of the earth is water. There is no proof human generated fossil gases are having an significant effect on global warming.
6 minutes ago, Aristides said:😄 It is a simplistic post trying to justify something he doesn't understand and you glom onto it because it tells you what you want to believe.
You don't have any idea what I understand. What makes your claims in your post superior to mine? You have given no indication you have any more knowledge than me on the subject. So you just lost any credibility right there.
-
Professor Philip Stott is a very knowledgeable defender of Creation versus the theory of evolution and related topics. I here quote a portion one article he wrote called "A Foundational statement on Science and Christianity". It may help to shed some light on what science is and why it is important to understand what a proper relationship is between the two.
"The consequence for science itself is that science has become entangled in inconsistencies. The humanist world view has proved itself untenable. Examples are legion. Fred Hoyle, after a distinguished career in cosmology, came to the conclusion "the creation of the Universe, like the solution of the Rubic cube, requires an intelligence." George Gaylord Simpson, during a distinguished career in evolutionary biology, had to admit that matter and energy alone were insufficient, and that for the explanation of life "the work required is particular work, it must follow specifications, it requires information on how to proceed." Leif Robinson, holding a prominent position in astronomy, has had to admit that the whole of astronomy is confronted with "ever growing tidal waves of disparate information", evidence which shows that astronomy, like many other branches of science, is on the wrong track. These scientists came to their conclusions not as a result of abandoning the humanist world view, but simply by admitting that the evidence is overwhelming.
The inconsistencies in present day science have become so severe that there is a growing realization that materialism is inadequate as a world view. Scientists in great numbers are abandoning pure materialism. Most are taking one of two directions. The first is to return to the Christian position, the acknowledgment of a Creator. The second is to turn to the metaphysical concepts of the religions of the east, particularly India; ideas centred on a "universal consciousness", a "cosmic force", an "all pervading intelligence." Although very ancient ideas, they are generally being grouped under the title "New Age."
Science and civilization made great advances under the Christian world view predominating in Europe and North America throughout the last few centuries. India, the home of the "New Age" religions, has been remarkably lacking in comparable advance. A new brand of science following "New Age" philosophies is likely to end up with insuperable inconsistencies. The possibility of a universe progressing because of a driving force within itself, because of information developed by and within itself, is contrary to all known experimental evidence, and appears to be as feasible as lifting oneself up by one's own boot straps. The odds seem to be heavily stacked in favour of a world view centred on the Creator. This is not surprising since modern science is essentially a product of this outlook in the first place.
Since science is essentially a product of the Christian world view, and since many scientists are returning to this position, it would be advisable to consider carefully the outlook that should be brought back into this discipline after so many years of absence." -
"With all the attention given to humans’ climate-warming carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, you might be surprised to learn that CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas affecting the Earth’s temperature. That distinction belongs to water.
We can thank water vapor for about half of the “greenhouse effect” keeping heat from the sun inside our atmosphere.1 “It’s the most important greenhouse gas in our climate system, because of its relatively high concentrations,” says Kerry Emanuel, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at MIT. “It can vary from almost nothing to as much as 3% of a volume of air.”
Compare that to CO2, which today makes up about 420 parts per million of our atmosphere—0.04%—and you can see immediately why water vapor is such a linchpin of our climate system."
It is obvious that if the amount of CO2 released by fossil use by mankind is 0.1 to 0.2 % of the total greenhouse gases, why is man being blamed for causing global warming. It just doesn't make sense.
A big question is why do not all the countless websites warning about man-made global warming and blaming man almost never mention that water vapour is a very big greenhouse gas?????
-
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:
Two to three thousand-year-old Aramaic text of unclear authorship,
Another completely false claim. And you claim I am not educated? What about yourself?
"Aramaic has been in some ways a forgotten language in biblical studies, except at a very high academic level. The New Testament is written in Greek; nearly all the Old Testament is written in Hebrew, while the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the LXX) is significant to biblical studies. Yet 268 verses of the Bible were written in a language called Aramaic.
The portions of Scripture that were written in Aramaic include Ezra 4:8–6:18 and 7:12-26 (67 verses), Daniel 2:4b–7:28 (200 verses), Jeremiah 10:11, and various proper names and isolated words and phrases scattered throughout the Old and New Testaments. Despite the fact that only a small percentage of Scripture is written in this language, the Aramaic portion of the Bible is disproportionately significant because of the importance of the book of Daniel to biblical prophecy. Aramaic is also important for New Testament studies, as several direct quotes from Jesus and others are preserved in the original Aramaic that was spoken by Palestinian Jews of the Second Temple period. New Testament verses which include Aramaic words transliterated by Greek letters are: Matt 5:22; 27:46; Mark 5:41; 7:34; 10:51; 14:36; John 1:42; 20:16; Acts 9:36, 40; Rom 8:15; 1 Cor 16:22; Gal 4:6."
The original manuscripts were mainly written in Hebrew (Old Testament), Greek (New Testament) and small parts in Aramaic.
Also the forty authors are known who wrote the 66 books of the Bible. The Bible was written over a period of about 1,500 years and completely about 1,900 years ago. So now you know. Trying to cast aspersions on God's word is a losing proposition. You will be exposed.
-
29 minutes ago, herbie said:
Revised over the centuries by committees with predetermined agendas.
That is a bold-faced lie. The King James Version is composed of the Old Testament which is based on the Hebrew Scriptures called the Masoretic Text and the New Testament is based on the Received Text. It is supported by over 5,000 Greek manuscripts and parts of manuscripts. It has not been revised by committees with predetermined agendas. That is completely false. If it was, it would be obvious by examining the many Greek manuscripts which still exist. But nobody makes such a wild claim.
If you are willing to lie about that, how much credibility do you have on anything else you said there? None. End of story.
Yet Michael gave you a thumbs up. Shows where he is coming from as well.
-
1
-
-
"The term anti-Semitism was first popularized by German journalist Wilhelm Marr in 1879 to describe hatred or hostility toward Jews. The history of anti-Semitism, however, goes back much further.
Hostility against Jews may date back nearly as far as Jewish history. In the ancient empires of Babylonia, Greece, and Rome, Jews—who originated in the ancient kingdom of Judea—were often criticized and persecuted for their efforts to remain a separate cultural group rather than taking on the religious and social customs of their conquerors.
With the rise of Christianity, anti-Semitism spread throughout much of Europe. Early Christians vilified Judaism in a bid to gain more converts. They accused Jews of outlandish acts such as “blood libel”—the kidnapping and murder of Christian children to use their blood to make Passover bread.
These religious attitudes were reflected in anti-Jewish economic, social and political policies that pervaded into the European Middle Ages."
Anti-Semitism - Definition, Meaning & Reasons For (history.com)
The solution for anti-Semites is to turn to God and repent and seek forgiveness. They need to become children of God and love their neighbour, not hate a special group of people. The alternative is hell. If they continue with their anti-Semitism, they need to be weeded out and put in some kind of institution to protect society.
Immigrants who bring their anti-Semitism to Canada should be sent back to where they came from. There is no room in Canada for that kind of thing.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Aristides said:
Ah, a ten year old Facebook post. Figures.
You don't believe it?
Is everything ten years ago worthless?
I know science is often wrong, but is everything wrong from ten years ago?
-
5 minutes ago, Aristides said:
Where did you get that .1 to .2% number?
It originated from a Facebook post which you can still see.
It says climate alarmists do not like people to see that information. If you look at the picture in the post, water vapour is by far the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, herbie said:
You're talking to someone who can't accept evolution
"1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. " Genesis 1:1, 2
"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. " Genesis 1:26-28
"7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7
The theory that man evolved from some scum in a pond is nonsense in the extreme. The enormous complexity of the basic cell, with all the DNA data stored in it, so that it can do what is required, makes the theory of evolution nonsense. The complexity of the human eye and everything it must do also demonstrates the necessity of an intelligent designer. Such things could never have evolved by random chance processes.
-
3 hours ago, Black Dog said:
Are you shitting me with this right now? High concentrations of C02 can cause unconsciousness and ultimately death. Slaughterhouses use it to knock animals out before they kill them.
CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere but the amount is miniscule. The atmosphere is 0.04% carbon dioxide. Nobody is saying CO2 is a threat to health from breathing it. That is not what the debate is all about. The claim is that man-made CO2 causes global warming. Believe me, nobody will become unconscious or die from breathing 0.04% carbon dioxide. Man has been breathing that small amount since God created mankind. God made the atmosphere with CO2. It is natural.
1 hour ago, herbie said:You're talking to someone who can't accept evolution FFS. After all, the Book says the meek shall inherit what's left of the Earth.
You are someone who believes man evolved from apes. Possibly you did. I can see you have some traits.
-
13 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:
His problem is, how is he going to get our emissions down to a level that will stop the catastrophe future Canadians will be facing.
That is the biggest lie that is being told. Nobody can control the climate.
First off, fossil emissions are only 0.1 to 0.2 % of the global atmospheric greenhouse gases. So it is extremely unlikely man is having any effect on the climate.
Canada's emissions are about 1.5% of the world's fossil emissions.
China's emissions are around 33% of the world's fossil emissions.
How do you propose to make China cut it's emissions?
Nothing Canada does will make any difference to climate change. It is all a big scam and power grab.
Why punish Canadians for something that most of the rest of the world does nothing for?
The carbon tax does affect Canadians. Carbon tax does nothing for the environment or climate change.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:
The vote says that having a price on carbon has more support than the CPC caucus realizes.
That is as far as I had to read to realize you are out of touch with what is gong on. Most Canadians oppose the carbon tax increase and a great number oppose the carbon tax, period. So those 206 MPs you mentioned who voted for the carbon tax increase are out of touch with most Canadians. They will find out in 18 months if not sooner how wrong they are. They do not represent Canadians.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Black Dog said:
You might not be able to measure it with a standard household thermometer, but it absolutely would change the temperature, even if only slightly
Are you shitting me with this right now? High concentrations of C02 can cause unconsciousness and ultimately death. Slaughterhouses use it to knock animals out before they kill them.
We don't have high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is very small, a rare gas but is essential for life. The amount in the atmosphere is not a concern for humans breathing it. Nobody ever said it was a concern.
-
35 minutes ago, herbie said:
Lying s*** of s***
Gaza and the West Bank are not Israel.The surrounding countries attacked Israel in 1967 and lost territories. The West Bank was once under the control of Jordan, but after they attacked Israel in 1967, they lost control of it. These territories include the West Bank, and some other areas. I believe Israel is in the process of annexing the West Bank. Our opinion doesn't matter. The U.N. is anti-Israel and can complain all it wants. Israel has to do what it needs to do to protect its own security.
-
Just now, Black Dog said:
I'm not it seems you don't understand basic logic.
No it probably isn't.
This is so funny to me because adding even a tiny percentage of hot water into cold water would absolutely change the temperature of the cold water.
Like adding a drop of hot water to a ten ounce glass of cold water? Try it. Put a thermometer in the glass and add one drop of hot water and see if the temperature changes. Not likely on a normal mercury thermometer.
Just now, Black Dog said:You know breathing carbon dioxide will kill you, right?
Seriously? There is a small amount in the atmosphere that we breath all the time. If I am correct, we breath in oxygen and breath out a small amount of carbon dioxide which plants live on.
-
10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
How could Socrates have been poisoned? His bloodstream was only 0.1% hemlock!
So you are likening carbon dioxide, an essential gas for life on earth, to a deadly poison? Did some radical environmentalist tell you that?
-
2 minutes ago, Black Dog said:
vidence would be something that shows why that amount of would be too small to alter the climate
You are confused about evidence and proof.
There is nobody on earth that can prove that amount is too small to alter the climate or prove that it can alter the climate. It is impossible to prove.
But I could point to a very simple example of why I believe it cannot alter the climate.
The sun shines on a clear day. If there is 0.1% or 0.2% cloud cover, will the sun still be shining? Of course. You likely would not even notice 0.2% cloud cover.
If you have a glass of cold water and you have a way to measure 0.2% of the glass in boiling hot water and pour it into the glass of cold water, will it change the temperature of the glass of cold water? Not likely.
The whole thing is it is strictly a matter of opinion.
Same as man-made climate change. There is no proof. Strictly a matter of opinion.
-
41 minutes ago, Black Dog said:41 minutes ago, Black Dog said:
You said you posted evidence to support your belief.
So for hundreds of thousands of years, atmospheric C02 was well below 300 ppm. Now it's well above 400 ppm.
Yes, I posted evidence to support my belief. The evidence is the amount of CO2 caused by fossil fuels is 0.1 to 0.2 % of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That is evidence. Like it or not.
One website says it was once in the distant past over 1,000 ppm. So what. CO2 is not the only thing that is a greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. Most of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is not man-made. Why blame man? What proof do you have?
33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:So - post their papers then. "I had some bookmarked theories that have mysteriously disappeared" ... why would you even post that ?
You don't believe the science is settled - your words. And you don't have a single link to an actual paper that is giving a counter theory.
Why are you wasting our time on here ?Give a specific criticism that addresses my points.
The anti-Climate Change people are amazing to me in that the claim a giant opposition to the consensus and never can post a single paper - not one - that takes down Climate Change.
You think a "paper" is proof of anything. Not a chance.
Many scientists are simply repeating what they heard others say. Nobody has any real proof. Papers don't prove anything. Man-made climate change is impossible to prove. It cannot be replicated in a lab.
-
23 minutes ago, herbie said:
When has the govt of Canada not condemned the Oct 7 attack?
When has it ever not demanded the immediate release of hostages?
When has it ever not condemned anti-semitism ?Give up the constant lame accusation that any criticism of Israeli govt actions is antisemetic.
You elevating Netanyahu onto your Holier-than-God pedestal beside Trump?
So childish. You are brainwashed. The government supports a so-called two state solution; in other words carve up the small state of Israel and give big parts of it to their sworn enemies who want to kill them and destroy Israel. That should tell you how anti-Semitic the government really is. Similar to much of the world.
Total fossil emissions in the world is only 0.1% to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Climate always changes and always has. Nothing to do with man. Better for man to adapt and prepare for more forest fires, floods, and storms, and forget thinking he can control the climate. Those things are going to happen anyway.