blackbird

You are talking absolute garbage. If you really wanted to know, you could easily Google it. You failed in your attempt to discredit the Bible or God. The earth's population was destroyed because they were evil. "5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Genesis 6:5 KJV Since it was the first couple, obviously some of Adam and Eve's children formed a couple. Obviously Adam and Eve had one or more girls as well. Nothing wrong with some of the children forming a couple in that situation. How else could they reproduce? We are talking about the beginning of the human race. God determines what is right or wrong. In that case it was acceptable since it was the only way to replenish the earth with humans. Do you realize how dumb it looks trying to judge God in comments? Kind of like a mosquito judging an elephant and saying where he can walk.

That doesn't make any sense. The fact that God created man and woman with the ability to procreate and keep the human race going is just another proof that God is infinitely powerful and intelligent. The fact that man rebelled against God is not God's fault. It is entirely man's fault. He allowed himself to be deceived by Satan. The whole LGBTQ thing is just rebellion against God and God's ordained way that humans should live. It really creates anarchy in human society. God ordained man and woman to live in a certain orderly way. But because of man's fallen nature, man rebelled against God and still do. Besides the sexual thing, man rebels against God in many other ways. That is why six people a day are dying from drugs laced with fentanyl in B.C. alone or about 2,000 per year. It's why we have wars. Another country in Africa has been taken over by an armed military group. A number of countries in Africa have had this happen in the last five years or so. It is anarchy. Little or no respect for law and order and governing authorities.

Lots of comments from perverse, twisted minds. Evil is evil and all the talk in the world about freedom and liberty to do one's own thing doesn't change that fact. God created Adam and Eve, man and woman. The only sexual relations that God condones is in marriage between a husband and wife, i.e. a man and a woman. Everything outside that is wrong. Man was created biologically different from a woman and it is obvious why they are created that way. The normal sexual relationship is between a husband and wife and is the only one God condones. It is the only one that perpetuates the human race and creates a stable family relationship with which to raise children. If anyone has trouble understanding that, their minds are likely poisoned or blinded by Satan, the prince of darkness. They need to study the Bible and change their attitude and be born again. See gospel of John to learn how to be delivered and saved.

So you said that and are claiming I said it. I did not say that.

No I did not say that. You imagined it. God gave man dominion over the earth. That dominion assumes a degree of responsible behavior. Man should be responsible how he develops and uses natural resources. There is nothing anywhere that says fossil fuels are bad and should not be used. That is what environmental radical say. I assume you are now against fossil fuels. You have not made yourself clear. There is no proof the use of fossil fuels is destroying the environment.

Where did I say that? I didn't. Of course everything that man does is not God's will. But the development of natural resources has made life possible and prosperous for billions of people on earth. Why would you think that was wrong? I don't know of anything in the Bible that says it is wrong to use fossil fuels. Opposition to fossil fuels comes from twisted minds and environmental fanatics. If it wasn't for fossil fuels, all these green radicals would not even be alive.

Why not? God created man and man developed the industrial age. You think God did not know man would have the industrial age. Why has it suddenly become wrong for man to use a natural resource such as oil or gas from the earth? Oil and gas has made life possible on earth for billions of people and made mankind prosperous and advanced civilization. Why would you oppose that?

That doesn't mean the Bible is wrong. It simply means someone at that time several thousand years ago called them birds. It proves nothing about the accuracy of the Bible. If anything it proves the Bible records it the way it was. Not everyone had perfect knowledge about the biology of birds and bats.

The Bible states that God created everything in six literal days. That is the only interpretation that makes sense. If you want to try to compare the Bible to what the majority of scientists say, you are making a fatal mistake because most of them do not believe the Bible. Yet they have no rational explanation for where the universe and life came from. But yet you want to take them as absolute truth? Why would you do that. As I said, they do not have the answers about some things. You either believe in a God that revealed himself to mankind in the creation and written revelation or you don't. Bats fly around like birds, so it is understandable why some people thousands of years ago would give them the term birds which could have been applied to anything that flies.

Unfortunately some of what is called science is not really science at all. The theory of evolution, which has been debunked by some scientists, is still believed by many people as fact and is taught in schools as scientific fact. There is nothing further from the truth. Evolution has been exposed as a fraud. There are no transitional fossils to show the transition between different species. The claim that humans evolved from the slime in a pond or even from apes or monkeys has been shown to be false. So more science is not necessarily going to bring mankind the truth. There are some things that science simply can not explain or prove. One of them is the theory of evolution and the other is the so-called man-made climate change. They cannot be proven. It is all speculation. Everyone who claims man-made climate change is a fact are no different than the people that claim evolution is a fact. They are believing that purely on speculation, not scientific fact. It is a cult or religion to them.

No, we are not the cause. It is all natural.

False. The ocean is not the source of heating. You again demonstrate your lack of knowledge. Nobody would agree with that claim. Heat requires a source of energy. The ocean is basically just a body of H2O. It does not produce energy and therefore does not produce heat. It absorbs radiation from the sun which heats the ocean and releases it into the atmosphere or earth. The main source of heat is the solar radiation mainly from the sun and some from radiation from space. But that has nothing at all to do with the article I posted which shows the NOAA fudges the statistics on temperature change.

If you're trying to defend the left or Socialism, you are on the losing side. Leftism or Socialism is evil and devilish. It is built of on the idea of taking from those that have something and giving to those who don't. It is built on Marxism or Communism. The idea that the state knows better and can redistribute the wealth is at the core of Socialism. That's what makes it evil. It is STEALING from those that have to give to others or spread around. Theft is a very basic commandment in the Bible that is condemned and forbidden. So, there will be no vindication of leftists or Socialists (or liberals with the same ideology). They are nothing more than thieves

The article I quoted is specifically about the NOAA giving misleading data. The article is not about rising ocean temperatures. You bring up something that is not directly related to the article and claim it should have been mentioned. Phony argument. Again, you are way over your head.

There Is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts in Letter to the United Nations | American Enterprise Institute - AEI

You claim the article ignores it, but nothing in what you mentioned supports the idea of climate change caused by man. The article does not deny climate change exists. How does rising ocean temperatures point to man as the cause? You are out of your league.

Nobody is ignoring it. Pointless to discuss those things because they do not point to man as being the cause.

Man-made climate change is just a big fraud. Funny how many people will believe almost anything. It is the same kind of thing as the Loch Ness monster. Many people believe in that. At one time many people believed the earth was flat too. Even today many worship Mother Earth as if it is some kind of god. Just look at how many people believe transgenderism is a natural occurrence. If you think humans are not gullible, think again. Many people are gullible about many things, including man-made climate change.

" What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate. Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present. This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming. But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming. That is, until the NOAA's statisticians "adjust" the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. " The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare | Investor's Business Daily (investors.com)

You have swallowed the great climate change nonsense, hook, line, and sinker. Man is not the cause of climate change and man can not control it.

Kids should learn to respect their parents and authorities, not oppose it. It appears for some of them, the opposite is the case. Going to court over climate change is absurd and nonsensical. They should be concentrating on learning and how to be a responsible citizen in the world, not a rebel and anarchist. The last thing the country needs is more young people trained to be protesters and anarchists.

How is opposing liberal ideology or opposing Trudeau online the same as selling snake oil? Time to admit you are a real liberal.

I think Jordon Peterson's appearance on social media with Pierre Poilievre in a six minute video highlighting Justin Trudeau's lack of meritocracy or educational qualifications to be PM was probably enough to have the liberal elite go after Peterson. Pointing out the only reason Trudeau got elected and continues to have a 33% core support is because of his father's name, his looks, a bit of charisma and identifying with a certain liberal-progressive crowd (such as marching in pride parades carrying a rainbow flag) would be enough to annoy liberal supporters and organizations that lean that way. This is an example of the kind of thing that would cause any liberal to try to deny Peterson his freedom of speech. Being together with Pierre Poilievre to comment on Trudeau would be enough to cause any liberal-oriented organization to try to silence Peterson. Perhaps this was the political stance Peterson has held for a long time even though this particular video is more recent. That would make him a target. What Jordan Peterson JUST DID With Justin Trudeau Changes EVERYTHING! | Watch (msn.com)

Beware of psychology in general. The Freudian cult has been exposed and now the Jung cult. What is left for psychologists to hang onto? "Ivan Tyrrell: In recent decades a tremendous amount of good work has been done exploring the damage Freudian beliefs did to psychotherapy, recently most notably by Richard Webster in Why Freud was Wrong, so I am most intrigued about your work on the Jung cult. Freud's one great service to the modern world was to publicise the ancient idea that we are driven much of the time by unconscious forces of which we are little aware. But in almost all other respects the crazy ideas he manufactured and promoted did great harm – and still are doing. Can the same be said for Jung? Richard Noll: I think so. And my book, The Jung Cult, documents why." The mysterious Jung: his cult, the lies he told, and the occult | www.hgi.org.uk

So are you saying that the Psychological Association of Ontario is like a religious institution and therefore must not speak anything contrary to their belief? If so, I would tend to agree with you. The association is acting like a top-down control religious institution or more like a cult.