blackbird

Western society was historically Judeo-Christian which has it basis in the Bible. The development into democratic countries with Parliaments and the adoption of human rights is something that is attributable to the Bible and Judeo-Christian civilization. This did not happen in eastern civilization. There are many dictatorships and a lack of human rights in other parts of the world or non-Judeo-Christian countries. I think the connection of the west to the Bible has had an affect that other parts of the world never had.

When people take hard drugs they are doing something that threatens their life.

The Parliamentary Budget officer said after the carbon tax rebate, the average Canadian will pay $911.00 in carbon taxes this year. $911.00 is a lot of money for millions of Canadians who are struggling with the cost of housing, rent, increasing food costs, home heating, utilities, and various other costs. This is NOT a climate plan. It will have no effect on the climate.

There is no point in him appearing on television anyway. He is no fan of evangelical Christians; so why pretend on one day?

Man cannot control the climate. So why worry about a "climate plan". Who invented the idea man can control the climate? Where is the proof?

It's not a grudge. It is a righteous God judging evil rebellious humans. God created man in his image and they are his property. It is man that chose to rebel against God. Man must pay for his sinful nature and wicked heart. God offered his Son as full payment for those who believe in Him and accept his sacrifice as atonement. That is what today, Easter Sunday, is all about. According to the Bible, those who reject Jesus Christ, have no atonement or forgiveness for their sins. One either believes the gospel and trusts in him as Lord and Savior or they have no Savior and will face judgment.

The CTV news just reported a poll indicates 70% of Canadians are opposed to the carbon tax increase that will come into effect tomorrow, April 1st. Liberals and federal NDP don't care. We are ruled by a dictator. This has never been so obvious as it is now. Surprisingly, even NDP Premier Wab Kinew of Manitoba is opposing the carbon tax increase for April 1st. When an NDP Premier opposes it, that should tell Trudeau something, but he is tone deaf.

I watched the CBC news but did not see Trudeau's Easter message. I was able to find it on youtube. But very few people will watch his message on youtube. I have not watched CTV news this Easter (Sunday) morning, but if it is not being broadcast on the main television networks in the country, you might as well say it is not being broadcast. Very few people watch youtube so that really counts as nothing. Will check CTV news later today and see if it appears on there.

I know you don't like to reply to me much but I have pointed out indisputable facts which you ignore. I pointed out a CBC article that stated the objective of carbon taxes is to reduce fossil emissions by Canada by approximately 20 megatons by 2030. That is 20 mega tons. Seriously, do you believe that will make any difference to anything? Humans reportedly emit 26.4 gigatons per year. That is GIGA TONS! Did you know a gigaton is 1000 times greater than a megaton? So Canada hopes to reduce fossil CO2 emissions by 20 megatons per year by 2030. That is one-thousandth of what humans emit per year (26.4 GT). Do you seriously believe a reduction of 1/1000 of human emissions by Canada will make any difference to global warming? Is it really worth hurting Canadians by inflicting punishing carbon taxes on everyone for something that will make absolutely no difference?

Well, it is a sad fact but you are probably right. I don't have any way of knowing. That is God's business. The point is to read the Bible, believe, and avoid it completely. Forget the math.

According to this CBC article: " The researchers found that the carbon pricing applied to big industrial polluters will cut between 53 million and 90 million tonnes by 2030, while the pricing on consumers will cut between 19 million and 22 million tonnes. " So estimates carbon taxes on consumers will cut aprox 20 mega tons by 2030. That is the claim. Whether it is true is doubtful. Now let's look at the facts. Presently global CO2 emissions by humans are estimated to be 26.4 Gt , that is 26.4 giga tons. A giga ton is 1,000 times a mega ton. So if Canada's carbon tax reduces CO2 emissions from Canada by 20 mega tons by 2030, that will reduce human emission by one-thousandth of the total human emissions. Can you see the absurdity of thinking that carbon taxes on Canadians will make any difference at all? Do you really think reducing human emissions by 1/1000 of total human emissions will affect climate change. Seriously. People need to give their head a shake. These facts have been kept hidden from Canadians. We are constantly being lied to. What's behind the carbon tax, and does it work? | CBC News

According to this CBC article: " The researchers found that the carbon pricing applied to big industrial polluters will cut between 53 million and 90 million tonnes by 2030, while the pricing on consumers will cut between 19 million and 22 million tonnes. " So estimates carbon taxes on consumers will cut aprox 20 mega tons by 2030. That is the claim. Whether it is true is doubtful. Now let's look at the facts. Presently global CO2 emissions by humans are estimated to be 26.4 Gt , that is 26.4 giga tons. A giga ton is 1,000 times a mega ton. So if Canada's carbon tax reduces CO2 emissions from Canada by 20 mega tons by 2030, that will reduce human emission by one-thousandth of the total human emissions. Can you see the absurdity of thinking that carbon taxes on Canadians will make any difference at all? Do you really think reducing human emissions by 1/1000 of total human emissions will affect climate change. Seriously. People need to give their head a shake. These facts have been kept hidden from Canadians. We are constantly being lied to. What's behind the carbon tax, and does it work? | CBC News

Canada's fossil emissions are 1.5% of global fossil emissions. How much do you think Canada will reduce its global emissions from 1.5% Suppose it reduced it to 1.4% of global emissions, how much would that affect climate change, assuming human fossil emissions are really affecting climate change? If Canada reduced its emissions by 10% what is 10% of 1.5%? The answer is 0.15%. Do you seriously think carbon taxes are reducing Canada's fossil emissions by 10%? People use fossil fuels to drive to work, pick up their kids at school or hockey. Drive to buy groceries (if they have enough money) and go to doctors, etc. People that live in rural areas must often drive hundreds of km for normal things like medical appointments, work, etc. These people cannot stop using fossil fuels. We live in a cold country that must heat their homes. Carbon taxes will not stop people from driving or heating their homes. So what is the point? And like I said, if Canada reduced its fossil emissions by 10% which is highly unlikely, will it make a difference to the global fossil emissions and climate change? Canada's total emissions are only 1.5% of the global fossil emissions and if Canada reduces its share by 10%, no it will absolutely not make any difference to anything except the cost of living of Canadians.

Canada is one of only a few countries that have a carbon tax. This website won't let me copy this map because it is a different file format, but if you go to the link you can see the world map. Which countries have put a price on carbon? - Our World in Data Canada's emissions are 1.5% of the world's fossil emissions and China's are about 33% Why are Trudeau and the Liberal/NDP punishing Canadians? There must be some other reason.

Yes, you are screwing the people for nothing.

Canada is one of the few countries in the world that have a carbon tax and Canada's emissions are only 1.5% of the global fossil emissions. So Canada's Liberals and NDP are punishing Canadians in a futile effort. If carbon taxes had any effect on climate change, one might have a legitimate argument, but since Canada is taxing Canadians to death for living normally, and it has absolutely no effect on the climate, it is criminal. It is a scam. China's emissions are about 33 or 34% of the global fossil emissions, yet they have no carbon tax. .

Our MP gets paid big bucks for doing what? Photo ops. He doesn't bother answering Email that he doesn't like, yet will get the golden handshake with a bag of gold for the rest of his life. Thought he was representing his constituents, yet he doesn't even answer an Email on the question of rampant soft-on-crime and repeat offenders being released.

The unelected Senate is loaded with people who were appointed there because they are loyal liberals that have the right glow. They get big salaries, and extremely generous pensions at the expense of the taxpayers who have no vote or say in them getting their positions. The system is dysfunctional from the top down.

Hopefully Liberals will keep doing what they are doing and keep Trudeau in the window. His unpopularity has given PP and the Conservatives the huge lead they have now. Liberals are keeping Trudeau in the main window to make continuous pitches to young people which is not selling. As long as Liberals keep doing what they are doing and CPC does not make a major stumble, PP and CPC will make a smashing win. Time to turn the disastrous policies of Liberals around to put Canada on the path to recovery. Smash the tax, spike the hike, and jail, not bail.

Wiggly waffler.

Euthanasia for disabled babies? Another fruit of evolutionary thinking. "Conclusion Coyne argues, “When religion vanishes … so will much of the opposition to both adult and newborn euthanasia.” Yet again, I have to agree with him; and it is surely significant that this call for killing babies should appear on a website devoted to ‘proving’ evolution. Having rejected the God who made him, Coyne has lost all sense of reality. He now doesn’t and can’t understand human nature, and can no longer think rightly about these issues. Rather than offering ‘dignity in dying’ (a favourite slogan of the pro-euthanasia lobby), legalising killing devalues people and robs them of their status as God’s image bearers. Only by holding to the biblical account of creation can we assert the true nature of man and prevent society sinking further and further into this kind of confusion and error. Only by viewing people as God does can we make right laws and care for others as we should." For whole article: Euthanasia for disabled babies? (creation.com) This is a consequence of teaching the theory of evolution to our youth in the school system. Canada has descended into darkness. We have abortion on demand and medical assistance in dying now being expanded to people with mental problems. That part has been delayed for another year. But over 16,000 people chose MAID last year in Canada. Abortion has its own consequences. With the low birth rate in Canada, Canada is choosing to bring in half a million immigrants a year from third world countries who do not share our values. We are witnessing just one of the consequences of third world immigration with the large protests demanding Canadians, the education system, and the government bow to their beliefs about Israel and the Palestinian conflict in the middle east. The problem is a low birth rate means there will not be enough people to keep paying for all the social services and old age pensions unless enough immigrants are brought in to compensate for it. Human life is devalued by the theory of evolution when people believe that they are just part of a cosmic accident or a meeting of the chemicals. The theory has lots of unintended consequences.

The debate about the theory often is about the Darwinist theory of natural selection. Evolutionist claim that natural selection results in an evolved species. But the creationist believes there is no such thing as natural selection leading to new DNA information. This article explains this issue from the creationist point of view. quote How often we hear an example of natural selection being used as proof of evolution. Changing sizes, colours, skin patterns and shapes are often paraded as evolution’s honour roll. This bait-and-switch tactic has been so often exposed for what it is, it’s a wonder that it is still used, or that people are still taken in by it. The very term should put people on their guard that something is missing. If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing. Think of being asked to select cards from a pack. You could select cards from a pack every second for the rest of your life and all you would only ever produce is different groups of the same cards. You would not have created anything new—only re-arranged cards, or removed cards or added cards from another pack. If an illusionist asks you to select a card from a pack, and surprises you with something new, you know it is an illusion, a sleight of hand. We need to learn to see the evolutionists’ sleight of hand when they claim to have pulled something ‘new’ out of the pack. Selection is always from a pre-existing series or range; it creates nothing new. This illustration applies equally to ‘selection’ in the biological context. The all-wise Creator knew the different environments that His creatures would have to adapt to after the Fall and Curse, and particularly after the Flood of Noah, in order to survive. He included in the genetic information of each ‘kind’ of creature He created a smorgasbord of variety in their makeup. This includes those features that would interact with the environment: the overall size of a plant, animal or person; the size of individual organs or limbs such as beaks and noses, leaf sizes, skin colours, hair and feather lengths, textures and colours. All of these and many more variations were programmed into the DNA of His creatures in order that as populations of the various kinds moved into new environments, expression of those variations enabled individuals to survive those environments. Individuals with those variations then passed them on to their young. When these variations and the habitat of the population expressing that variation are distinct enough, we might distinguish different ‘species’. In all of this selection process, new information is never added. It can be conserved or lost, but never gained. unquote For the whole article go to: Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)

Who else gets a big pension after six years of cushy living as an MP. That's why we have carbon taxes.

No, I don't think he is basing his worldview on the Bible. It is his own warped thinking. He has a very simplistic view of things and lives in a different reality. The Bible is just as valid today as it was in the distant past. It is not something that needs to adapt to the world. The ways of the world are contrary to the Bible. The Bible has essential truth that is valid for all times. The world does not rule God. God is sovereign over the world and he created it.

I admit I may have erred in saying there are no "evolution scientists". I read on Wikipedia that there are evolution biologists. However, that is beside the point. Your claim that I don't know anything about the theory of evolution is false. I gave a fairly good description from memory that would be accepted by a normal person as factual. I never claimed to have an encyclopedic definition or scientific definition. I don't need to. I have a general idea what it is. That is good enough. Anyone is free to express their opinions. One doesn't need certain qualifications decided by you to comment on here. Wikipedia has a fairly detailed description of the theory of evolution. A lot of it would only be understandable by someone educated in the field. It also says the theory has been modified over the past 160 years. A lot of changes have been made to the theory and nuances added. It is not necessary to have a detailed knowledge of the theory in order to disagree with the general concept and express one's opinions about it. We know the general concept is that all life evolved from earlier life forms and originally from some accidental coming together of certain molecules or chemicals. No, I won't attempt to answer your questions. I am not into your word games and won't bite. You trying to test me is nonsensical. It has no relevance to the debate. I never claimed to be a professor of evolutionary biology or anything similar. I simply state what I believe about it and quote articles which I agree with. You can take it or leave it. Complete bull. I have as much right to speak on the subject as anyone else. Not every trained scientist agrees with the theory of evolution as you claim here. You are incorrect in saying every scientist does and it is just an assumption you are making. I realize the great majority probably agree with the theory of evolution, but we do not know the actual numbers that do not. If you want to see some of the scientists who disagree with it, you can find them on creation.com and other websites. I may have already given the names of a couple of scientists or highly educated men who disagree with it. However, numbers of people who believe in it does not establish truth or fact.