blackbird

People just had enough of the PC party by around 1990 and that's when the Reform Party was formed.

The Bible is clear it isn't necessary for salvation. The thief on the cross was never baptized yet Jesus indicated he would be saved.

That's hilarious. You claim I appeal to non-biblical sources even when I don't say they are infallible, yet you believe the blasphemous doctrine of Papal infallibility when the Pope speaks ex cathedra.

Your choice. I don't have much more to add anyway. I've said most of what there is to say at this point. Good night.

You are correct. He tragically thinks the Catholic church has all the truth and only it can interpret the Bible. It is true there are thousands of Protestant or non-Catholic denominations but most of them agree on basic doctrines. He tries to paint a picture of thousands of denomination being all different which is not factual. Many of them if not most differ on minor matters but agree on central teachings from the Bible.

The fact is the Catholic church did kill over semantics or anyone who disagreed with them. They were condemned as heretics through the centuries which are correctly called the Dark Ages. There were groups of people and individuals who rejected Rome's version of Christianity and simply believed the Bible as the early Christians did. Many of them believed all one had to do be saved was believe in Jesus Christ as the Bible clearly says. Rome differed and used force to make everyone they could bow their knee to their church, sacraments, priests, etc. This needs to be taught in schools. Most people do not have any idea what happened the past 1,500 years. They paid the price as heretics and many were burned at the stake. Fox's Book of Martyrs goes into all that.

You asked me and I answered and told you what the Bible says. Then you complain and say I am spouting my rhetoric. Whatever I say, you claim I am not answering in good faith.

No. That is contrary to the account given in the beginning of Genesis that God created everything in six days. The way it is presented in Genesis tells us it is meant to be taken literally. The fact is it was a supernatural event. The Bible is full of supernatural events that happened and that is how God created the universe according to the written revelation, the Bible. The fact that there are scientists that have successfully refuted the theory of evolution (or Darwinism because that is where the theory came from) must be taken seriously. However, I cannot convince you. It is up to you to sort it out by a serious investigation into what creation scientists have said. A good book in my opinion to start with is Darwin's Universe... etc. by Yan. T. Wee. Heis not a scientist but his book is extremely rational. Not everyone who writes on the topic has to be a scientist. Science has been found wanting in many ways and a lot of science has been later rejected.

Will leave you to it then. I see your mind is definitely biased with the world view. Not all scientists agree with the theory of evolution as you claimed. I mentioned several who refute the theory. You will have to read up on it. You are correct in that a lot of the information I quoted in the 15 reasons against evolution are beyond our abilities. However, if you are going to look at both sides of the debate, you have to accept that there are scientists such as the ones I mentioned, who will give explanations from a scientific point of view that refute evolution. The theory of evolution is more of a religion than a science anyway. Darwin's theory was a very simplistic theory that was speculation and not backed by any scientific proof.

It would take a whole book to properly present the reasons why it goes against God. I mentioned the book Darwin's Universe by Yan T. Wee that goes into that in great detail. Basically I would say it boils down to the fact that the theory of evolution buries God in a causeless universe. The theory of evolution implies the universe is a cosmic accident and we are here strictly by an accident of chemicals coming together. This goes against reason and logic. Life has no real purpose. As the book says, Darwinism is a ticket into a universe of ultimate meaninglessness and despair. Is that really what you want?

Maybe if you live long enough, there will be a utopian society where there is no economic inequality and no drug addicts. Good luck with that.

Another book written by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati is "The Greatest Hoax on Earth". Description Richard Dawkins, the undisputed high priest of evolution/atheism, says his book The Greatest Show on Earth: the evidence for evolution is the first time he has presented all the evidence for evolution/long ages. It is promoted as an unanswerable demolition of creation. Scientist, logician, chessmaster and author of the world’s biggest-selling creationist book, CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati, relentlessly demolishes Dawkin’s claims point-by-point, showing biblical creation makes more sense of the evidence. A must-read—and a must-give (to all evolutionist acquaintances)! The Greatest Hoax on Earth? (creation.com)

Probably the most famous atheist and proponent of the theory of evolution is Richard Dawkins. Yet he was not a so-called evolution scientist. He was a zoologist. "He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962; while there, he was tutored by Nobel Prize -winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He graduated with upper-second class honours." --- wikipedia If you are interested, you can watch debates between Richard Dawkins and Creationists on youtube. Just search creation evolution debate on youtube.

Here is an interesting reason that casts doubt on the theory of evolution. "No geological evidence has been found anywhere on Earth for the alleged primordial soup. See Primeval soup — failed paradigm." You can see from the above list of 15 reasons that cast doubt on the theory of evolution that it becomes a very complex subject and much of it requires a higher education in certain sciences. However there are certain things the average person can understand or glean from the information which makes sense.

That is not factual. Dr. Sarfati and Dr. Stott and many others are scientists in some field but they have taken a great interest in the subject of evolution versus creation and have spent a great deal of time studying the subject in great detail. They know what they are talking about. This article has 15 loopholes in the theory of evolution: Loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life (creation.com) Here they are: " There is almost universal agreement among specialists that Earth’s primordial atmosphere contained no methane, ammonia or hydrogen — ‘reducing’ gases. Rather, most evolutionists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-type sparking experiments will not work with those gases in the absence of reducing gases. See The primitive atmosphere. The atmosphere contained free oxygen, which would destroy organic compounds. Oxygen would be produced by photodissociation of water vapour. Oxidized minerals such as hematite are found as early as 3.8 billion years old, almost as old as the earliest rocks, and 300 million years older than the earliest life. There is also evidence for organisms complex enough to photosynthesize at 3.7 billion years ago (Rosing, M.T. and Frei, R., U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland—indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 217:237–244, 2004). Also, red jasper or hematite-rich chert cored from layers allegedly 3.46 billion years old showed that ‘there had to be as much oxygen in the atmosphere 3.46 billion years ago as there is in today’s atmosphere. To have this amount of oxygen, the Earth must have had oxygen producing organisms like cyanobacteria actively producing it, placing these organisms much earlier in Earth’s history than previously thought’ (Deep-sea rocks point to early oxygen on Earth, 24 March 2009). NB: these ‘dates’ are according to the evolutionary/uniformitarian framework, which I strongly reject on both biblical and scientific grounds — see How long were the days mentioned in the biblical creation account? and Evidence for a Young World. Catch-22: if there was no oxygen there would be no ozone, so ultraviolet light would destroy biochemicals. Also, the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur only in the presence of oxygen (see Eastman et al., Exploring the Structure of a Hydrogen Cyanide Polymer by Electron Spin Resonance and Scanning Force Microscopy, Scanning 2:19–24, p. 20). All energy sources that produce the biochemicals destroy them even faster! The Miller–Urey experiments used strategically designed traps to isolate the biochemicals as soon as they were formed so the sparks/UV did not destroy them. Without the traps, even the tiny amounts obtained would not have been formed. Biochemicals would react with each other or with inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (–NH2) compounds), but both must be present for a cell to form. Without enzymes from a living cell, formaldehyde (HCHO) reactions with hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are necessary for the formation of DNA and RNA bases, condensing agents, etc. But HCHO and especially HCN are deadly poisons — HCN was used in the Nazi gas chambers! They destroy vital proteins. Abundant Ca2+ ions would precipitate fatty acids (necessary for cell membranes) and phosphate (necessary for such vital compounds as DNA, RNA, ATP, etc.). Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions. No geological evidence has been found anywhere on Earth for the alleged primordial soup. See Primeval soup — failed paradigm. Depolymerisation is much faster than polymerisation. Water is a poor medium for condensation polymerisation. Polymers will hydrolyse in water over geological time. Condensing agents (water-absorbing chemicals) require acid conditions and they could not accumulate in water. Heating to evaporate water tends to destroy some vital amino acids, racemise all the amino acids, and requires geologically unrealistic conditions. Besides, heating amino acids with other gunk produced by Miller experiments would destroy them. See Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem. Polymerisation requires bifunctional molecules (that can combine with two others), and is stopped by a small fraction of unifunctional molecules (that can combine with only one other, thus blocking one end of the growing chain). Miller experiments produce five times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules. See Origin of life: the polymerization problem. Sugars are destroyed quickly after the formose (or Butlerov) reaction that is supposed to have formed them. This reaction involves formaldehyde and alkali, but the very same alkaline conditions destroy aldose sugars—including ribose and glucose—via the Cannizzaro reaction, which converts two molecules of an aldehyde to an alcohol and an acid. Also, the alkaline conditions needed to form sugars are incompatible with acid conditions required to form polypeptides with condensing agents. See Can nucleobases and self-replication arise from non-living chemicals?. Long time periods do not help the evolutionary theory if biochemicals are destroyed faster than they are formed (cf. points 4, 7, and 9). Not all of the necessary ‘building blocks’ are formed; e.g. ribose and cytosine are hard to form and are very unstable. See Origin of life: Instability of building blocks. Life requires homochiral polymers (all the same ‘handedness’) — proteins have only ‘left-handed’ amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only ‘right-handed’ sugars. Miller experiments produce racemates — equal mixtures of left and right handed molecules. A small fraction of wrong-handed molecules terminates RNA replication, shortens polypeptides, and ruins enzymes. See Origin of life: the chirality problem and Homochirality an unsolved problem (quote). Life requires catalysts which are specific for a single type of molecule. This requires specific amino acid sequences, which have extremely low probabilities (~10–5000 for all the enzymes required). Prebiotic polymerisation simulations yield random sequences, not functional proteins or enzymes. See World record enzymes, New DNA repair enzyme discovered, and Answering another uninformed atheist: Galileo, Miller–Urey, probability. The origin of the coding system of proteins on DNA is an enigma. So is the origin of the message encoded, which is extraneous to the chemistry, as a printed message is to ink molecules. Code translation apparatus and replicating machinery are themselves encoded — a vicious circle. A code cannot self-organize. See Self-replicating enzymes? and Can nucleobases and self-replication arise from non-living chemicals?. The origin of machines requires design, not random energy. E.g. the Nobel prize-winning biochemist Robert Bruce Merrifield (1921–2006) designed an automatic protein synthesiser. Each amino acid added to the polymer requires 90 steps. The amino acid sequence is determined by a program. A living cell is like a self-replicating Merrifield machine."

I doubt very much if any scientist only specializes in evolution because what would be the point? How could he earn a living? Probably all scientists have certain things they specialize in such as micro-biology, certain field of chemistry or biology, physics, etc. They have to be able to get a job related to their field to earn a living. I doubt any scientist who claims to specialize in evolution could get a job because I doubt there is even a job strictly in that field. You are playing games. If you want scientists to talk about evolution, you will have to accept the fact that they are not necessarily strictly dealing with evolution. They may be specialists in related subjects like biology or archeaology, etc. There is nothing wrong with that. Many scholarly scientists are quite capable to studying and learning things outside a narrow field that they have a degree in. I don't even know if there a so-called evolutionary scientist in existence. Of course many others will claim they are experts in the field but that can be taken with a grain of salt because it is only a theory and has been refuted by many other highly educated scientists. But there is an article that you might want to consider: Loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life (creation.com)

He also caused the death of the federal PC party and the rise of the Reform Party in western Canada. Then we had two parties, the PC and the Reform Party and of course the vote was divided and could never form government. That eventually led to the Canadian Alliance party which joined with the old PC party to form one federal Conservative Party of Canada. O'Toole was more of a liberal and was defeated in the federal election and had to be replaced too. O'Toole wanted to take the party back to the days of the PC Party. I am not exactly sure which way the present Conservative Party is heading. But at least it may be able to get rid of Trudeau and the Liberals for a while. Most Canadians have had enough of them.

The forward to Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M. is written by Don Batten, B.Sc. Agr. (Hons. 1), Ph.D., Senior Scientist, writer and lecturer, Creation Ministries International, Australia.

I just gave a name of an important and highly recommended book "Refuting Evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. The author, Dr. Sarfati,is not only a brilliant scientist, but a master of concise, clear communication and logical thinking. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) had published an educator's guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. It had been made available to educators throughout America to encourage teachers to incorporate more evolution in their classes and basically teach particles-to-people evolution as a fact. Dr. Sarfati, in his relatively small book, does as excellent job in refuting the NAS guidebook. I can't spend a lot of time on here quoting the book. If you are serious about learning something about this, you will have to get the book and make some effort yourself. A lot of Dr. Sarfati's book and maybe all of it can be found on the creation.com website. So it won't even cost you anything to learn something about the creationist point of view. No, that is not true. The people I mentioned to you are highly qualified scientists. I already told you that but you don't seem to pay attention very well. Dr. Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M. is a highly qualified scientist.

No, that is not correct. Darwinism is a very apt term because the theory was invented by Darwin. Hence Darwinism. Simple logic. But you should really study the subject evolution versus creation rather than getting hung up on the word "Darwinism". When I say study, I don't mean only studying from the evolutionist's side, but also study from knowledgeable creationists as well. I will ask you one question that Professor Philip Stott asks: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?

I am not into word games. You don't know anything about me or what I know. I believe in the Bible and Jesus Christ. I have also read some good materials on evolution versus creation. I also heard a five evening slide show presentation by Dr. Philip Stott, a mathematician/scientist who has extensive knowledge on the subject and has spoken to conferences in different countries on the topic. You can find his youtube videos by putting Dr. Philip Stott in a search window. I also read a book called Darwin's Universe: From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing - Survival for Nothing by Yan T. Wee. You need to read that book. It is very good. You can get some of these books on Amazon. Another is Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, PhD., F.M. Another book by Philip Stott is Vital Questions. You can also search the internet for countless articles. I don't spend a whole lot of time on this now because I have other priorities. But if you want to know more, there are lots of resources. By the way Darwinism is more a religion than a science. Evolution is not supported by science and has been rejected by some scientists. The Bible makes it clear. " 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. " John 3:36 KJV I would suggest you do some studying before you commit yourself more into the atheist position. There is a lot to the subject which you have not even begun to consider. Being on the wrong side of God will get you a lost eternity so it is a serious matter, probably the most serious subject in your life. Not everyone is elect or given the grace to believe. But there are people in the world who try to help you by giving you the gospel of salvation. Just insulting them is not a good sign. A better attitude would be to try to keep calm and discuss things rationally and study the issues from all angles. There are lots of books around and endless videos and articles on the question of creation versus evolution at the website creation.com The book "Darwin's Universe" has a good definition of Darwinism. "Darwinism is a belief in the meaningless of existence". That sounds about right.

Canadians need to grow a bit of a spine and bring back capital punishment.

This seems more like the Heiltsuk FN are using the arrest of two FN people a number of years ago to further FNs political objectives. The police department did apologize and in fact travelled to Bella Bella for an apology ceremony but it was rejected because the two officers who arrested the two FN people did not travel to Bella Bella. The two officers did send a written apology, but the band says it does not recognize and respect their culture. This is ridiculous because why should the police or anyone else be subject to FN demands to fly hundreds of km and subject themselves to some ceremonial practices? I believe they are using this to make more demands on the government or white society, hence the endless demands and being offended. Vancouver police, First Nation ties have 'broken down' since settlement: review (msn.com)

You obviously know nothing about the Bible or Christianity and care nothing about justice and the protection of society. " 6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. 7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. " Genesis 9:6 KJV "1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. {ordained: or, ordered} 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. " Romans 13:1-4 KJV Before you get carried away with your liberal soft-on-crime ideology, you need to become a Christian and believe the Bible. Then you might make some sense. Capital punishment for unborn babies is fine with liberals but for murderers, no. Letting murderers escape with a 25 year sentence (some get far less) and then tormenting the victim's families with parole board hearings every few years makes no sense. Meanwhile it all costs the taxpayers millions of dollars. Now we have people being murdered almost every day in Canada and they know there is no death sentence.

A 19 year old student from Sri Lanka is being charged with the murder of six people who he was staying with. This is horrific news. Capital punishment for murder must be brought back. If for nothing else but to carry out justice and send a message that this is completely unacceptable.