blackbird
-
Posts
6,678 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
1 hour ago, herbie said:
OMG the whole world is trying to wean itself of oil, and you're going to blame Ottawa. And pull a Danielle Smith and claim the Feds are trying to take something away from them.
You know that back in the 1980s Alberta demanded world prices for oil and they got it. So now they pay more for it, just like the ROC. Didn't believe that it would turn out it was cheaper to ship Saudi oil to the East coast than it was to build pipelines. Still don't want to believe it's not going to be the forever source of energy/ Want to believe Justin screwed them over pipelines even though TMX was ready to abandon it and he was the one who baled it out.....
Shall I go on? Or should we not even mention other uses for Alberta oil and ignore the companies that are adopting many right there in Alberta? Or make you a map that shows their market is SOUTH and they should be griping the USA isn't buying more?
You do know I'm talking about Alberta separatists and not the people of Alberta, eh? My family come from Alberta, I have souvenir stock certificates from defunct Alberta oil companies my Grandpa bought in the early years. Have lots of friends in The Pass that aren't snivelling that the glory days of coal mining are long gone. Their kids even made good money on all the wind farms there without getting lung cancer. My grandson has his choice of jobs there and like many of his friends has zero interest in working the oil fields.
It's a crying shame that so many people's vision for their country is still in shipping out raw resources. My Grampa and his friends used to discuss that in the early 1960s. Then again, they were all immigrants that came to this country because they saw possibilities and opportunities.
Better go back to school. Natural resource exports is Canada's main industry and make the most money. Canada can't compete with China, Asia, and Mexico in manufacturing because those countries pay slave wages and poor benefits. We make our money on shipping natural resources such as oil and minerals. We could have been making lots of money on natural gas too if Ottawa had not blocked natural gas exports and not blocked the building of pipelines east and west. Europe and other countries are begging for our natural gas but the Trudeau government is obsessed with fighting climate change and won't help. They are next to useless.
-
43 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:
Well, fact is Alberta's natural resources and not owned by Alberta
Report shows 70 percent of Canadian oilsands production is owned by foreign companies and shareholders
Still owned by Alberta. Alberta receives the royalties from the oilsands production and has made billions of dollars on it over the years. Ottawa steals Alberta's wealth and gives it to Quebec.
-
6 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
From what I’ve read in the National Post, the dates don’t match up. Margaret Trudeau was the most scrutinized woman in Canada. Her every moment was monitored by a hungry press.
"
Footnote 19 of the same Wikipedia article cites to a April 13, 1971 article from The Ottawa Journal. The article states that the Trudeaus were visiting an unidentified island in the Caribbean and wanted the press to give them privacy:
To be clear: they disclosed all the other locations they visited but asked the press for privacy when they went to the “unidentified” island. Come on.
Justin Trudeau was born 8 1/2 months later. In 1976, Pierre eagerly became the first NATO leader to travel to Cuba. He brought his wife. Before even leaving the tarmac, both Trudeaus were showing an unusual amount of familiarity with Fidel considering he was a national leader they just allegedly met. Within hours of their first official meeting, Margaret was photographed intimately touching and holding Fidel Castro with both arms. The Trudeaus announced they had become besties with the dictator and sang his praises during the height of his human rights violations."
-
4 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
From what I’ve read in the National Post, the dates don’t match up. Margaret Trudeau was the most scrutinized woman in Canada. Her every moment was monitored by a hungry press.
Those article and claims have been exposed as false by other articles.
-
10 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
Regarding the Castro business, impossible because they couldn’t have met at the time
Yes they could have. Trudeau and Margaret were infatuated with Fidel and took a private holiday to the Caribbean around the time she became pregnant. Google the articles on it.
Some articles say it is impossible. But other articles claim the story has never been debunked.
-
On 9/21/2023 at 1:07 PM, herbie said:
ou got the best economy in the country, no sales tax, low income tax, people pouring in to live there, the feds built and paid for a new oil pipeline, there's new gas lines you can connect to and you're still whining that it isn't enough? Yeah dream of your own country founded on selfishness and greed.
Albertans worked for what they have and natural resources belong to the province, not Ottawa or Toronto.
If Ottawa gets its way, Alberta's energy industry will be destroyed in the great transition.
They are not greedy, just trying to protect what is rightfully theirs.
Don't know if it is possible to protect Alberta in this crooked federation.
-
8 hours ago, OftenWrong said:
Whatever it is, the Catholic church has brought many benefits to humanity including the framework for our legal system and laws today. I would not expect the Spanish Inquisition.
The Spanish Inquisition was under the authority of and ordered by Rome. It was part of the larger Holy Roman Inquisition in Europe.
I would say the many benefits to humanity came in spite of the false system of Rome. It took the Reformation 500 years ago to reject the tyranny of Rome and bring in individual freedoms and rights. Romanist followers fought wars for 100 years in Europe to try to stop and reverse the Reformation through the 1500s and 1600s. Tens of thousands of protesters were murdered in France and Ireland in the St. Bartholemew's Day massacre and Ireland massacre. Countries which rejected the totalitarianism of Rome were Britain (England and Scotland), the Netherlands, Germany, and Scandinavian countries, Rome tried to keep the world in darkness under their totalitarian system and did manage to maintain control in central and south America (later), Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, France, and other places in the 1600s.
It was the beliefs of Bible believers and Judeo-Christian culture which rejected the Papacy and brought democracy and human rights and individual freedom to the western world. Rome fought against that all along the way. You just have to read some of the historical books on the Holy Roman Inquisition which lasted about 500 years to learn how they think. You either bowed the knee to Rome and its system or you were toast. That included trial, sanctions, imprisonment, torture, and execution. The only reason democracy and freedom exist in western countries now is because they are not in strong majorities and enough people rejected their system. If Rome had its way, there would be no democracy and freedoms.
Britain is an example. The British rejected Romanist control in the 1500s under the leadership of strong protestants, Henry VIII and subsequent monarchs. Many opponents of Rome were burned at the stake. Bloody Mary was in power for an interval and tried to stop the Reformation in Britain. She executed over a thousand protestants but she was stopped by subsequent events and monarchs. Ever since that time, Britain brought in democracy, the Parliamentary system, abolished slavery in the British Empire, and brought in human rights. That is where our laws and system came from. The freedoms, laws, and legal system we have did not come free from the Roman system. It took wars for 100 years, millions of lives lost, and great suffering to break free from the tyranny that existed for 1,000 years called the Dark Ages.
-
1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:
False? Even the Catholic church accepts evolution. The progressive Pope Francis said so a while ago.
Yes, I think I heard that. It bears no resemblance to Biblical Christianity. Whatever appeals to the mass of people. Bible believers don't follow what the Pope does. It is not a true church. It is a man-made belief system.
-
30 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Yes turning these on they're head would be huge news. You don't get that?
Why don't you watch the debate, The God Delusion, between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox on youtube? Richard Dawkins is a famous evolutionary biologist and author. He is a well-known defender of the theory of evolution.
-
6 minutes ago, eyeball said:
I'd be hearing media reports about the biggest science story since the invention of sliced bread.
Of course that would only be Darwinism or the theory of evolution. You learn nothing that way.
-
5 hours ago, eyeball said:
if there'd been anything of substance that had turned evolution science on its head I'm quite certain I would have heard about it by now.
There are literally thousands of articles and videos that debunk various aspects of evolution. You have chosen not to read or watch any of them. Why would you hear about them if you don't even attempt to avail yourself of them? Creation.com has thousands of articles and videos. You chose to remain in the dark.
By the way there is a scientist from the UK/South Africa whom I had the personal honour of meeting years ago and seeing a series of his slide presentations on various aspects of the creation-evolution debate. He once believed in evolution, but had his eyes opened about 45 years ago and since became an expert on the subject of creation versus evolution. He travelled to different countries to speak at various conferences on the subject.
He has or is on a website and you can read tons of information on there. This is a valuable source of information.
Philip Stott: General Science: Table of Contents | Reformation International College
-
6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
Is there any position that can’t be taken on faith? Like, can I take it on faith that vaccines don’t work?
Watch the God Delusion Debate at the link I gave. I have faith in vaccines. Faith is based on evidence.
-
11 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:
oh come on now.. you can't be playing stupid now and not expecting it to get caught. There is zero chance of someone converting you to atheism. I can discern this and hence have made zero attempt at it. Unlike others.. I do not get the security blanket of a group of like minded types. I do not care if someone is atheist or not.
I do read what other people say. That doesn't mean I agree with it. You are correct. I would not become an atheist. I don't see it as credible.
That just reminded of a very interesting debate. You might find it very interesting.
The God Delusion Debate on youtube between Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist and John Lennox. Here is the link:
Fortunately it just came to mind. I may watch it again. It brought in a big audience.
-
1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:
you expect others to listen to what you say and hopefully convert yet you are will not or do not listen to their opposing views. So in short.. you violate the Golden Rule. Hmm.
Not true. I read what you said. I listen to opposing views.
-
25 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:
being that I do not believe in it.. that means nothing. There are things that you do not believe in and no matter how many times I repeat it, you would not change your mind. How is that any different? Think about this one hard...
I have thought about that at times. I am not a preacher or gifted speaker or scholar. Just an ordinary guy. So I don't pretend to have great ability to communicate these things. If I did, it would make it a lot easier.
The Bible says faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God (in English the King James Bible). Hebrews ch 11.
It also says in the same part, without faith it is impossible to please God. He that cometh to God must believe that he is.
That is it in a nutshell. It is a matter of faith. That faith can be gained by reading and studying the Bible. It is also a gift of God. So those two things combined. Anyone who comes to God in humility and asks Him for faith, I am sure would receive the gift.
God says in the Bible he chose the foolish things and the weak things of the world to confound the wise.
In other words, God may have chosen the ordinary folk, the weak people, not the strong, proud know it all folks. Of course this doesn't mean some can't be saved. It might be harder though for the rich and powerful, highly educated, to have a humble attitude and bow their head and get on their knees so to speak. However, God can save anyone if they seek Him. That's what the gospel of John says. The book of Romans in the Bible says whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
This is why it is a dangerous thing for one to think because they have a good position or job, have all the money they need and all the comforts of life, they don't need God. That is a very dangerous position to be in actually. It would be better to have nothing and have faith in God.
-
1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:
And I believe that life ends when the body does. So why not make the best of what I have? To be an atheist automatically means that one is self destructive according to you.. who knew that you were so funny.
Not according to me. According to the Bible which was inspired by God.
-
8 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:
translated... to be an atheist is to be self destructive. Well, my first 46 years have proven otherwise.
God and the Bible concerns eternity. 46 years is a drop in the bucket in eternity. In maybe another drop in the bucket, where will you be? Life doesn't end when the body dies. The Bible is full of evidence to prove that.
However, I have no interest in hounding you. As I said, you will have to decide. Life might be good now, but there is much more than this life to consider.
By the way, I am a fan of the U.S. I know there are millions of Bible believers/Christians there who are my brothers and sisters. I have some great books produced by American Christians. We share many things in common in this tragic world.
-
2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:
do believe that everyone is flawed. Here is where we differ.. I do not think that religion makes a person less flawed.
I never said religion makes one less flawed either.
But there is no point in explaining what it means if you don't believe in God because God is the reason it is so important. The fact that God is and created us as the Bible says, means we are accountable to Him.
But you need to sort that out and get through the self-destructive atheist belief.
Without God there is nothing. We are just blobs of chemicals and life has no meaning or purpose. The existence of the universe was just a cosmic accident then.
All of that is not common sense. The universe is very complex. Living cells are very complex with massive amounts of information stored in strings of data in one single cell. There is no way this could just happen by accident. So I will leave you with it. You are free to believe what you wish.
It is possible some people are simply not destined for heaven or eternal life. I am not the judge. God is the judge and we are accountable to Him.
The Bible says many are called but few are chosen. If you change your mind and are interested just remember the answers are in the King James Bible and keys to eternal life.
-
1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:
Because there is no evidence and i do not buy into something simply because someone says it.
It's good not to believe something without evidence. But the fact is the universe is full of evidence of God. It's all around you in the creation. Creation is extremely complex. Atoms, molecules, energy didn't just appear out of nowhere. They are very exact and had to have a designer creator. But it's your choice what you believe.
Good that you have a phd in economics. Sounds like you have a good existence. Money isn't everything though.
Not surprising there are more atheists or agnostics in the west where there is prosperity. People think they have it all and don't need God. What they fail to understand is according to Biblical revelation, every single person is a corrupt, fallen sinner who needs to be saved (redeemed) by Jesus Christ. Without that, it will mean a lost eternity. Enjoy life while you can because it is short and eternity is long.
-
50 minutes ago, eyeball said:
No, there isn't a single one that's even come close.
Well, I don't believe in evolution. I accept the account in Genesis. You have your mind made up not to consider anything but the false theory of evolution. Your choice.
53 minutes ago, eyeball said:No, there isn't a single one that's even come close.
And you've never really read any one of the thousands of articles, right.
-
21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:
It's more likely that before a speck of dust or molecule of Oxygen existed, an omniscient omnipotent being just magically willed itself to life.
Nobody who believes the Bible believes God willed himself to life. That's not the definition of God.
In Biblical theology, God is understood as being omniscient, omnipotent, as you said, but also He is eternal. That is the only way of looking at it that makes sense. If he is eternal, then it stands to reason he has infinite power to create the material universe. Omnipotent means infinite power. So according to the Bible he simply spoke the universe into existence. The Bible uses those simple terms so that the reader can understand. It is not magic. Magic is actually a different concept. The Bible teaches God is a spirit that is present everywhere. God is not part of the material universe which He created.
Does this make sense? Every effect has a cause. One of the basic principles of logic. The universe is an effect and therefore had a cause. The cause is God. No scientist has come up with a plausible explanation. Even some of the greatest scientists that ever lived believed in God because it makes sense. We are here because someone, i.e. God created us and placed us in his created universe.
-
14 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Its a text book example of evolution.
Have you ever read a text book on evolution versus creation?
There are thousands of articles which debunk the theory of evolution. Many article also talk about cells, viruses, etc. Viruses are not considered to be a complete life form. They are kind of an intermediate between a living cell and some protein.
quote
First, we need to look into what a virus really is. We may regard a living cell (for example, a cell in your skin or liver or other tissue, or a bacterial cell) as a very, very complex chemical factory. This factory is capable of many functions, including that of reproducing itself. Directing all this machinery is a blueprint, which is the coded information contained in the molecule DNA (sometimes RNA). A virus is very different—it consists of a protein ‘shell’ or coat, containing a small amount of this ‘blueprint’ material (RNA or DNA). Note that it has no ‘factory’ of its own—it cannot move itself, it has no power source, and it has no machinery with which to duplicate itself.
When it latches onto a cell the material it contains is released into the cell, and the information on the ‘blueprint’ takes over and starts to direct the cell’s factory, which starts to manufacture many copies of the virus. The cell eventually swells and bursts, releasing lots of new viruses to start the process all over again. So we see that a virus is nothing much more than a package containing a code, which takes over from the cell’s code so that that cell then makes more code-containing packages. The cell is destroyed in the process. (See diagram below.) Many semantic arguments have raged over whether a virus can be called a living thing or not. This is one reason why many people feel it is sort of ‘half-and-half’—therefore a good candidate for a kind of transitional stage between life and non-life. Whether you call it living or not is a matter of definition, however—I hope to demonstrate that however you define life, the virus can in no way be used as an evolutionary ‘intermediate’. The reason is simple—it needs to have all the complex machinery of a living, cellular organism available to it! Without a fully functioning, living cell, the virus cannot reproduce (or should we say, arrange its own reproduction). So, whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, a virus will not appear before a cellular creature is on the scene. Viruses do not really fit anywhere on the evolutionary ‘tree of life’, since they are obviously not the ancestors of one-celled creatures. (And how can they be their evolutionary descendants?)
So we see, then, that any changes which might occur in viruses have very little, if any, apologetic value for evolutionists trying to show us how a fish changed into an amphibian, for instance. This is the third point which could be made in response to Dr Jones’ assertion. The final point relates to the argument one hears (in this case applied to bacteria as well) that a change in a disease-causing agent converting it from a minor nuisance to a serious health threat would be a major evolutionary step. Surely, says the argument, this could not be labeled ‘horizontal change’ or ‘change within the kind’? Once again, though, we will see that this has very little relevance to evolutionary apologetics.
unquote
for the whole article go to:
-
4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:
IMO it's quite likely that a lot of evolution happened during some of the extinction-level events that happened over the last few hundreds of thousands of years, due to inbreeding or to a sudden environmental change which made certain physical accoutrements of males/females more attractive (more likely to survive).
Sometimes being big is an advantage, sometimes being small is an advantage, sometimes being smart is the most important attribute, or fast, or stamina, etc. In some parts of the world being fat is still considered very sexy.
During periods where the population was low the amount of fossil remains would be far more scarce.
That's just my opinion, but I'm always right.
The theory of evolution is just that, a 19th century theory, by Darwin. It is sometimes called Darwinism. It is actually more of a religion. It is not really science. It has never been proven. But Darwinism has been taught as scientific fact to millions of school kids in the past century. It is accepted by many people as a scientific fact, which is far from the truth.
But many people believe it because it sounds good and they don't know any better.
Some very bright scientists have studied it and come to the conclusion it cannot be true. It just doesn't properly explain things and the evidence for it doesn't exist. Of course diehard Darwinists will claim otherwise. But experts can easily debunk their claims too.
-
28 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:
My guess is that with your binary thinking.. either for us or against us, you can't allow for this.
You seem to be trying to play word games. Word games are an exercise in futility. It accomplishes nothing and wastes a lot of valuable time. I would suggest you just state your case as to why you don't believe in God.
Let's be clear. I am not against you. I realize I am not a perfect person. I am actually far from it and have lots of faults and often say things that would be better left unsaid.
But we all do that don't we.
I understand most people have very little or no knowledge about supernatural or spiritual matters.
I also understand how some people are atheists.
Why would you or anyone be an atheist? That's the number one question. It doesn't seem logical. How do you explain the existence of the universe and life? Where did everything come from? Why are we even here?
POILIEVRE'S GREATEST HITS
in Federal Politics
Posted
Ottawa killed the Energy East pipeline project. They also killed the Northern Gateway Pipeline project to the B.C. coast. Canada could have been shipping natural gas to Europe and other places but Ottawa drags its feet and doesn't help. Alberta and Canada could have been making a lot more money if Ottawa didn't get in the way.