blackbird

No, there has always been lots of false science. Climate change or global warming cannot be proven in a lab. That means it is all speculation. Speculation is not science.

Proponents of Climate Alarmism or man-made climate change have given no proof that this tiny percentage of fossil emissions is causing global warming. Since you support those who are making the claim, how about you give the proof? Have you ever heard of the basic human right "a man is innocent until proven guilty"? I'll go with common sense, rather than climate alarmism that blames man for everything.

The federal government has decided to resume funding to UNRWA. This article reveals a lot about UNRWA. Israeli determination is needed to dismantle UNRWA (msn.com) " New data from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs shows that the UNRWA situation is even worse than we thought: at least 15 UNRWA employees took part in the October 7th massacre, meaning they are rapists and murderers. UNRWA truck crosses into Egypt from Gaza at Rafah border crossing, November 27, 2023 (credit: REUTERS/AMR ABDALLAH DALSH)© Provided by The Jerusalem Post UNRWA truck crosses into Egypt from Gaza at Rafah border crossing, November 27, 2023 (credit: REUTERS/AMR ABDALLAH DALSH) 2,135 of UNRWA employees in Gaza are active in terrorist organizations, 485 of them in the military wing, and 18 of them are school principals. It's no wonder that terror infrastructure was found in 32 of UNRWA schools in Gaza. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs defines UNRWA as "beyond repair" - it has simply become an arm of Hamas. So why is it so difficult to promote a coalition that will put an end to the UN organization that manufactures more and more Palestinian refugees and reinforces their illusion that one day Israel will cease to exist and be handed over to them?

Good question! There are some that have common sense on here.

So consensus is now proof? I looked at your link and it does not prove anything. Just a claim. Funny the comments below your link oppose what you say.

Your problem is you listen to the false teachings of Rome to tell you how to understand the Bible. Why don't you admit it? If you cherry pick one verse and interpret it in a way that contradicts countless other verses then you should know your interpretation is wrong. You are ignoring the mass of verses that say salvation is by believing in Jesus Christ. You cherry pick one verse in James and interpret it to fit in with your idea that salvation or justification is by works and ignore the rest of the Bible. You do the same thing with one verse that that mentions believe and be baptized when countless verses demonstrate salvation is by faith or believing and baptism is not mentioned. You then throw in your claim that they must say "faith alone" to satisfy you which is a complete erroneous idea. Over a hundred verses clearly teach salvation is by believing; nowhere does it say a verse must use the words "faith alone". The words "faith alone" is only a summary of what Reformers believe. Nobody said those specific words have to appear in Scripture. The countless verses mean exactly the same thing as faith alone. Salvation comes first before you can work for God. One is justified by faith alone. Read Romans. Once a person is saved or born again, then they serve God. You don't work to become a Christian. That is false religion. That is the difference between the world's false religions and Biblical Christianity. In Biblical Christianity, God saves the person and then he works or follows Christ. Rome has reversed that and eliminated grace through faith and instead added works (and sacraments, etc.) God saves people by His grace. People cannot save themselves. I understand it is hard to believe that one doesn't save themselves by their own efforts, but that is what God's grace means. It is human nature to think man must be in control and do everything to "earn" salvation. That is not God's grace. Let God be God and stop thinking man must by his own efforts save himself or by some man-invented rituals or sacraments.

Is that your only proof that it must be true? I get it; if an idea is accepted it must be fact. Sorry to inform you but many things have been later found to be false. Take a look at the Neanderthal pig's tooth and pre-human remains that were later found to be non-human or false claims. What the mobs believe proves nothing.

Another man has been arrested for going on a stabbing rampage in Vancouver. Several people were attacked and it turns out the suspect was out on bail or parole. It was just a few months ago that another guy attacked people in Chinatown Vancouver and he was released from some kind of institution on a temporary pass even though he had a violent history. Another violent offender was just released on bail in Vancouver as well. The police said they can't do anything because it is the courts that decide to release people. The police prefer that dangerous offenders be kept in custody, but they said they don't have the power to do that. The legal system is failing citizens badly and something needs to be done.

Wow! The whole point of my post is to show that man does not emit enough CO2 to have any affect on climate change. You obviously didn't even bother reading it or never absorbed it. Are you sure you know what the word "anthropogenic" means?

You're not making sense. You don't explain what you mean or why. I know from experience you don't engage in any meaningful discussions. So go away and don't waste my time.

Most religions are false. The Bible has the truth because it came from God, not fallible men. Science is not infallible and has often been proven to be wrong. Man does not know everything, especially about such things as the origin of the universe and life. It would be wise to show a little humility and admit we don't know everything and maybe not much really. But to go against God's written revelation is really foolishness.

Total man-made fossil CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is only 0.1 to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases. Canada's fossil emissions are 1.511% of total world fossil emissions. China, the largest emitter by far, emits 32.884% of total world fossil emissions. So first it is highly unlikely that humans are causing global warming or climate change. Secondly, carbon tax on Canadians will not do anything to slow or reduce climate change because our contribution to greenhouse gases is almost nothing. List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia

1. Man-made CO2 is 0.1% to 0.2% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gases. 2. The fossil CO2 emissions of several countries in percentages of all fossil emissions for all countries for 2022 is: Canada 1.511% Australia 1.021% Brazil 1.212% China 32.884% Japan 2.810 % U.S. 12.600% India 6.991% Russia 4.956% --- List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia The total fossil emissions are so minute it is extremely unlikely in my opinion that this has an affect on climate change. It appears that 99.8 or 99.9% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are natural. This is according to information on wikipedia. China's emissions are 32.884% of total man-made CO2 emissions. So no matter what Canada does it will make no difference to the total fossil emissions in the world because Canada's emissions are only 1.511% of the world's fossil emissions. That should be obvious to any reasonable person who looks at these figures.

That's not exactly what Bible believers believe, but we do believe in a heaven and a hell, which are clearly taught in Scripture. Nobody claims the earth is "disposable". The Bible teaches to be good stewards of everything. In other words, be responsible. Do not pollute the environment. Carbon dioxide is not pollution. It is a necessary part of life on earth. When Trudeau says he is putting a price on pollution with the carbon tax, he is not being truthful. CO2 is not pollution. However that is another topic.

Evolution is a philosophical necessity of atheism. An important issue in the debate is on the topic of irreducible complexity. "A major contribution to the question of the credibility of evolution was Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box," in which he drew attention to many marvelous micro-biological systems which exhibit what he termed "irreducible complexity." The importance of irreducible complexity is that Darwin had stated that if any case could be brought forward where development could not have been achieved by small successive advances, then his theory would be disproved. Irreducible systems provide that disproof. Evolutionists have fought irreducible complexity fiercely, but many scientists have become convinced that intelligent design is an undeniable feature of living organisms, and a strong "Intelligent Design" group has emerged. Many articles by Behe and the Design group can be found on the internet. Behe explains his stand in Evidence for Intelligent Design. One of his colleagues, William Dembski's "Still Spinning" illustrates the tricky tactics of the opponents of design and how they can be dealt with." Studies in Evolution - Reformation International Schools (refcm.org)

You are applying a negative inference to that verse. In other words you are claiming Jesus is saying baptism is necessary for salvation but the verse doesn't say that. You are twisting the meaning. If it meant baptism was necessary it would say so, but it doesn't. Countless other verses say salvation is by faith. None say if you are not baptized you will not be saved. Show one verse that says if someone is not baptized they can't be saved?

That may be true with you. Maybe someone else will get something from my postings. You reject Biblical truth at your own peril. However, not everyone is saved. I gave you the information to try to help but you rebuffed it. You can't say you were not told. Just a little warning. God is merciful but those who reject his free offer of mercy and salvation have chosen their own path. "18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? {repliest…: or, answerest again, or, disputest with God?} 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: {fitted: or, made up} 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? " Romans 9:18-24

You are lying. Tax fraud is illegal behavior and it happens under every government. You falsely claimed the Conservative government was allowing them to evade taxes. You have given no proof that the politicians were complicit in tax evasion. That is an outright lie.

Canada's socialized health care system is failing Canadians. Four million Canadians do not have a family doctor. So much for socialized health care. Canada ranks last in primary health care access among 10 wealthy countries: report (msn.com)

Any proof?

This is proven by the fact the Liberal government is bowing to the anti-Israel NDP party and halting shipments of military aid to Israel while resuming sending millions of dollars to UNRWA which has been reported to have Hamas people among them. The Liberal-NDP government says it will not resume shipments until or unless the Israel government complies with "Canadian law", whatever that is supposed to mean. To bad they don't apply the same standard to UNWRA. Canadian freeze on new arms export permits to Israel to stay (msn.com)

Thanks. After all my work in finding the information and posting it, that's all I get from you.

The church in Rome did oppose Galileo's claim several centuries ago, but I don't think there was a general attempt to "stamp it out" as you put it. Bear in mind the church of Rome was a false religious system that imposed a totalitarian system over the western world for over a thousand years until several centuries ago. In spite of that some of the world's greatest sciences did pursue science while believing in God and the Bible. The Reformation in northern Europe began 500 years ago and after a long struggle, managed to break away from the control of Rome in many areas. This resulted in the development of Parliamentary systems and far more freedom. There is no conflict between genuine science and the Bible. One must just recognize God had a central part in the creation of the universe and mankind. Genuine science has its place within the realm of God's creation. Atheists or secular humanists just don't accept that and want to deny God his rightful recognition and place in the world. Did you read the article I quoted just above. Prof. Philip Stott said in part: "The great pioneers of science, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Euler, Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin and many others professed Christianity and accepted the Bible as God's revelation to mankind. Many spent much time studying the Scriptures. Newton claimed the most important aspect of his work was in showing the greatness of God. Maxwell noted that his great pioneering work in field theory was inspired by the Scriptural revelation of the way God himself is and works. But during the twentieth century science was taken over to a very large extent by secular humanists. Such a world-view actually has no rational basis for expecting science to succeed. Yet secular humanists have cultivated the idea that science is essentially an atheistic domain which is at loggerheads with Christianity." -- Prof. Philip Stott So some of the greatest scientists in history were Christians and professed to accept the Bible as God's revelation. It was only in the past 100 years or so that science became dominated by secular humanists. That is why the paradigm changed in the 20th century and it became in vogue to dismiss God or the Bible as being relevant to science, particularly creation or where everything came from. Why is that? Could it be a shift in beliefs to a more pagan or godless world? The Bible prophesied that this would happen in the latter days and that was prophesied almost 2,000 years ago. "1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good. 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." 2 Timothy 3:1-8 This was written over 1,900 years ago and it appears to have come to pass.

1. Many scientists would dispute that it is based on educated assumption that are supported by empirical science. In fact it is not supported by empirical science. 2. That's not actually the reason it is taught to students. 3. That is true. It will likely continue to be taught. It is interesting to learn that science developed in the Christian culture in Europe in the past several centuries. Here is an article which explains the problem today. quote Scripture and Science General Considerations: Introduction Science and Christianity have an intertwined history. Even atheist historians of science find themselves having to admit that it was only under the Christian worldview that one could expect nature to behave in a way that would make science a reasonable pursuit. In spite of the fact that some steps towards a beginning in science had been taken by other cultures it was only in the Christian culture of Europe, and in particular that of Reformation Europe, that science came to fruition. The great pioneers of science, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Euler, Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin and many others professed Christianity and accepted the Bible as God's revelation to mankind. Many spent much time studying the Scriptures. Newton claimed the most important aspect of his work was in showing the greatness of God. Maxwell noted that his great pioneering work in field theory was inspired by the Scriptural revelation of the way God himself is and works. But during the twentieth century science was taken over to a very large extent by secular humanists. Such a world-view actually has no rational basis for expecting science to succeed. Yet secular humanists have cultivated the idea that science is essentially an atheistic domain which is at loggerheads with Christianity. In fact there have been three main topics on which Christianity and science have come into obvious and serious conflict. It is largely on the basis of these three areas that the idea that science implacably conflicts with Scripture have been deliberately cultivated. These three areas are: The theory of evolution: This originally dealt with ORGANIC EVOLUTION but logically proceeded to MATERIAL EVOLUTION leading to various theories of origins, the most popular currently being THE BIG BANG. The age of the earth and the universe and their mode of formation: This topic embraces UNIFORMITARIANISM, GEOLOGICAL TIME and ASTRONOMICAL TIME. The centrality of the earth in creation: This topic usually comes under the heading GEOCENTRICITY, GEOCENTRISM OR GEOSTATIONISM. Geocentricity was the first major point of conflict. The inerrancy of Scripture was challenged and the ensuing "Galileo affair" had a profound effect on both scientists and Bible scholars. Since that time the scriptures have been interpreted ever less in accordance with understanding of ancient languages and ever more as a harmonisation with "scientific truth." The influence of geocentrism on science has been equally profound. The rejection of the possibility that the earth could have a special place in creation led to the Theory of Relativity, the rejection of the "aether" (the medium through which light propagates) and its consequences - Quantum Theory - the whole of "Modern Physics." It is also the basis for assuming that the laws of science discovered here will be the same elsewhere - probably a good assumption if the earth is not in a special position, a bad one if it is. The whole of astrophysics depends critically on this assumption. Geological time, popularised by Charles Lyell, was the second major point of conflict between Christianity and science. In his famous book "Principles of Geology" Lyell argued for an age of the earth far greater than could be accommodated by scripture. Later editions ridiculed the book of Genesis, particularly the section on Noah's flood. Since Genesis is the foundation on which the whole of Christianity is built his book became an attack on the whole of Christianity. Evolution is a very old hypothesis which was long rejected by the scientifically knowledgeable as untenable in view of the obvious necessity for a designer to account for the complexities of life. When Charles Darwin proposed Natural Selection as a mechanism which could produce ever increasing complexity without design it suddenly became possible to be as Richard Dawkins put it, "a fulfilled atheist." Since then evolution has become perhaps the most commonly used weapon in attacking the credibility of the Scriptures. Its influence on society at large has been immense. Karl Marx noted that Darwin’s book was the foundation for "Scientific Socialism" (Communism). Stalin pointed out that "Evolution prepares for revolution and creates the ground for it." Many would argue that no other "scientific" concept has had such influence on not only the progress of Christianity, but the whole of society. There are other topics which could be considered relevant. Archaeology has at times presented challenges to the Bible. However archaeology is a question of history rather than science, and challenges have been answered as new discoveries have thrown light on one disputed point after another. I believe the stage has been reached where few, if any, now consider Archaeology a serious challenge to their faith or the credibility of the Scriptures. In the case of the three topics mentioned above this is certainly not so. In "General Considerations" I look in more detail at the broad claims made above, present what I hope are thought-provoking insights into the workings of science, and also into the interpretation of scripture as influenced by science and scientists. I would suggest looking through these general consideration before going on to whichever of the topics on the side-bar you would like to consider further. End of Introduction Scripture & Science HOME | Reformation International College (refcm.org)

When I was in the shoe department in Walmart, I saw a pair of old worn shoes left on the floor. Obviously someone put on a pair of new shoes and walked out. There are lots of crooks around. Can't blame stores for checking. They probably lose a lot of money by shop lifters. I am not sure what the best way to do it is. We live in a world of many crooks. So businesses have to protect themselves somehow. Best to just go along with it and be agreeable.