Jump to content

blackbird

Senior Member
  • Posts

    8,202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by blackbird

  1. Science is not infallible. Not everything in science is the truth. Science claims have often been disproven later. Your problem is you won't admit you are a sinner in need of a Savior and salvation. You think you know better than God and the Bible.
  2. How many times have I heard people say I would rather trust "science" that the Bible or something along that line? Many, many times on these forums and other comment sections. Looks like many people believe science is infallible.
  3. "7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. " Proverbs 1:7 KJV
  4. The problem that Darwinists or proponents of evolution face is that organisms or cells require vast amounts of information. This is why creation makes far more sense. When God created life on earth he created the information and put it in the living creatures and in man. The information in each species would be different from other species, although certain things may be similar. These experiments in a lab with E coli do not require the addition of information, that is, mutations and natural selection, of e coli do not require new information in order to occur. This is not evolution in the sense commonly believed by Darwinists. Darwin knew nothing about the information in a cell or creature.
  5. Creationists believe in mutations and natural selection but not in the way the evolutionists claim. We have to understand the difference between Darwinism where evolutionists claim that all creatures and man evolved from a sludge in a pond. It is important to understand what creationists believe and the difference between what they believe and what evolutionists believe. quote Creationists have long shown that these changes in bacteria are not the same as the notion of evolution as it is normally believed and understood. For microbes to be transformed into complex, multi-celled organisms, something more is needed (see Superbugs: Not super after all). In most cases, changes in bacteria simply involve natural selection—changes in a population when the least fit organisms die off, and the ones that already have resistant factors survive and multiply. (Sometimes these factors are transferred from other organisms that already have them, but in either case, nothing new has arisen.) Creationists are firm believers in natural selection. This is not evolution in the sense that most people use the word—the rise of new, complex organisms, the sort of change which in principle could be capable of changing one-celled creatures into pelicans, pomegranates and people. (See our articles on natural selection.) Such evolutionary change would require the addition of new information, which is not a feature of the sort of changes one sees in bacteria. Even when a bacterium develops resistance where there previously was none in the population, by mutation (a random copying mistake which changes the genetic information), the change still represents a loss of information. This sounds counterintuitive, but it’s important to recognize that enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule. Mutations reduce specificity. Hence the enzyme is less effective in its primary function, but it is able to break down other molecules too. In no case have bacteria been observed to become resistant through a gain of new information, i.e., the emergence of a completely new gene that produces a completely new enzyme (see Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?). Hall actually has a noble goal in mind. He hopes to be able to predict how bacteria will develop resistance to new drugs so that drug manufacturers can develop strategies to circumvent the bacterium’s ability to adapt. ‘We make a drug and after a while bugs adapt to it,’ Hall explains. ‘But if we can predict how they’re going to get around our treatments, we can work out a way to make it impossible for them. We can cut them off at the pass.’2 The ability to predict how bacteria will respond to new drugs is exciting science, but to say scientists are ‘predicting evolutionary potential’ is sadly misleading. The ability of bacteria to survive in hostile environments points to pre-existing information and mechanisms that God put in the genes of bacteria in the first place.3 Bacteria only produce bacteria ‘after their kind,’ not new types of creatures. unquote Biologists mimic evolution in the lab? (creation.com)
  6. quote The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have suggested for many years now that there is significant empirical evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation as opposed to a mental disorder. This paper summarizes and analyzes that purported scientific evidence and explains that much (if not all) of the evidence is irrelevant and does not support the homosexuality-is-not-a-mental-disorder claim. As a result of their deficiencies and arbitrariness, the credibility those two groups that are typically deemed authoritative and trustworthy is called into question. Lay summary: At one time, homosexuality was considered to be mentally disordered. Since the 1970s, however, major medical associations in the U.S. have labeled homosexuality as a normal counterpart of heterosexuality. Those medical associations have proposed that their homosexuality-is-normal claim is based on “scientific evidence.” This article critically reviews that “scientific evidence” and finds that much of their literature does not support the claim that homosexuality is normal. This article suggests that instead of supporting their claim with scientific evidence, those major medical associations arbitrarily label homosexuality as normal. unquote This is a long article and I can't post the whole thing on here. If you want to read the reasons why they reached this conclusion, go to the following website: Homosexuality and scientific evidence: On suspect anecdotes, antiquated data, and broad generalizations - PMC (nih.gov)
  7. Go ahead and give us an example of proof of evolution. You worship "science" as if is infallible when in fact there are many examples in history where "science" was later proven wrong. Here is an article for you on the subject of science and explains why it is not infallible. What is Science? | Scripture & Science | Reformation International College (refcm.org)
  8. Again I must repeat, you have not studied the Bible. God himself said in the Bible in over 2,000 places thus and thus. He spoke to man or prophets directly.
  9. I have already said that evolution is not empirical science. It is not supported by the scientific method, i.e. experiment and observation. Much of evolution's claims have been debunked as false. Recent science in the last number of years have proven many claims of evolutionists as false. Creation.com articles and videos show that. The video I gave a link for show the claims that man and apes came from a common ancestor have been shown to be incorrect.
  10. There are countless articles on the subject and countless videos. I am not saying every word or idea presented on this material is infallible or absolute truth because it came from fallible men. Only the Bible is absolute truth because it came from God. Here are some more sources of information: What is Science? About the Author, Philip Stott General Index For First-timers Introductory Remarks What Is Science? Zoology as Anti-Christianity How Firm Is Your Ground? Thaxton: Christianity & Scientific Enterprise Polkinghorne: Creation & Structure / World Stott: Hermeneutics, Science & Scripture Hanko: Framework Hypothesis & Genesis 1 Atheism in Decline Everywhere Soddy: Address to Nobel Prizewinners Einstein: Theories of Relativity Selbrede: Rebuttal of North & Nieto Einstein: Sidelights on Relativity Stott: The Christian and Science Statement on Science & Christianity Evolution Lodge: Search for Definition of Evolution Thaxton et al: The Mystery of Life's Origin Biography of Charles Robert Darwin Darwin's Origin of the Species >> Introduction 01: Variation Under Domestication 02: Variation Under Nature 03: Struggle for Existence 04: Natural Selection 05: Laws of Variation 06: Difficulties on Theory 07: Instinct 08: Hybridism 09: Imperfection / Geological Record 10: Geological Succession of .. Beings 11: Geographical Distribution 12: Geographical Distribution, cont. 13: Organic Beings: Morphology, Embryology 14: Recapitulation and Conclusion Glossary, from the sixth edition Fernandez: Talk Origins: Deception by Omission Colby: Intro to Evolutionary Biology Stott: Creation, Evolution & the Christian Goldberg: Persecution of Richard Sternberg Johnson: Darwinists Squirm Under the Spotlight Johnson: Comparing Hostage-takers Johnson: What is Darwinism? Johnson: The Church of Darwin Miller / Johnson Debate: How Did We Get Here? Johnson: Shouting Heresy in the Temple of Darwin Johnson: Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning Behe: Intelligent Design in Biochemistry Dembski: Still Spinning Just Fine: Response to Miller Berlinski: The Deniable Darwin Keeping an Eye on Evolution: Dawkins Trips Spetner: A Scientific Critique of Evolution Atheism in Decline Everywhere II Buckna: Do Creationists Publish in Refereed Journals? Jerlström: Pseudogenes: Are They Non-Functional? Wells: Unseating Naturalism / Developmental Biology Life's Origins: Reassessing Current Theories Life's Origins: Thermodynamics Life's Origins: DNA and Proteins Ages of Time Geological & Astronomical Time Goldberg: The Persecution of Richard Sternberg Stott: Age of the Earth & Historical Geology Stott: Ages of Time: Astronomical Biography of James Hutton Brown's Hydroplate Theory Biography of Sir Charles Lyell Lyell: Principles of Geology, Chapter 3 Lyell's "The Student's Elements of Geology" > > Introduction and Contents 01: On the Different Classes of Rocks 02: Aqueous Rocks, Composition & Stratification 03: Fossils in Strata 04: Consolidation of Strata & Petrifaction 05: Strata Above the Sea 06: Denudation Chadwick: A Creation / Flood Model Ostrichosaurus: Astonishing T. Rex Soft Tissue Geocentrism Introduction: What is geocentricity? Stott: Thinking and Reasoning (Geocentrically) Jordan: The Geocentricity Question How Figurative is the Geocentricity Question? Tielhard de Chardin's View George H. Schweitzer’s View Byl: Another Look at Galileo North: The Flat Earth Temptation Geocentrism: An Astrophysicist’s Comments Aardsma: Geocentricity and Creation Stott: The Timothy Test, A Continuing Saga Faulkner: Geocentrism and Creation Geocentricity: A Fable for Educated Man? Babinski: The Bible's Geocentrism Babinski: Morris' Attempts to Deny Geocentricity Babinski: Abandoning Geocentrism for Evolution Babinski: Is Earth the Center of God's Interest? Stott: Towards a Biblical Cosmology Philip Stott: General Science: Table of Contents | Reformation International College (refcm.org)
  11. I have already explained why I cannot debate something like what you posted as I have no expertise in biology. You claim what they say is absolute truth and ignore the fact that they are biased in favour of evolution. They start from the premise there is no God, that the Biblical account of creation cannot be true, and that only evolution could explain things. That is a clear bias. There is no way around that. Secondly, the Bible is not a book on science, history, theology, but it is a book that God gave us to tell us what we have to know about man's problem (sin), the fall of man, and the solution and what the future will bring. It is a supernatural book recording the supernatural dealings of God with man. Since you know nothing at all about the Bible or where it came from, it is a bit rich for you to call it a myth.
  12. If you watch the rest of video they explain why this does not prove a common ancestry. They explain that God created humans and animals with many similarities. That is because there are characteristics that are good for both man and certain animals that are similar. For example several creatures and humans both have five fingers. This does not prove they evolved. All it means is this is the way that God created those animals and humans. It had nothing to do with evolution.
  13. No, I only watched the Sanford video today, but I have believed in creation for decades because that is what the Bible says and makes sense to me. You need to learn why and how the Scriptures came from God. Twenty years ago I also watched video and recorded it from Professor Philip Stott who gave four or five evenings of a slide show presentation and talk on the topic of evolution. He was very knowledgeable. He was a professor of mathematics from South Africa, knew a lot about the science related to the subjects related to creation versus evolution, and I believe educated and from England. But he spoke in various countries at conferences and speaking engagements on the subject and knows what he is talking about. That was 20 years ago. He was once an evolutionist himself but was converted to Christ around 1976 I think and totally changed his thinking. Check the website: Philip Stott: General Science: Table of Contents | Reformation International College (refcm.org) Also, you mentioned the question of believing Sanford on faith. No, I already explained there are many other reasons why I believe in creation and have for decades. You posted an article countering Sanford and I explained I do not have the expertise or knowledge to go into that depth of biology to really know or comment on that.
  14. If you will pardon the coarseness of the term, there is an old military term that says bullshit baffles brains. Unfortunately, that is what many articles do. They delve into a subject with technical or scientific terms that almost nobody understands with the objective of winning a debate by scheer complexity in incomprehensible terms and arguments. I am not going there. There is another term which uses the abbreviation KISS. You probably know that one. Keep it simple stupid. That makes more sense for a discussion with lay people like myself.
  15. As I explained I do not have the knowledge of biology to dig that deep into the subject your link goes into. I can only discuss this from a more general point of view. This video explains why humans and apes did not come from the same ancestor as evolutionist have long claimed. Evolutionists have claimed for ages that 98.5% of human and ape DNA are the same. Recent scientific research has found that their DNA are not the same at all and could not have come from the same ancestor as previously thought by evolutionists.
  16. I regret I do not have the knowledge or ability to dig deep into the biological aspect of this. I mean I could spend days trying to understand the lingo and what they are talking about but I don't think it would be a useful way to spend my days. It would accomplish nothing because every article is coming from a certain point of view or as you say a bias. If you want to study the biological aspect of it, go ahead, but I don't see that as a very useful way to understand it. Maybe read or watch some videos on creation.com that give a more general view that a lay person can understand. I am not a biologist and am not going to try to be one. I can only discuss more general information from an ordinary non-scientist point of view. Many articles break things down so an ordinary person can understand what they are talking about. Creation.com has many more easier to understand articles and videos. Also, there are many aspects to this other than the debate over genomes and DNA. I am not trying to get away from it but just pointing out I don't have the expertise to really get deep into DNA or biology. I am just being honest with you. The fact is there are many angles to this creation/evolution debate. There are issues that are much easier to understand than the deep biological technical issues which neither you nor I are going to be able to discuss rationally. Such as the fact that there is no transitional fossil record to support evolution. That the fossil record to show evolution occurred doesn't exist, then the argument for evolution is dead in the water right there. It doesn't take an expertise in science or biology to understand that. The second point I would make is simple logic. Where did the universe come from? It had to have a beginning. Matter cannot come into existence without a cause. Every effect has a cause. That is a basic principle of science and logic. Since matter had to have a cause for its existence, that points to a supernatural cause or an intelligent designer Creator. Many scientists admit that fact. Others more stubborn try to come up with irrational explanations like the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang has been debunked because it still does not explain where the material for the explosion came from and an explosion would not create an orderly universe. Explosions create disorder. It also does not explain where atoms, particles, energy and all the laws that govern how it all operates came from. These law are very precise and orderly. The particles are amazing in how they operate such as the electron and proton and neutron in an atom. All these had to have had a intelligent designer creator. The particle had nothing to do with the theory of evolution. So where did it all come from if not from a Creator we call God?
  17. You obviously did not watch the video "How Darwin Got it Wrong". How Darwin Got It Wrong with Dr John Sanford - Media Center (creation.com) Anything that contradicts your narrative or belief you say is biased. Proof you are totally blind and won't even watch and consider the creation side arguments. The truth is everyone believes one thing or another. You are either biased in a false belief system or biased in the truth. Therefore what is the point of accusing someone of being biased. You are implying you are not biased, which you know is incorrect. Believe the truth and be biased in the truth. I believe God created everything. That is what it says in the beginning of the Bible. "1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1 KJV This website gives ten reasons why you should believe the Bible: FIRST, on the ground of the testimony of Jesus Christ. Many people accept the authority of Christ who do not accept that of the Bible as a whole. We all must accept His authority. He is accredited to us by five Divine testimonies: by the testimony of the Divine life He lived; by the testimony of the Divine words He spoke; by the testimony of the Divine works He wrought; by the Divine attestation of the resurrection from the dead; and by the testimony of His Divine influence upon the history of mankind. But if we accept the authority of Christ we must accept the authority of the Bible as a whole. He testifies definitely and specifically to the Divine authorship of the whole Bible." SECOND, on the ground of its fulfilled prophecies. There are two classes of prophecies in the Bible–first, the explicit, verbal prophecies, second, those of the types. In the first we have the definite prophecies concerning the Jews, the heathen nations and the Messiah. Taking the prophecies, regarding the Messiah as an illustration, look at Isaiah 53, Mic. 5:2, Dan. 9:25-27. Many others might be mentioned, but these will serve as illustrations. In these prophecies, written hundreds of years before the Messiah came, we have the most explicit statements as to the manner and place of His birth, the manner of His reception by men, how His life would end, His resurrection and His victory succeeding His death. When made, these prophecies were exceedingly improbable, and seemingly impossible of fulfilment; but they were fulfilled to the very minutest detail of manner and place and time. How are we to account for it? Man could not have foreseen these improbable events–they lay hundreds of years ahead–but God could, and it is God who speaks through these men. THIRD, on the ground of the unity of the book. This is an old argument, but a very satisfactory one. The Bible consists of sixty-six books, written by more than thirty different men, extending in the period of its composition over more than fifteen hundred years; written in three different languages, in many different countries, and by men on every plane of social life, from the herdman and fisherman and cheap politician up to the king upon his throne; written under all sorts of circumstances; yet in all this wonderful conglomeration we find an absolute unity of thought. A wonderful thing about it is that this unity does not lie on the surface. On the surface there is oftentimes apparent contradiction, and the unity only comes out after deep and protracted study. FOURTH, on the ground of the immeasurable superiority of the teachings of the Bible to those of any other and all other books. It is quite fashionable in some quarters to compare the teachings of the Bible with the teachings of Zoroaster, and Buddha, and Confucius, and Epictetus, and Socrates, and Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, and a number of other heathen authors. The difference between the teachings of the Bible and those of these men is found in three points– First, the Bible has in it nothing but truth, while all the others have truth mixed with error. It is true Socrates taught how a philosopher ought to die; he also taught how a woman of the town ought to conduct her business. Jewels there are in the teachings of these men, but (as Joseph Cook once said) they are “jewels picked out of the mud.” For more extensive information on this go to: Ten Reasons Why I Believe the Bible Is the Word of God by R. A. Torrey | Tony Cooke Ministries Have you really thought about what you are building your life on? Do you realize you are building life on no solid foundation? Jesus taught that life built on a poor foundation is like building a house on sand. It will not stand the stresses and strains of life and has no eternal meaning or future. Parable of the two builders: quote In the wise and foolish builders, Christ describes two categories in illustrating the building of a house. Both houses appear equally attractive and substantial, but their comparative stability differs greatly. In their construction, the materials and labor used were similar, and both houses appeared upright, solid, and sound. Many times, seemingly good people who are uncalled seem to build their lives well and wisely in terms of money, material possessions, and friends. All these things seem good to the human mind, but their end can be disastrous without a Rock foundation (James 3:13-17). The elect of God build their houses differently, by daily obedience (Psalm 111:10), service, overcoming, Bible study, and prayer. unquote bibletools.org "24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." Matthew 7:24-27 KJV Believing in false, humanist theories such as evolution or Darwinism is building your life on a corrupt theory or lie. There is no future in it. We must build our lives on the one solid foundation of Jesus Christ and his written revelation to man. That is the solid rock foundation.
  18. You think my beliefs are not based on sound and rational reasoning, but your beliefs are? You emphasize that most scientists believe in evolution so it must be a fact. You proved by your comments that your own reasoning is based only on the opinion of a majority. Well, the truth is that majorities do not always determine what is true or false, especially in the area of spiritual matters that involve God and evolution versus creation. That is a subject which because of its nature cannot be understood by simply accepting what the majority say. If you go to India and ask the majority what they believe about God, they will tell you about their Hindu gods and there may be thousands of them. If you go to Iran or Afghanistan and ask about their god, they will tell you about Allah. Those are majorities in those countries who will tell you what their truth is. So if you go to a country whose religion is Darwinism or evolution, the majority will tell you that is what they believe. But what does it prove? Nothing. If you want an opinion that fits yours, you go to a group of people who believe what you want. Same with evolution. If you go to group of atheist or agnostic sicentists, what do you think they will tell you. Of course they believe what they've been told by others of a similar mind. Most people have not even listened to the arguments on both sides of an issue; yet their mind is made up and no amount of reasoning with them will change their mind. That is just how life is. You might want to watch this 50 minute video explaining why Darwin got it wrong. How Darwin Got It Wrong with Dr John Sanford - Media Center (creation.com) Darwin knew nothing about biology, DNA, or geology, etc.
  19. Here is a video presentation that explains how Charles Darwin got it wrong by Dr. John Sanford, PhD. "Dr John Sanford, A Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years, John has been semi-retired since 1998. His Ph.D. was in plant breeding and plant genetics. While a professor at Cornell, John has trained graduate students and conducted genetic research at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva, NY. During this time, John bred new crop varieties using conventional breeding and then became heavily involved in the newly-emerging field of plant genetic engineering. John has published over 80 scientific publications and has been granted over 30 patents." Livestream: How Darwin Got it Wrong - Media Center (creation.com)
  20. The subject of DNA and changes is a complex one. There are scientists who strongly believe in creation and have explained why evolution theory just doesn't hold up. This man is one of them. "Dr Matthew (Mátyás) Cserhati Dr Cserhati (pronounced Chair-hat-tea) came to Christ after high school in Hungary. But after studying biology at university, he struggled with harmonizing the book of Genesis with evolutionary theory he was being taught. After a few years of this struggle, and being exposed to information on creation, he came to understand that the evolutionary worldview and the Gospel are in opposition to one another, in that evolution uses death as a natural process, but according to the Bible, death is the last enemy, and a consequence of man’s sin. After seeing how creation supports the biblical worldview and with it, the Gospel, he felt called to help the cause of creation ministry. After buying and reading material from the creation science movement, it only reinforced his view on how ‘real science’ supports the Bible, and that the Bible can be fully trusted in all areas of our life. He was active in establishing a creation science group in Hungary called the Protestant Creation Research Group in 2001. Matthew has a Ph.D. in biology and has been an active creationist for 18 years and takes a great interest in molecular biology. He has published a number of articles in Journal of Creation. He received a M.Sc. from the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest in biology in 2003, and went on to receive a B.Sc. in software development and a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Szeged in 2010 and 2011. His doctoral thesis was about the development and application of a transcription factor dyad prediction algorithm. He is currently studying for an M.A. in religion from Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He also has certificates in five languages, and has done over 200 translation and interpreting jobs." quote Doppelgänger protein ‘Signal Recognition Particle 14’ refutes evolution by Matthew Cserhati Evolution has difficulty explaining the similarities in gene distribution and sequences in unrelated groups of organisms. Doppelganger genes are genes that are highly homologous to one another but are found on disjunct parts of the alleged evolutionary tree. One such doppelganger gene codes for a protein called the Signal Recognition Particle 14 (SRP14), which has a poly-alanine C-terminus. This protein is known to occur in most species of the primate apobaramin, but also in a species of bat, called the little brown bat. Another SRP14 isoform without a poly-alanine C-terminus also occurs not only in this bat species but also in primates, rodents, protists, and yeast. Evolution cannot explain why this isoform is conserved throughout the alleged evolutionary tree, yet two structurally significantly different isoforms occur in one species. Creation theory offers a better explanation, namely that these two SRP14 isoforms are distinctly created functional units. The distribution of genes and their sequential similarities and differences challenge evolutionary theory. For example, the gradual transformation of one family of genes to another has never been observed, indeed it cannot even be observed. The de novo appearance of genes from random non-coding sequence has also never been observed. Evolutionary conservation of genes is also an oxymoron—how can proteins manage to evolve by staying the same for millions of years?" Doppleganger genes (creation.com) This is only part of the article. To read the whole thing go to the above link. As it says the author has a PhD in biology. This is too complex for me, but maybe you will understand the article better. There is also a book called "The Greatest Hoax on Earth" by Jonathan Sarfati, an expert on this subject. If you really want to know the truth you could purchase his book or others on the subject adverstised on creation.com You could also read some of the article or watch some of the videos on the same website. But I don't think it would be very productive to just post back and forth if your mind is closed and you are only willing to consider one view.
  21. The Bible was written by men inspired by God and the Bible's (KJV) demonstrates itself that it came from God. Much of the Old Testament books reveal the sinful evil of many of Israel's leaders and people, yet is was written by the people of Israel. If it were not from God, we would expect it would be praising everything about Israel, not exposing the truth and condemning it. That is proof. It also has many prophecies about future events that came to pass. Another proof. The existence of God is evident in the creation all around us. I will be easy on you as you don't know any of this. Will assume this is the first you heard of it. The existence of the finely tuned universe and creation is evidence for an infinitely powerful designer creator. It is all around us. The beauty in nature if another proof. Those kind of things don't just happen by accident but were designed. The universe could not even exist without a supernatural force or being to bring it into existence. Many scientists admit that and if a scientist is being honest, he will tell you there is no other rational explanation. Most people be they scientists in one field or another simply have not observed any proof that man causes global warming. It is fiction to claim it is empirical science. Empirical science entails experiment and observation to establish that something is a scientific fact. That is not the case with climate change. Even the theory of evolution has been found strongly doubtful by many scientists simply because the evidence that would be expected such as the transitional fossils do not exist. That is just one reason. There are other reasons that debunk it such as the existence of many biological things that are referred to having irreducible complexity. They could not have evolved simply because of their complexity. Many scientists understand that. Yet many so-called scientists believe in evolution as if it were a fact even though they know little to nothing about the information debunking it. Here is a couple photos of amazing creatures that God created. Only God could have done this. Rainbow lobster and blue-footed booby.
  22. Biden and Trudeau will now really go all out on their progressivism. Maybe Blackface will really push his feminism rhetoric now. This extreme progressivism will hurt most Canadians but is nothing more than a tool to try to get more votes. Many suckers fall for it thinking this is what "human rights" are all about. Well, not really what it is all about. If you think Canada needs Trudeau and Biden progressivism to defend human rights, take a look at Iran or Afghanistan. You will realize Trudeau and Biden's ideas are phony. Drag queens have absolutely nothing to do with freedom or feminism and western society. There are a few around but nobody cares. They are free to act out. Joel Kotkin: Now watch Biden and Trudeau escalate their extreme progressivism (msn.com)
  23. More evidence of what you say is true is the fact Trudeau is jetting off today, Remembrance Day, to southeast Asia for more conferences instead of attending the Remembrance Day services at the Ottawa cenotaph as any Prime Minister should. Why? He is first and foremost a globalist and loves jetting around the world creating greenhouse gases while he tells Canadians he is fighting for "net zero" emissions.
  24. "The current course both the U.S. and Canada are taking seems destined to create a recession, or at least a sustained downturn marked by low growth, as is the inevitable goal of “net zero” advocates. The losers here will be, first and foremost, blue collar workers, homeowners and younger people, all of whom will have to look increasingly to the state to fight off poverty. Welfarism as opposed to economic growth is increasingly baked into progressive policies. Barely half of Democrats even believe that hard work pays off and some suggest that the massive transfers during the pandemic that managed to reduce poverty should become permanent." Joel Kotkin: Now watch Biden and Trudeau escalate their extreme progressivism (msn.com) The fact is the war on climate change is being pushed by radical progressives. This is an ideology that think man knows everything and can do anything. It is anti-God and anti-reality. This is causing great harm to the world's economy and standard of living. These progressives live in an alt reality. It is a kind of Marxism where they think they can control the world and society for the better. Unfortunately it is for the worse, much worse. "Net zero" is their motto now. Young people who are brainwashed into progressivism in an early age in public schools will all contribute to this destruction of society. Many are being radicalized by the school system. I dare to speculate that even some of the posters on these forums are radicalized youth from the brainwashed public school system.
×
×
  • Create New...