blackbird

No, it's not. Have you heard of the Piltdown man? A lot of people believed in evolution because of the Piltdown man which later turned out to be a fraud. " On the contrary, Piltdown man was extremely influential in shaping evolutionary thinking and early research on human evolutionary theory. For the four decades before it was exposed, Piltdown man was considered the ‘missing link’. It was used as one of the key evidences against creation in the Scopes trial. It altered the education in the United States for a whole generation and found its way into major science textbooks and encyclopedias—and it was a hoax. There were over 250 publications on Piltdown man alone!1 The implications for evolutionary theory were tremendous. Entire evolutionary-developmental theories about hominid evolution were based on Piltdown and many of those were demolished when the fraud was exposed. 250 publications! It would be nothing short of historical revisionism to downplay its significance. As for evolutionists exposing fraud, that is precisely the point! The best evidence that can be presented in a court of law is an admission against interest. It is one thing for an opponent to claim fraud exists. It happens all the time! And we have often pointed out the numerous mistakes evolutionists make in many of our articles. But when someone from the evolutionary camp comes along and testifies against a key aspect of evolution, that testimony carries a lot more weight. In any case, CMI has often encouraged readers to take a wait-and-see approach when it comes to dubious claims made by the media concerning the latest evidence for evolution. In most cases, the science corrects itself after a few months; and the corrections have often served to embarrass the evolutionary case. For example, in the Archaeoraptor case, CMI cast doubt about the fossil before it was even confirmed by National Geographic to have been a fraud a month later." Evolution fraud (creation.com)

Scientific "facts" have to be proven by the scientific method, which involves experiment and observation. This has not been done in the case of man-made climate change. Because of the nature of the earth it is not something one can replicate. Climate is determined by a number of different factors. This cannot be simulated. So the claim is simply speculation.

Actually there are thousands of articles, videos, books written by scholars, and peoples with degrees that refute the theory of evolution. There are lots of scientific articles refuting evolution. " The scientific case against evolution How do evolutionists construct their scientific case for evolution? How can the creationist respond in scientific terms? Greg D. from New Zealand writes: My oldest son is a Christian currently being persuaded by evolutionary science. He has challenged me to supply him names of peer reviewed geneticists who conclude that DNA is an information rich code (or language) that points to an intelligent source. I would desperately appreciate any information you are able to supply on this topic. CMI-New Zealand’s Shaun Doyle responds: We can certainly offer some names: John Sanford, Maciej Giertych, CMI’s Robert Carter, James S. Allan, Matti Leisola, and Georgia Purdom are several PhD geneticists who have published in secular peer-reviewed journals and think DNA is a code that is best explained by a designer. In fact, they are all biblical creationists. I would recommend to you Dr Sanford’s book Genetic Entropy, and our book Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, which may be of particular benefit to your son. Another book that may be beneficial to him, which is freely available online, but is not on our website, is Biological Information: New Perspectives.1 We certainly wouldn’t endorse all the perspectives offered in this book, but it provides some good information on population genetics and biological information that your son may find useful. Evolutionists have an automatic ‘fall back’ position if their current ideas on mechanisms for evolution don’t work; the patterns of similarity that (supposedly) demonstrate common ancestry. But this debate isn’t really about names; it’s about arguments. More specifically, it’s about the fact that mainstream science operates with a methodology that only accepts attempts to describe the origin of anything biological in terms of natural causes (physics and chemistry). For more information, please see Historical science and miracles. This is why he will not find articles in the secular biological literature arguing openly for a divine designer (see Creationism, Science and Peer Review for more information). If he doesn’t understand the different assumptions at play in this debate, and how they can constrain the interpretations of the evidence an investigator is willing to entertain, then he will fall quite easily for fallacious evolutionary arguments, such as equivocation. Why? Because of how they tend to construct their case.' This is only a small beginning of the article. If you want to read the whole article go to; The scientific case against evolution (creation.com)

Perhaps you believe in Darwinism and don't think there is such a thing as evil or sin or God. Is that the problem? Therefore violent offenders are not doing evil or sinful things to others. They are all people with an injury to their brain caused by other people or society. Nobody is responsible for their own behavior, right? You need to realize there is a God and everyone will be held accountable for their lives. Everyone needs to be redeemed or saved. Don't dismiss this because there is plenty of evidence that there is a God and the Bible is true. Evolution is a false dogma that denies the Bible truth. ‘Sin’ becomes a consequence of our genetic makeup, our imagined evolutionary origins, not our moral choices that offend a holy God." The growth of atheism " The census data in Australia show the growth of atheism. From 1901 to 1966 fewer than 3% regarded themselves as having ‘no religion’, but the number rose steadily from 1971 onwards to over 30% by 2016. What changed in the 1960s that could account for this rise of atheism? State education departments introduced the teaching of evolution to all students in general science in middle high school. Up until that time, only senior high school biology students got evolutionary teaching, a tiny proportion of the total student population." ‘Flattened by the evolution steamroller’?! (creation.com)

No, I think you are opposing and mocking people who believe dangerous offenders should be in an institution and not out on the streets. Where's your compassion for normal people and society in general? If dangerous people were put in a mental institution, they could receive compassionate counseling there, don't you think?

Maybe he's referring to the ones that assault, stab and kill people daily on the news. It's reasonable to think people that do those kind of things are acting like animals my friend. Certainly not civilized, sane behavior. They do need to be locked up, but all we hear on the news is criminals being arrested one day and released a day or two later.

That's an easy one. Climate change is easily proven and an established fact by the scientific method. Climate records through history show its a fact. Evolution has never been proven and is only a theory, which has been rejected by many. There are no transitional fossils for one thing. So how could anyone believe man evolved from the sludge in a pond? No evidence at all. see creation.com Just like Romanism has been easily proven by the Bible to be false. There was was no priesthood, no Popes, and no Masses in the New Testament. They were invented later by men seeking power over the people. There is only one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus. "1 Timothy 2:5-7 King James Version 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

That's not what we hear on the news every day. All we hear is innocent people are attacked randomly on rapid transit or on the street. Your claim that mentally ill are the victims sounds like a fabrication. Nothing on the news says that. Funny how you have an axe to grind against Bible believers. You seem obsessed about that. You mentioned it more than once today. You need help yourself. You know what the problem is but are not willing to accept it yourself. It is a fact that humans have a corrupt heart and are fallen beings, which is one reason why there is crime and people being attacked for nothing. But your idea that the government can solve that by simply increasing mental health clinics is a bit of fiction. Many mentally ill people are not willing to admit they have a problem and will not go to a clinic. Others are just crooked and will continue with crime unless incarcerated. Your idea that government can solve everything is just not a realistic idea. That is more of a Socialist idea that government can solve everything and build a utopia. It is better to accept the fact there are many dangerous people out there that should be locked up in an institution. The main purpose of government is law and order first and public safety, not try to social engineer society to create a utopia. That never worked before and won't work now.

What you don't seem to understand is crime, mental illness is a deeply rooted part of society and the first priority of government is to protect society from illegal behaviors that harm people. It would be nice if government could just change society by spending a lot of money for mental councilors, and clinics, but that won't solve the problem for a variety of reasons. Government simply does not have the power to change society and eliminate mental illness, as least not in the short term. Many people do not see themselves in need of treatment for one thing. The problem may have become much worse because of the pandemic and the homelessness and high cost of living. The government is spending vast amounts of money trying to solve homelessness, but that will take years if it can even be solved. Secondly, there is no guarantee that a counselor or clinic will solve the problems even in the long term. The main issue is public safety, which you seem to ignore. I haven't figured out why you don't seem concerned about that. The only solution I see for that is to do something fast and that is to put people with mental problems in institutions now and if give them counseling while they are there. Keep them off the streets. That would be the only way to protect the public that would work. But I don't see that happening because of all the do-gooders who think mentally ill people should not be locked up and want to just spend more money on clinics and counsellors and maybe drugs as the solution. That's not going to protect the public. Anyway, I don't see any sign that you are willing to acknowledge the problem.

How would a doctor know whether it was a crime or not criminally responsible? What is the definition? If an offender is found mentally ill, why should he be released onto the streets anyway? Shouldn't a dangerous offender be in an institution regardless of the reason he assaulted or killed someone?

The problem you are ignoring is that much random attacks and violence is likely caused by people with mental illness. You refuse to admit that society is full of people with mental illness and you offer not way to protect society from people with mental issues. This issue has nothing to do with Christians, demon possession, or history. Putting unstable dangerous people in an institution is the only way to ensure the safety of the general public. I don't think anyone can understand you and leftist NDP reasoning of not protecting the public. Law enforcement has always been public safety first. Society can not leave dangerous mentally ill people on the loose and put the public at risk. The public is getting sick of what is going on every day. You mention nothing about protecting the public. If you're trying to be a good citizen, why doesn't protection of the public enter into it? Society cannot solve the problem of drug addicts and mental illness over night and might never be able to, but there is a responsibility to protect the public now. This is not just a political party issue as you seem to think. This is just common sense. The problems of mental illness is complex and there are likely many factors involved. Nobody can solve that anytime soon, but government does have a responsibility to protect the public now.

You still have not really answered with an understandable answer. What defines the difference between a NCR crime and a regular crime? Are not all violent crimes caused by mental issues? If you say a doctor decides, isn't that purely subjective? Just a matter of opinion whether someone was crazy or knew what they were doing? How does a doctor decide if a person was crazy? Why should that used to escape punishment for a crime?

You didn't answer the question. How would you tell if an accused was criminally responsible or NCR because of mental illness? How would you deal with them?

Seems like a lot of murderers and violent offenders are being found "not criminally responsible", because of mental illness. Isn't every murder and assault crime caused by mental illness? How do you or how does a judge know when an offender is guilty of a crime or not guilty by reason of not criminally responsible (NCR)? Seems to me the legal system has been moving toward finding violent offenders NCR for a number of years now. How do you or a judge tell the difference between criminally responsible and NCR? I always thought people that commit violent offences should be held criminally responsible. What is the difference? Do you think all violent crimes should be treated as mental illness?

Just reported: Multiple charges laid in Calgary after multiple stabbings. What would Jesus say about that and about allowing mentally-ill violent offenders to be free to continue attacking people?

In a nutshell: 1. The climate has always changed. Nobody denies that. Using climate change as a tool to scare the world as an excuse to implement global control and carbon taxes on advanced countries like Canada is a natural for the less than truthful globalists. 2. It is reported roughly 20% of the populations of the world which emit fossil CO2 are hit with carbon taxes. That means 80% are not paying anything for emissions. 3. Taxes do not effect the climate. They hurt the economy and hurt the people. 4. Trudeau constantly refers to putting a price on pollution. That is blaming everyone in Canada for just living. CO2 is a normal gas. It is not pollution. So everyone is being punished for just living normal life. Travelling to work, shopping, and whatever people do all becomes a crime and is punishable by more carbon taxes. 5. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a trace gas. Humans contribution to that is only 3%. So all the regulations and carbon taxes in the world is unlikely to change that 3% of a trace amount to begin with is extremely unlikely to make any difference at all to the global climate change.

You seem to have lost all power of reason. Regardless of the causes of mental illness, the protection of society comes first.

That's where lies come from.

No, the idea of carbon taxes came from the Devil, the prince of liars. Liberals and NDP claimed they are saving the world and giving us our money back. Now it was revealed they were lying about giving us our money back. They are taking far more money than they are giving back. So they are ripping us off with a scam and a lie.

GOLDSTEIN: Plenty of Liberal hot air on carbon taxes (msn.com) The scam continues.

All this carbon tax propaganda and taxes, regulations, net zero, and war on climate change has to do with the globalist U.N./ Liberal, Romanist drive for the new world order. It is the best excuse they have come up with yet to tax and control mankind, especially Romanist, liberal Trudeau and his elite Laurentians. Maybe it is being run with the Papal blessing in the background.

Every individual in the world has a bias of one kind or another depending on their background and beliefs. Because Romanists are in the majority, they don't need to defend Romanism because it is what rules government and society in general. So they want to silence anyone who holds Biblical views because they know deep down that is opposed to and a threat to their secular humanist/Romanist views. Some of them don't really believe in freedom of expression for people that hold a world view contrary to their own, i.e. Biblical beliefs are contrary to their liberal / Romanist worldview. Hence Bible believers have no right to speak. But many of the liberal/Romanist folks don't even realize that is why they are biased against Bible believers; they just believe they should not have to listen to them. I heard a man in a coffee shop say Jehovah Witnesses should be shot for coming to the door. I know he was just using hyperbole or exaggeration but he was very intolerant. I never went back. Who needs that.

I think I've told you before, I see the spiritual as directly connected with world affairs and politics and in my mind are not separate. Therefore I speak from a spiritual (or what you would call religious) viewpoint because that is the way I see things. Sorry if it bothers you, but I believe a forum in a free society is open to all points of view even ones that are unusual and spiritual. You are free to ignore anything I say. Political events and politicians are driven by their own spiritual or religions convictions of one sort or another or an atheist or secular humanist worldview that I sometimes comment on and express my own views or biblical views that I think are important.

If you don't like hearing about "imaginary friends", just ignore the comments I make. Don't even read them. Simple. Not difficult at all.

I like the idea of freedom of expression. Can't understand people that try to silence other people from speaking about whatever subject they wish. Such people often feel free to scold others and pontificate on whatever they feel like, but want to silence others because they don't like the subject. Not great defenders of freedom of expression except for themselves.