Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by blackbird

  1. On 2017-06-19 at 8:35 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

    StatCan says otherwise...



    On 2017-06-19 at 7:35 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

    Uproar after the Governor General of Canada recently called Canadian aboriginals "immigrants". He later apologized & said he misspoke.

    Full story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/governor-general-immigrants-social-media-outrage-1.4167384

    Canadian aboriginals originally migrated to the continent around 15,000 years ago from Asia it's estimated.  Whatever the year they came, are indigenous peoples also immigrants?


    The poor Governor General slipped up and mis-spoke a politically incorrect line.  It didn't fit with the first nations and lefty narrative so he had to apologize and speak the correct phrases.

  2. 11 hours ago, betsy said:

    The left!  Stupidity seems to be second nature. 

    Not only are they enablers of terrorism......but they actually put the country at grave risk.


    Here's a recent example of blatant stupidity:






    Yep, and the mayors in that area are opposed to the Energy East pipeline project.  Appears they are dumb in more ways than one.  Encouraging illegal migrants to come to Montreal is about as irresponsible as people can get. 

  3. 21 hours ago, taxme said:

    God choosing one group of people over another does not sound fair or right to me. That would be like me buying two dogs, and treating one better than the other. The whole bible and what is written in it is quite confusing to me. I have enough trouble at times in trying to read and understand plain old English. :D

    The children of Israel clearly in Deuteronomy were God's chosen people. "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."  Deuteronomy Ch7 vs6 KJV (1611).   Abraham was the father of the Jews and the Arabs.  King David was a descendant of Abraham.  Jesus was a descendant of King David through Mary his mother and is therefore a rightful king of Israel.  Jesus was a Jew and a descendant of Abraham.  The holy scriptures were written by Jews.  Learning parts of the bible takes time and patient study.  It is not always like picking up a newspaper and just reading something.

  4. 10 minutes ago, TTM said:

    For analogy, what would you consider a tin-pot dictator who required constant bowing and scraping, and despite you living a moral, peaceful, and law abiding existence, would have you tortured for the rest of your life for simply refusing to acknowledge him?

    You err in equating God with a tin-pot dictator.  There is no similarity or analogy.  God is our Creator, who keeps us alive by his power.  All things were created by him and for him.  As the Bible says, in him we live and have our being.  The Bible teaches all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  There is no peace possible between God and man without becoming a son or child of God by faith in Jesus Christ.  You might think one who is living a moral, peaceful, and law abiding existence should be able to just carry on and be accepted by God.  That's not what the Bible teaches us.  I would suggest reading the first few chapters of Paul's epistle to the Romans and the gospel of St. John.  The Bible says faith comes through the Bible and without faith it is impossible to please God.  see Hebrews ch11.  Until one is born again by faith in Jesus, he is at enmity with God.  There is a wall or barrier between that person and God no matter how moral, peaceful, and law-abiding he might be.  The bible says nobody is accepted on his own merit or goodness, because our best righteousness falls far short and cannot atone for our sin.  When one believes in Jesus (that he died for one's sins personally and rose from the dead), then he becomes that person's mediator (or savior) between God and man.  That is the only way the separation between a person and God can be eliminated. 

  5. 2 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

    Now you're getting my point.  I said precisely that! However, you say that, then right below you continue with the hydrological cycle, etc.  The ancient authors had no idea about that!!!!! You cannot match science to the Bible, even if it is to personally "confirm" the former. If you keep comparing Bible to science, one or the other will always come up short.

    The best we can do with the creation myths in the Bible is to treat them as ancient Hebrew traditions.  One of those myths is the great flood.  Some say that the Hebrews were influenced by the ancient Mesopotamian myths of creation and floods.

    I have to interject a comment.   The Bible records supernatural events, which did in fact occur.  If you take the supernatural out of the Bible, you lose the whole meaning because it is a supernatural book about supernatural events.  You accept it by faith.  That's what pleases God.  The account of Genesis did occur exactly as it says.  Noah's flood occurred exactly as it said.  These are not myths and are meant to be taken literally even if we can't explain them in scientific terms.  God is able to perform every supernatural event in the Bible.   Those that come to God must believe by faith.  see Hebrews ch11.

  6. On 2017-06-15 at 10:13 PM, TTM said:

    Simple subjects become complex when studied by someone who has a strong motivation not to understand.

    When presented by evidence showing your beliefs are false, ignore (refuse to process) the evidence and retreat back to your safe space.

    Because remember, God likes to have tortured for eternity those creations of His that would prefer to use their "God given" rational mind and free will

    I have to say the Bible gives an account of how God created the earth and universe in a very short period of six days.  This was how the Bible begins, but only takes up a few pages.  The rest of the Bible has a huge amount of information about how God dealt with Israel (first few books of the Bible - Pentateuch), Psalms and Proverbs, God's dealings with Israel and prophecies.  The New Testament gives the four gospels of Jesus Christ and several apostles give their account of the teachings of the christian religion. Ending with Revelation which has a lot of prophecy of the future. 

    A central theme may be described in this verse for example:  "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."  Proverbs ch3 vs5

    Another verse I can't put my finger on says the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (or wisdom).

    People who set themselves in opposition to God and His word are definitely on the wrong path and need to reconsider while there is still time.  The way to do that is through prayerful study of the Bible. 

  7. On 2017-06-08 at 1:03 PM, dialamah said:

    Climate change.  The above are just distractions.

    Someone has written a book calling Boomers sociopathic cause we've essentially lived our generation without care.

    The climate has always been changing.  Nothing new there.  But if you believe in man-made climate change and the doom and gloom, you've been had by the globalists who have there own agenda.  The climate change business is a huge business with thousands of people making money on it.  Over a trillion dollars a year involved, some say several trillion.

    There are biblical prophecies that forecast the future thousands of years ago and nothing is mentioned about climate change.  If it was important, one would think it would have been mentioned, don't you think?   There may be an Armageddon in the future and other things.

  8. 9 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:


    Sorry I left rather abruptly, I apologize.  I respect the fact that you have strong beliefs, Betsy, I just cannot agree on your absolutist interpretation of it.  We were discussing, a few pages ago, about Bible translations.  While I don't intend to read the entire book you showed me, I'm assuming you read it; so could you give me a precis of why exactly bibles other than the KJV are "corrupted"? I have heard that before and, while not a biblical scholar, I'm a little skeptical.  Every Christian sect wants to think that their translation is the superior one.  But how do you know that the manuscripts from which various bibles are translated are "corrupted" or "accurate"? All are copies of copies of copies.  Jesus didn't write anything in his own hand.

    By the way, "True" God? Which one is that?

    There are countless articles on that.  Basically it comes down to the fact the KJV 1611 is the only version based on the received text for the New Testament.  The modern versions are generally based on two corrupt manuscripts called Sinaticus (which was found in a waste paper basket in a monastery in the Sinai in late 1800s.  The Vaticanus was discovered or retrieved from the Vatican library I believe.  Two heretical churchman in around 1880 used these corrupt manuscripts to produce either a new New Testament or a new Greek Text to produce the English Standard Version.  Generally modern versions translators believe these corrupt manuscripts to be more accurate than the received text.  The received text is the collection of Greek New Testament manuscripts believed to be handed down through ages and used for the  KJV completed in 1611.  The modern versions do not follow the received text.  The received text was a collection of Greek manuscripts which scholars brought to western Europe when the Muslims conquered the Byzantine empire.  Since the original (which no longer exist) manuscripts for the N.T. were written in Greek, it is believe these Byzantine manuscripts are accurate.  The Trinitarian Bible Society website may have some articles on this.  Also google the two churchmen Westcott and Hort and find critques on them.  The argument for the two corrupt manuscripts is that they are of a little older date than extant manuscripts.  However, they disagree with the received text in thousands of places.  Age does not necessarily prove anything because they could have been rejected by scholars in the early centuries but left in storage someplace.



  9. On 2017-06-13 at 2:18 PM, Omni said:

    And of course it turned out to be illegal and it served to beget ISIS. There's some foreign policy that backfired big time.

    There is some question as to whether the invasion of Iraq caused ISIS.  There have always been two different sects of Islam, the Sunnis and the Sheites.  The radical version of Sunnis decided they wanted a caliphate and got support from many Islamic radicals.  They are not content living in peace with other non-violent Muslims.  They have been blowing up Muslims in Iraq, not Americans.  They oppose anyone who does not believe their extreme version of Islam.  That is the real reason for their existence, not Americans in Iraq.




  10. On 2015-08-19 at 5:09 PM, socialist said:

    This is too funny.

    Dozens of Manitoba government, City of Winnipeg emails part of Ashley Madison data dump.

    Honestly, why would you use your government email to register on a site like this. Government employees should be working, not searching the internet for affairs. Another example of taxpayers dollars hard at work.


    That's one reason I don't believe in socialism, which requires big government and big bureaucracy to function.  Governments waste millions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money.  I don't trust them with my money.

  11. On 2017-06-15 at 10:13 PM, TTM said:

    Simple subjects become complex when studied by someone who has a strong motivation not to understand.

    When presented by evidence showing your beliefs are false, ignore (refuse to process) the evidence and retreat back to your safe space.

    Because remember, God likes to have tortured for eternity those creations of His that would prefer to use their "God given" rational mind and free will

    Just found an interesting video on Netflix if you have it.   "Is Genesis History"  goes into it with creation scientists.  Explains a lot of things.  There are two schools of thought, or two paradigms.  One is the old earth paradigm and the other is the Genesis paradigm.  It seems to boil down to the uniformitarian principle which is used to support the old earth theory.  The catastrophism paradigm explains the young earth paradigm.  The video looks at the Grand Canyon which is explained as a result of Noah's flood.  A very sudden deposition of layers including fossils.  They also interviewed a Hebraist, a specialist on the Hebrew language and Genesis.  He said it is written in a way not to be interpreted as anything other than literal, that God created the universe in six days.

  12. 3 minutes ago, Wilber said:

    Ok, you are OK with a despot who is accountable to no one being POTUS. The reason we have a Governor General and a Parliament is to keep our government accountable. Congress is supposed to fill the same purpose in the US but you would be good with Trump having the ability to fire all those who disagree with him.

    Somebody has to be the chief.  Yes, the chief needs to be able to remove those who might undermine the executive of government or those who he does not have confidence in.

  13. 9 hours ago, dialamah said:

    Yeah.  Though I have to say that my bros-in-law equates Sisi and Trudeau.  Which I find odd, but he really hates the Muslim Brotherhood and he hated Morsi, was worried that they'd enforce a very extreme form of Islam in Egypt.   

    He's probably correct.  The military in Egypt probably thought that too.

  14. On 2017-06-06 at 5:13 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

    For some reason this isn't a headline story much of anywhere, given recent events in the world:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/incident-canadian-tire-rcmp-toronto-police-islamic-state-1.4147750

    In court she was also wearing a niqab with the ISIS symbol on it: http://globalnews.ca/news/3506039/woman-isis-knife-attack-toronto-mall/

    The question is should she be treated as some kind of terrorist or how long should she be locked up? 

  15. 23 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

    Possible scenarios of intense neutrino and/or gamma ray fluxes due to various supernova and stellar disturbances (possibly during Noah’s Flood) may have contributed to the appearance of age when radioactive substances are examined by causing substantial radioactive decay in a very short time period, rather than over long periods of time at currently observable rates.

    This is false, since radioactive decay is a process in which an excited nucleus loses energy. Adding additional intense ionizing radiation to the nucleus only makes it go the other way, In other words it becomes more radioactive. There is no observable/verifiable mechanism for accelerating the process of radioactive decay.

    Even if it did have an effect at very high energies, like from a supernova directed at the Earth as your article suggest, this would kill all life on Earth. DNA is destroyed by ionizing rays. Noah would not have made it.

    The debate about the science involved in creation appears to be complex and who is to know.  I would investigate the inspiration and truth of the Bible (KJV 1611).  That should be a higher priority.  It is interesting of course to read the articles about creation but it might not resolve the question one way or another in the end in one's mind.  The truth of scripture is of extreme importance because it determines one's future for eternity.  That puts things in perspective.

    • Like 1
  16. The CBC is running a story about illegal or undocumented immigrants in the states and how hard it is for them now being deported.  They interviewed a couple of Trump supporters to see what they think.  One of them said if the U.S. doesn't deal with it, it will only get worse and more will keep pouring in illegally. 

    Reminded of how the Liberals could care less about illegals crossing the border into Canada even though some of them might be criminals trying to escape deportation from the U.S.  I think the word got out that Trudeau welcomes them to Canada.  But he apparently is not providing any funding in B.C. to help take care of them when they get here.  It might not be good as they were led to believe.  This may come as a surprise to a lot of them.   They may end up sleeping on the streets in downtown and panhandling.

  17. 2 hours ago, TTM said:

    So you were taught: you did not come to this conclusion on your own? And you are unwilling to entertain the idea your teacher was mistaken, that the truth might be something other than what you were taught?

    I was taught, but I can't recall if someone told me that God created everything or if I first read it in Genesis.  In any case, because it is clear in the Bible, I accept.

    "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."   Matthew 24:35  

    I am satisfied the account in Genesis is God's word to be taken literally.  The very first verse in the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."  Genesis 1:1  KJV (1611)

  18. 6 minutes ago, hot enough said:

    Why would a dog/a god leave all these mysteries regarding the all powerful, all knowing, all everything being?

    Did the bible guys run out of paper? Was dog/god dictating too fast?

    The Bible gives just a brief account of creation in Genesis.  That is sufficient for most people who read the Bible.  I guess that is all God wanted to say about it.  Other subjects are given more attention in the Bible probably because they were considered more important.  Still the Bible is a fairly big book.  Not sure why you are using the term "dog".  God is not a dog and nobody ever associated him with a dog.  Sounds a bit derogatory.  Why not use the term God when speaking to people who believe in God?  Perhaps you could consider doing that much.

  19. 43 minutes ago, TTM said:

    No. I use "false" age interchangeably with "apparent" age.  As in God falsified his creation to make it look older than its true age.  That was your assertion and not mine.  

    If you are looking for people with far more knowledge then you, why not scientists as well? 

    I am happy to see you are willing to question some of your beliefs, but why do you feel the need to cling to a literal interpretation of Creation, rather than joining the vast majority of Christians that do not?

    You also keep bringing up the "fossils deposited in Noah's flood" argument, whereas I have pointed out at least three times that this argument fails without supernatural interference, as fossils are found in distinct layers rather than all jumbled together.

    For an analogy: if a farm was flooded, all thing being equal you would expect a layer of mud laid down by the flood to be equally likely to contain a random mix of the bodies of chickens, pigs, cows, etc.  You would not expect that one layer would contain only chickens, and another only cows, and another only pigs.  Yet this is what happens in the fossil record.  And it is true that the same geological layer contains the same fossils regardless of where the geological layer is located, even when separated by continents.  Not only that, but the order of the fossils in the layers is also always consistent: older (deeper) layers always have fossils we associate with older life, and newer (shallower) layers always have fossils associated with more recent life.

    I believe in a literal interpretation of creation and am not governed by what a large number of christians believe simply because that part of the Bible is meant to be interpreted literally.  I have been taught that one is to take the parts of the Bible literally that are meant to be literal unless the context indicates it is metaphorically speaking.  There is no indication the account of creation is meant to be a metaphor or legend of some kind although there are probably some people who would disagree.  There are parts of the Old Testament which are primarily historical accounts of what happened which some people do not realize as well.

    The vast majority of christians use modern corrupt versions of the Bible also.  That doesn't mean someone who understand that should follow along and do the same.  The KJV (1611) is the only version which is based on the received text and is 100% accurate.

    I would disagree with your account of the fossil record.  This has been explained in various articles on creation websites.  I will see what I can find.

  20. 1 hour ago, hot enough said:

    Why would a dog leave all these mysteries regarding the all powerful, all knowing, all everything being?

    Did the bible guys run out of paper? Was dog dictating too fast?

    Do you mean "believe" instead of "leave"?

    I don't understand your question. 


  21. 2 hours ago, TTM said:

    I dont ask why, because I don't believe things were created with a false age.  

    Because it is prima facie evidence (but by no means the only evidence) for the age of the earth, the age of life on earth, evolution, and the general incorrectness of a literal interpretation of the bible

    Assuming God could create a universe without a falsified age, why did He not?  Why did he hide the fact the universe was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago? Why did he create the universe in such a way that studying it would lead to conclusions that directly contradict a literal interpretation of the bible? He wanted to hide all evidence of his existance except for one document of dubious origin and attribution, to trick people into disbelief in his existance, so He could then have them tortured for all eternity in Hell for using their "God given" rational mind and free will?

    You first sentence contradicts the rest.  If it cannot be dissected by science, then your "science oriented creationists" are proving nothing.  Also, these "scientists" (at least the ones you linked to) seem to be arguing against the earth having an false apparent age.  Both of these are examples of playing both sides of the fence.  Please pick a side.

    Your "creation scientists" are not persuasive because they do not understand or perform science.  They form a conclusion first (i.e. the bible is literally correct) and then cherry pick or outright distort evidence to fit in with that narrative.  Because of this, an even passing knowledge of what the actual science says is enough to poke massive holes in their assertions.

    Real science forms a hypothesis first, then tests it to see if the hypothesis is supported, and discards it if not. Scientific theories are only strongly accepted if they produce repeatable results, have predictive power, and are confirmed by multiple independant lines of evidence.  And even then they can be superceded if a more accurate theory, or one with a greater range of applicability comes along.

    When you say the earth has a false age, you are assuming the geological time chart is correct.  Your claim rests on the assumption that everything you have been told about the age of the earth by old earth scientists is true.  The articles on creation science website give evidence to show old earth science is false.  I have not studied much information on creation websites, but I did hear a series of presentations on some of it ten or fifteen years ago.  I can't remember much of it. 

    For me to summarize the information which is already on the creation websites I would have to go and spend hours or days studying it.  I don't believe I am required to do that.  I may read some of these articles as I have time, and may comment at that time.  But you should not depend on me to answer all of your questions.  If you are interested in knowing the answers to some of yours questions, you need to make an effort to read some of these articles yourself.  I have provided one or two links.  One of them is at creation.com

    I accept the biblical account that everything was created in six literal days.  When I say it was created with an apparent age, I am not saying God was trying to deceive anyone.  That was just a personal opinion I had come to, but it may not be correct.  I would tend to believe more from the creation websites with articles from people who have far more knowledge than I do.

    You did make a good point in saying why consider what the creation websites are saying if I believe everything was created with an apparent age.  It is something I will have to give some thought to and study.  However, it doesn't change the fact that God still created the earth in six days.  Perhaps it was NOT created exactly the way we see it today with the fossils.  It is conceivable that the fossils were deposited after Noah's flood.  Prof. Stott also gave information is his slide show presentation to demonstrate that the geological time chart is flawed, which makes it doubtful.  Creationists reject the uniformitarian principle.  As I recall the fossil record is incomplete and I seem to remember hearing professor Stott saying there were some contradictions that give weight to a fairly quick deposition of fossils, which would fit the the catastrophic event such as the flood.

  22. 6 hours ago, TTM said:

    Fair enough. Why did God create a "fake" fossil record that when looked at objectively would inevitably lead to the conclusion that we were created by evolution rather than creation? And a "fake" geology that would lead us to believe the world was billions of years old rather than thousands. And a "fake" cosmology that would lead us to believe the universe is billions of years older than the earth, and that the earth are an infinitessimally tiny random mote floating within it, rather than the center of creation?

    Age in something like a tree, or a dinasaur you take for granted but don't ask why it was created with an age.  Why the big concern about layers in the earth with fossils.  I guess it could have been created with no fossils.  But what would that prove? You would have to ask God why he created it the way he did.  Maybe to test people.  Why didn't he create earth with a giant sign that says "I God created it"?  I don't know the reason it was created the way it was.  But Genesis says it was created in six days.  It had to have been created with an age.  All living creatures had to have been created with an age.  Man and woman were created with an age.  Again we come back to the fact it was a supernatural event which cannot be dissected in scientific terms.  Science oriented creationists do have articles which give their point of view on such things as how the fossils may have formed and refuting the old earth claims.  The links I gave have lots of articles on that.

  • Create New...