blackbird

Well, you should be able to put it in a few sentences. Why do we need to read a textbook? I am just wondering what your view is in a few sentences. But if you are willing, perhaps we can both agree that science does not have the answer as to how the basic particles started, what directed them, or how basic life forms began. We can agree perhaps that there are theories, but no proof. Science only has theories or speculation on how it all started. Can we agree on that?

I want to know what you believe about how life began, how atoms, molecules, laws of physics, etc. began. I don't think there are any scientists who have the answers to that.

Can you explain how such complex things as atoms, molecules, energy, and the basic building blocks of life came about by themselves? I think it would require some information/intelligence for such things to exist. The whole idea that these things just happened by themselves doesn't make sense. How could it happen?

The theory of evolution is based on random chance processes, mutation, and natural selection. The problem with that is there is no intelligence involved. The most basic life forms are so complex that an information is required for them to exist and operate. There is also the problem of where did atoms and molecules and the physical laws that govern them come from? Can you explain how they came about without an intelligent designer?

Yes I read it. But I don't understand how you dismiss Philip Stott's comparison with a monkey typing on a keyboard. I don't really see your point on that. All Stott is talking about is the theory of evolution is based on the principle of life being formed by random chance processes. He is saying the likelihood of the basic building block of life, say proteins or a cell happening by random is so infinitely small that it is virtually non-existent. Yet this is what the whole idea of life starting by random chance processes, ie. of the correct molecules coming together is based on. Using the monkey example is just to show the chances of it happening that way are a virtual impossibility. He said the chances are 1 in 10 to the 50th power or less. He said there is not enough time for life to have started randomly. He is a mathematician and understands the laws of probability.

I thought we were talking in general about the Theory of Evolution/Big Bang, and such world views versus the Biblical account of Creation by an intelligent designer. Did you read the long posting I made above about 16 hrs ago telling a little about Professor Philip Stott? One of the arguments in favour of an intelligent designer is the sheer complexity of life forms. Even the single cell they found more recently is so complex it boggles the mind. The theory of evolution can't really explain how it would work to produce things as complex as a cell or as complex as the human eye. Evolution is based more on mutations and the theory of natural selection. But that just doesn't explain how the machinery in a cell could exist.

As I said talking about who is right or who is wrong is a serious mistake. What it does is attack the individual rather than discuss the actual topic. But one thing I recall Prof. Philip Stott showed in his slide presentation on the subject of evolution was a slide showing a group of fossilized trees STANDING UP. The obvious thing was how could standing trees be the result of slow sedimentation over a long time period? Such trees would simply have decayed, fallen, and rotted away. They had to have been encased suddenly by some major event such as Noah's Flood recorded in the Bible. That would explain how they were preserved standing up. There is also a video on creation.com with scientists showing features of the Grand Canyon and explaining how the flood caused it.

Your behavior is no different than a kid yelling and screaming to get his way. This is a discussion forum. If you have nothing to offer, why are you even here? Waste of time.

I grew up interested in science, astronomy and chemistry. I even had my own chemistry lab in the basement when I was around 11 to 14 yrs old and used to do experiments with chemicals. In those days I could get any chemical I wished from a pharmacist in town. Could never do it now. So in those days science was a big interest to me. I am not opposed to science. About 20 years ago, I attended a series of four evening slide presentation lectures at a high school gymnasium by a scientist/mathematician (professor Philip Stott) and made videos of his slide presentations on the subjects related to evolution/ creation. You can find one of his articles titled "Scripture and Science in Conflict" at: Scripture & Science HOME | Reformation International College At one time he was a non-believer in Christianity, but in 1976 I think he said, he was converted to Christianity. He learned there are a lot of holes in the long age of the earth theory and the theory of evolution. He made presentations on evolution, the time scales/ geological time chart, the Flood, etc. He made a lot of strong points that cast serious doubt on the theory of evolution. I recall he showed slides on the subject of one of the claimed ancestors of man. He said they would find something like a tooth and from that recreate a theory of what the skull looked like, then the whole being, then his family and a story about how they lived. Later it was found that the tooth came from a pig. This kind of thing is not uncommon in archaeology or paleoanthropology. He has attended conventions of scientists in different countries and spoken in various countries on the subject. He periodically asked the gathering if anyone could give one fact that is true about the theory of evolution, but nobody would answer, except one scientist said it should never be taught in schools. One of his points as a mathematician he explained in some detail was the length of time required for the correct molecules to come together to form the basic building blocks of life is so great that it is a mathematical impossibility according to the laws of probability. He likened it to a monkey given a typewriter on which he would just type random characters. How long would it take the monkey to type the complete works of Shakespeare? The probability of that happening would require more time than existed in the universe. That is one of the problems with the theory of evolution he said.

You of course are not trying to convert me to your world view. You can claim I am trying to use conversion because it is a religious viewpoint, but because you believe in a secular humanist world view, it is not conversion? You also claim your views are "critical thinking" or " discovery" and are therefore somehow superior or more enlightened. I don't buy it. My religious views are Biblical and perfectly fit rational thinking about how the universe came into existence and why we are here. Your "critical thinking" answers none of that. The evidence that man is a corrupt being is clear. That is why we have evil in the world, wars, crime, assaults, hate, abuse, etc. The Bible makes that clear. Science cannot answer or explain morality or those kinds of things. Only the Bible and it's explanation makes sense. Just claiming one is open to an idea has no meaning or value. It sounds self righteous, but contributes nothing to the issues or discussion because it proves nothing. It is just virtue signaling.

We now have a serious threat to Canada's public health care system. Quebec has announced they may bring in a special health tax for the unvaccinated Canadians. Shockingly Trudeau did not come out right away and condemn this but said they are studying this. This means universality of health care in Canada could be in serious jeopardy. Canadians could be charged for health care based on their personal beliefs, personal health condition, whether they smoke, or anything else the government deems. There would be no equal health care for all. This proves Trudeau is a dictator who is in it only for his own favourite minorities and groups. We know who they are. The rest of Canadians could become second or third class citizens. We are in serious trouble. We have no viable opposition to remove or replace Trudeau and the fake Liberals. There is an article in the National Post about this but sorry I don't have the link. It proves Trudeau is not a real Liberal of past years. They are totally different now and are completely intolerant of Canadians who do not subscribe to their particular woke ideology.

Ah, if you were raised Catholic, I understand partly where you are coming form. I was raised Catholic too, but left it in mid life 41 years ago when I learned the truth from a minister preaching from the Bible and realized the Catholic religion is false. It is all about the church and sacraments and your own efforts to save yourself, rather than being saved by simple faith in what Christ has already accomplished on the cross. I believe I am being honest with you. Of course conversion is part of what I believe because that is a central message of the Bible. Anyone who believes in a false humanist worldview needs to be converted; it's as simple as that. Why is conversion something sinister or dishonest to you? You were converted into Catholicism after you were born; then you were converted away from it and into humanism by atheist or secular humanist teachers. Why would I be open to the idea I could be wrong? That would mean I am unsure of what I believe. Are you unsure of what you believe? I am convinced God created this universe and created man in his image for a purpose. He also revealed this to man through his written revelation, the Bible. From talking to you, I am more convinced that believing in God and that he created everything is a simple matter of accepting it by faith. I believe nobody will ever find or prove any other explanation through science or scientific methods. There will always be theories and speculation. But that is all. The billions of dollars spent on putting a telescope into deep space partly to find the origins of the universe I believe will never find the true origins because it is God who created it.

When are you going to learn how to reply instead of mixing comments into one mess with the comments of the person you are replying to? If you click on Quote on the bottom of a posting and then click on the white area under the person's comment you are replying to, you should see your cursor. That is where you should start typing, not in the other person's blue area where his comments are. Also, you need to look up and learn what a lie is. It is deliberate misleading. People who believe in God and the Bible are not lying. They actually believe what they are saying just as any religious person believes what he believes. If you don't believe in God and Bible that's your choice, but accusing people you don't agree with of blatant lying shows your intolerance and immaturity.

All I can tell you sir is that the Bible says there is no salvation but by faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for you personally. "16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " John 3:16 KJV I would suggest you read the gospel of John. Where one spends eternity depends on what one believes about Jesus Christ. Life is very short and is like a vapour and it's gone. So it is not wise to see who can win a debate between a particular interpretation of science which denies the supernatural and God on the one hand and God and the Bible on the other hand. What I am talking about is not "garbage". If you continue to think like that, you may regret it for eternity. But that is your choice. I have done my best.

There is no science behind it. Pure speculation by people who don't believe in God's revelation. So they come up with theories which cannot be proven and based on the false claim that something of infinite complexity can come from nothing. It is far more reasonable to believe everything had to have a beginning and could not create itself. What young person in the public school system believes anything but what they've been told by proponents of a big bang or evolution? What critical thinking is involved in believing that? None. It is just accepted as dogma.

We are not talking about scientific or biological events. These are supernatural events recorded in Holy Scripture. The Bible is full of supernatural events. Jesus performed many miracles and was raised from the dead. The reason these things took place in an area in the middle east called Israel is because God chose Abraham and made him the father of Israel. It all began when Adam and Eve rebelled against God and ate the forbidden fruit. Since that time all men inherited a corrupt, fallen nature. The Old Testament is all about how Israel was chosen by God to be God's instrument to bring Jesus, a Jew, into the world to save mankind, to redeem lost who believe in Jesus. Without believing in God and Jesus, there is no salvation, just a lost eternity in hell. See John 3:16 and John 3:36 KJV. There is forgiveness for those who repent and believe the gospel. The offer is there, but it doesn't last forever. Now is the day of salvation as the Bible says. We never know what will happen tomorrow. The first chapter of the Bible, in Genesis, describes how God created the world and life. Those who don't believe in God have a serious problem. See Psalm 14:1 KJV. It is logical and reasonable to believe the universe required an intelligent designer and Creator. It is logical that God created mankind for a reason. The alternative is everything was just some sort of cosmic accident that happened and we are all here through some kind of accident. Totally illogical.

Define aggregate depersonalized data. I oppose any kind of government mining of Canadians personal information, communications, etc. Once you allow certain things, You are on a slippery slope which bureaucrats or politicians will take advantage of.

I support the legal system where only certain prosecutors can apply to a judge for a court order to wire tap in only certain conditions for a criminal investigation. I do not support the government bureaucrats being able to spy on Canadians.

I will simply say I am against government surveillance through cell phones, internet, computer, social media, or any other electronic means. Once it is established there would be no limit to how far big brother would go.

You would be ok with a Communist / Marxist police state.

Canada's public health agency admits it tracked 33 million mobile devices during lockdown | National Post You can use Google just as easily as anyone else.

Human Rights in China will never improve under Communism, so why reward it to save a buck?

It has just been reported that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) has been accessing up to 33 million Canadian's cell phones to collect information. That raises the question: Are we living in a surveillance state now? Would this be another evidence of the existence of Marxist ideology in the government and bureaucracy of Canada? What other methods of surveillance are being conducted that we are not aware of or have not been made public?

Article for the China lovers. China accused of harassing its critics in Canada and abroad China accused of harassing its critics in Canada and abroad (msn.com)

So-called "conversion therapy" is a deceptive trigger phrase that paints a picture of brutal coercion techniques. In fact it ignores the fact that 99% of the time the only thing that may have taken place is people voluntarily went for counseling to see if they could change their gay lifestyle to heterosexual. Now simple freedom of association and speech is banned by a draconian law because some LGBT people do not like the idea of their fellow LGBT people being counseled out of the pride movement, which would lessen their numbers and prove that people can change. When people change, it weakens their whole argument that it is a normal thing that people are born with. So to pressure the government to act some claimed they were irreparably harmed by the counseling and caused them lifelong grief. I guess anybody could claim anything they don't agree with causes lifelong grief. If that causes ongoing grief to someone, all it really proves is they really do need compassionate counseling with understanding. The reason for the grief could be because they are deeply torn about their situation. The solution to that is not to deny freedom to everyone who might seek compassionate counseling. Passing laws to ban conversation between consenting adults is going way to far and sounds Orwellian.