blackbird

Sounds reasonable but how does immigration Canada tell who is a fanatic and doesn't believe in those things? Of course they are going to say they are not fanatics and believe in freedom, democracy and equality. The fanatics who would immigrate are not that dumb. Its like asking the fox if he eats chicken before letting him into the henhouse.

You got that right. All we have to do is look at France and the UK to see the problems they have to realize it is serious issue. It may also have been another factor that caused the UK to vote for Brexit. People were getting fed up with having large numbers of immigrants forced on them by the European Union. Now they have a lot of extremists there and some young people even born in the UK were brainwashed into going to fight for ISIS. One of them whose father was Canadian is able to claim Canadian citizenship and I understand is coming to Canada because the UK revoked his citizenship. He can't go back to the UK. Canada does not even have a plan on how to de-radicalize them.

This site lists 2,380 articles on the subject of a young universe. This should keep you busy and give you something useful to read. Search (creation.com) I find it an interesting subject. I may read some of these articles myself.

This is where you need to do some studying. Belief in creation is based on evidence and what is reasonable. There are many articles that go into this. You have imbibed the atheist dogma which is just religious dogma based on the religion of secular humanism. "There are many categories of evidence for the age of the earth and the cosmos that indicate they are much younger than is generally asserted today." Age of the earth (creation.com)

That's not true. Empirical science requires the scientific method. Some of what passes for "science" is not science at all. It is only speculation or theory. The theory of evolution or Darwinism is a good example of that. There is a reason why it has been called the THEORY OF EVOLUTION since it was first developed by Darwin in the 1800s. It is not an established scientific fact. It remains a theory which some scientists have rejected. You need to read some articles on the creation side that go into the subject from different angles. It can get very complex. I cant' get into it in great depth because of the complexity and time involved, but I understand the basic principle that true science must based on the scientific method which I understand involves observable, repeatable experiment that demonstrates a certain fact. If it cannot be proven, it is not science. It is speculation or assumption. Check creation.com

Here is an interesting part of an article on the subject of the age of the earth. " Can science prove the age of the earth? The widely accepted age of the universe is currently 13.77 billion years and for the solar system (including Earth) it is 4.543 billion years. However, no scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here that strongly suggest that these accepted ages are in serious error. Although age indicators are called ‘clocks’ they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. The starting time of the ‘clock’ has always to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed. There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old. However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now. And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all (see below)." Age of the earth (creation.com) The basic thought is the old age given my many scientists cannot be proven as true. It could well be ten or twelve thousand years old.

Could have been fired for believing in a young earth or Creationism instead of parroting the Darwinist and old earth age claims. Being fired or not hired in some places is common in the world of Thought and Speech Control today. Empirical science does not support the theory of evolution. It is more of a religious dogma than science.

In posting that, you just revealed how biased and bigoted that university actually is. It states he published EVIDENCE. So evidence contradicting the peer-reviewed journal is not allowed and he was fired for it. Sounds very extreme and proves they can't be trusted to defend freedom of thought or freedom of expression. Probably a good place to leave behind. Welcome to Orwell's new world.

I am not sure this article you quoted from wikipedia is even referring to what I posted from The New American. It sounds like it is talking about some other article. Your article refers to only 100 signatories while the article I posted from The New American refers to over 1,000 doctoral scientist signatories that disagree with the theory of evolution. Also, the article I posted makes it clear they are dissenting from Darwin's theory of evolution or Neo-Darwinism. Darwinism is a common term used to describe the theory of evolution. Surely everyone recognizes that. Your article seems to be grasping for straws in trying to claim the word is used for natural selection also. The article I posted makes it clear they are talking about the theory of evolution. The scientists who question the theory of evolution would naturally question natural selection because that is central to the theory of evolution. The claim that the word Darwinism is somehow is misleading and ambiguous is total nonsense. Everyone understands what is meant by the term Darwinism, especially when it is being used by the skeptics of the theory of evolution. Your article is making a false argument. If you want to call people who reject the hoax of Darwinism loons go ahead. It won't change anything and only shows you have nothing to offer.

"The dissenting scientists all united around one simple statement. “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life,” the Ph.D.s said. “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.” The growing rebellion among scientists from a broad range of scientific disciplines suggests the science may not be as settled as evolution theorists claim, according to analysts. Despite enormous risks to their careers and reputations, the number of experts willing to speak out about their skepticism of Darwin’s theory is growing quickly." "The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which advocates for Intelligent Design, is still growing its list of well over 1,000 Ph.D. scientists who dissent from Neo-Darwinism and its central tenet — the notion that random mutations and natural selection can generate the massive amount of genetic information present in living organisms. Indeed, critics of the evolution theory say there has never been a documented example of a mutation adding genetic information rather than destroying it." Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American

"Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a “Dissent” statement expressing skepticism about Darwin’s evolution theory, sparking fresh controversy over an idea that is at the core of many people’s worldview. The significant announcement, made last month, has been all but ignored by the establishment media. But it is making waves nevertheless." Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American

"About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do. The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion. Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found." "Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe." Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline | Live Science Whether the ones that believe in God believe in evolution or creation is another question.

I don't know. I would be just be guessing because I have not spoken to them. But from what I know most scientists are probably pagans and exalt man's reasoning above God's word. I prefer to believe God and his written revelation. The Bible says the fool does not believe in God. "24 O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches." Psalm 104:24 KJV "19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. {established: or, prepared} 20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew." Proverbs 3:19 KJV "1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1 KJV

You think an eye can function and make it possible to actually see and give the detailed image in full colour to the brain without an enormous amount of data in a cell? We call it data but of course it is not literally 1s and 0s on a piece of paper. It is still data stored in the cell and like the experts tell us it is vast amounts of information that would fill encyclopedia Britannica many times over. What is so difficult to accept about that? If you don't believe it, do some research on information in cells or ask a biologist. We are talking about complex structures of massive amounts of information or data that only an infinitely powerful intelligent designer Creator could make. Sadly Dawkins had a mental block that prevented him from seeing the handiwork of God in the creation. chromosome definition: a threadlike structure of nucleic acids and protein found in the nucleus of most living cells, carrying genetic information in the form of genes. A gene is a region of DNA that encodes function. A chromosome consists of a long strand of DNA containing many genes. A human chromosome can have up to 500 million base pairs of DNA with thousands of genes.

"DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." - Bill Gates (Microsoft) "Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information." - Richard Dawkins "The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal... What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy. It is the literal truth." - Richard Dawkins ---From the book "Darwin's Universe - From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing -- Survival for Nothing" by Yan T. Wee The cells are the building blocks of whatever living organism they are a part of and therefore they each have a specific function and are enormously complex. Each cell must be able to multitask. They have vast amounts of information stored in them so that they can do what they are designed to do. There is enough information in the cell of a lily seed or a salamander sperm to fill the Encyclopedia Britannica sixty times over. - P.129 "Darwin's Universe". The cells in an eye would be different than the cells in a tongue or a liver, etc. Each cell was designed to do a certain function and is enormously complex. Even in the human eye is enormously complex and each part would have its own unique cells in order to function and operate in conjunction with the other parts of the eye. One doesn't need to be a biologist to get the drift of that.

The idea of a Creator is not unreasonable or fantastic. It makes complete sense. Biologists found in the past 50 years or so that even the cell is extremely complex with vast amounts of strings of data that regulate how it functions. All this could not have happened by Darwinian evolution or chance. It required an intelligent designer to put the information in the cells. Evolution does not create information. That is one thing about it that dooms the theory. Life in the world required a vast amount of information to be placed there from the beginning. Only an intelligent source could have provided that information.

Who do you think created the complex universe with all of intricate laws of physics and gravity that keeps the planets in precise orbits around the sun and gives us the four seasons we need to grow crops and live on earth? Hardly could have all happened by pure chance or cosmic accident. The big bang is a flawed theory because it still doesn't explain how a complex universe with the laws that govern it came to be. Explosions do not create order. They create disorder. It also still doesn't explain where it all came from. Had to have a beginning and a Creator.

9 Things to Know about the Fall of Man (crosswalk.com)

No, bible believers do not believe in purgatory. It is not taught in the Bible. There are only two places, heaven and hell. Rome has built a vast empire of wealth on the teaching of purgatory and indulgences that the people can receive if they continue to pay for them. Why would they give that up? It has brought them untold wealth. Read the book "The Vatican Billions" by Avro Manhattan available free to read on the internet if you can find the right website. Here is what a different website says about the wealth of the Vatican. "One of the world’s 7 remaining absolute monarchies, Vatican City is not only the smallest state in the world, but also the richest state in the world, so rich that it could end world hunger not only once, but twice. There is no doubt, however, that between the church’s priceless art, land, gold and investments across the globe, it is one of the wealthiest institutions on Earth. The amount of Church-owned land, in square kilometers, across the globe — an area slightly bigger than the huge province of Alberta in Canada. Properties include Vatican embassies, churches, cathedrals, monasteries, schools and convents. [All tax free.] Thirty years ago the Vatican bank had 10 BILLION dollars invested in foreign companies. The vaults hold at least one metric ton of gold. 31 million dollars was seized from the Vatican bank by Italian authorities during an investigation into money laundering. 2 BILLION dollars was paid out as settlements by the church for sex-abuse cases just in the United States. In 2011 one offering, the Peter’s Pence, brought in 86 million dollars. The Sistine Chapel, offers a look at how difficult it is to appraise all of this. Estimates range from $400 billion all the way up to $2 trillion for just this one masterpiece. [How can the papacy call for corporations to be more generous? “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls….” Rev. 17:4.]" THE UNCALCULABLE WEALTH OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (eternalgospel.org)

I don't know what Trump believes. I am not going to judge him.

I will have to get the dictionary out. Sorry I must have hit the wrong key and posted a page before I typed it.

Good question. The explanation for this requires more than I can give on here. If you want to know, there are many websites that explain. It is rooted in the Fall of Man. "Originally man was made to be the created image of God, to live in union with God’s divine life, and to rule over all creation. Adam and Eve's failure in this task is their sin which has also known as "the fall of man". The Fall of Man in Genesis 3: Bible Meaning Explained (christianity.com) You said "who among us hasn't lied at some point". That is a fact. It is because of our fallen, sinful nature. That is why unless a person is redeemed, they will go to hell. The Bible makes it clear. There are only two places to go, heaven or hell.

I went to a walk-in clinic in Winnipeg one day a number of years ago. I was just visiting relatives in the area and don't live there. The waiting area was small and crowded. I believe I went in for a relatively small matter. What I got in the walk-in clinic was the Norwalk Virus and was sick as a dog that night.

I can only go by what the KJV Bible says about it. Doesn't sound like a state of being. Sounds like an actual place. "Matthew 13:50 - And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." "Revelation 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. John 3:16-18 - 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."

Let me be clear. I agree the health care system needs a lot more money. But that alone will not fix a bad system. It might improve it marginally, but it needs far more than money. The attached article explains why doctors are frustrated with all the red tape and extra hoops they must jump through continuously. Cutting Red Tape Could Let Canadian Doctors Provide 55.6 Million More Patient Visits per Year: Report (theepochtimes.com) The problem with a public health care system is it is bureaucratic with endless rules, red tape, administration that blocks innovations and unions that block changes and individual initiatives. Some doctors on the Vancouver Island are frustrated with their island administrator because he or she is causing them problems. The higher administrator backs that administrator 100% and so the system is paralyzed. They are not listening to the doctors on the front line. The system is paralyzed partly because administrators are stubborn, not innovative or inventive, refuse to change or allow any changes or freedom to use personal judgment and initiative. Being part of a public system, they prefer to hide behind the safety of massive rules, procedures, regulations, and red tape. Job security, pensions, and avoiding changes that could cause some upheaval, all contribute to the paralysis. There is no excuse for an emergency department to have only one doctor when people are waiting for six hours to be seen and there are other doctors in the community just working in their offices. Another example of bureaucratic paralysis. They kept the temperature turned down in the waiting areas of the ER probably to discourage people from going there and save a few dollars on heating, which by the way, they spend in many other ways. One doctor to see patients and many nurses running around doesn't sound rational. Some doctors are overworked and others far fewer patients. Yet people can't get a family doctor. The system is really dysfunctional and needs major changes. Since it is largely a public system run at the top by politicians and bureaucrats, I am doubtful it will be changed much. As you said there are many other demands by the population besides health care and politicians do not really give it the priority it requires. They are doling out money rapidly for all kinds of other things and spending time on many other issues. That's the trouble with a public system and why Canada ranks far worse than many other countries. Our political leaders have let the health care system go down to an abysmal state in the last number of years and done next to nothing to stop the disaster. Why should I believe they are suddenly going to change their attitude? I don't hold out much hope for the meeting today in Ottawa. They might throw more federal money at the system, but that won't fix all the problems. It requires far more than money. It requires the will of our political leaders, which I don't see. They are divided as is the population who have been constantly fed with propaganda. The NDP is more interested in placating the health care unions than fixing the system.