blackbird

From seeing your short comments that dismiss out of hand detailed explanations and articles, it seems you do not bother to read what is posted. Without reading and considering information, how are you able to make a rational judgment? You always come back with the same one-liner argument that I must provide proof of design. A simple principle of science and rationality is "In the beginning … what? Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”, but why think that’s true? First, nothing comes into being without a cause, a basic principle of science and rationality. Everything we see that started to be has some sort of cause. But we also know that the universe itself had a beginning. The laws of thermodynamics powerfully imply that the universe had a beginning. And an infinite regress of secondary causes can’t even exist, because it can be shown mathematically that this would lead to absurdities! But that means the universe itself had a cause. But what could cause the universe? The universe is all of space-time-matter reality, so the cause can’t be bound by those things. And it must be powerful to cause the universe! The simplest solution is an eternal, non-material, uncaused cause. But how to get a temporal effect from an eternal cause? That cause must have freely chosen to create, so it must be a personal cause. So the simplest cause for the universe is a single, powerful, personal, eternal, immaterial, uncaused cause—it sounds a lot like God!" "Why think God exists? Skeptics often demand that theists need to conclusively prove that God is there before either of us can believe He is there. But just because I may not be able to convince a skeptic that God exists doesn’t mean I cannot know God exists. God can reveal Himself to people in numerous ways, some of which don’t involve arguments." This article is a philosophical argument for why God exists. If you read it carefully and actually understand what it says, that might be useful to the debate. That doesn't mean you have to agree with everything or anything. But in order to have a useful discussion, one must at least have a certain degree of understanding of the other person's point of view. If all you can do is claim you must have proof of design or proof that a designer exists and don't understand the view of your opponent, you are losing the debate because the subject is far more complex and involved than that. You do not address the points in the information I gave you. In a formal debate, you would lose a lot of points because you don't address the arguments raised by your opponent. You are trying to boil it down to a simple phrase which is not how a complex universe or God works. Arguments for God - creation.com

Yes and Trudeau was going to give 900 million dollars of taxpayer money to WE charities. The Fifth Estate on CBC last night raised a lot of questions about where donated money went. Fortunately the Liberals changed their mind when the opposition got involved and started asking a lot of questions in Parliament.

Quote Natural selection is a logical process that can be observed. However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes—it does not produce new information.8 Actually, this is consistent with the Bible’s account of origins; God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind. One can observe great variation in a kind, and see the results of natural selection. For instance, dingoes, wolves, and coyotes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the wolf/dog kind. But no new information was produced—these varieties have resulted from rearrangement, and sorting out, of the information in the original dog kind. One kind has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with new information that previously did not exist! Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, but they believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural selection to act upon. Can mutations produce new information? Actually, it is now clear that the answer is no! Dr Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his recent book: ‘In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution, [i.e., instances alleged to be examples of evolution] particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased … But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information.9 unquote Is there really a God? How would you answer? - creation.com This is relative because it says that natural selection can not produce new species. Different kinds of dogs for instance have developed over time by natural selection, but not different kinds of species. So creationists do believe in natural selection up to the point that different kinds have developed within a particular species. To develop a new species, new information is required. Natural selection apparently does not produce new information that would create a new species. The only way new information exists is by an intelligent designer who placed that information in a species to begin with. Evolution apparently does not create new information that is necessary to create a new species. Also it says mutations do not increase information and therefore do not create a new species either. This really makes the theory of evolution more doubtful. All this information is demonstrating is one of the problems with the theory of evolution. By a process of elimination, one must come to the conclusion that life did not evolve from one species to another, but must have been created by an intelligent designer. Genesis does say "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Gen. 1:21 KJV "after their kind" may refer to species. "Mutations do not work as a mechanism to fuel the evolutionary process."

I don't think so. " 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23 KJB "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 KJB

So I am wrong about all the corruption and scandals of the Liberals and those who elected them?

Trudeau has gotten away with many scandals and endless spending for everything under the sun because the liberal voters are too dumb to know what they are doing.

Democracy has some positive sides and some negative sides. It is a fallible worldly system that can be exploited by crooked politicians and crooked people. Even if it is far from a perfect system, it is better than dictatorships, and better than Communist systems where the people have no freedom. We often see the down side of democracy in this country with the election of questionable people and the immoral laws and decisions they often make. We see the problems with the scandals such as the SNC JWR scandal, the WE charity scandal, the serious problems we have in foreign affairs with certain other countries. We see the problems with the vast waste of money, the madness of carbon taxation which accomplishes nothing. Speaking of the WE charity scandal involving the Trudeaus, did you see the Fifth Estate program last night about WE charity and how they use donated money in Kenya, Africa. They tried to silence Fifth Estate and others who spoke out. Go on the internet and watch that program. Yet Trudeau was planning to give them 900 millions dollars of taxpayer money to distribute for some cause.

No, but I don't think a conservative party should compromise and become like liberals just to get elected. If Canadians want to elect corrupt immoral governments, that is their choice. They will have to live with the consequences.

Democracy per se does not necessarily bring an honest good government as we see in Canada repeatedly. It's who is in government and what they believe that determines whether you have a good honest government or not. Many bad governments have been democratically elected. So it also depends on the kind of people electing them.

Better to have a conservative opposition party that stands up for righteous principles and not just an echo chamber of the corrupt liberals and left.

I doubt the majority of women are alienated by social conservatives. You have been sold a bill of goods by Trudeau and the left. I think most women are normal people and not into women's lib stuff. I also doubt two million gays even follow politics that closely. Most probably don't feel threatened by the Conservative party. It is Trudeau and the Liberals (and NDP) who create division and use scare tactics to try to get votes. The Conservative Party is not going to make LGBTQ illegal. They might not pass a law banning voluntary conversion therapy (if it is just counseling) as the Liberals and NDP are planning to do, but I don't see them trying to outlaw LGBTQ lifestyles even though many of them (including me) do not agree with LGBTQ practices or same-sex marriage. This is not some African dictatorship or Communist Russia. Conservatives are not interested in discriminating against people in employment and not interested in persecuting gays in society. But people's freedom of religion must be respected. That means you can't force someone to perform a same-sex marriage or force a baker to bake a cake for a same-sex couple. A Conservative government with enough social conservatives in it might outlaw abortions though, but I'm not convinced the majority of women are pro choice. They could be pro life. What we need are more godly leaders who believe in our historic Judeo-Christian society and less cancel culture or progressive Marxists.

Quote Perhaps in no other area of modern biology is the challenge posed by the extreme complexity and ingenuity of biological adaptations more apparent than in the fascinating new molecular world of the cell … . To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy … . It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.13 For natural selection (differential reproduction) to start, there must be at least one self-reproducing entity. But as shown above, the production of even the simplest cell is beyond the reach of undirected chemical reactions. So it’s not surprising that Teaching about Evolution omits any discussion of the origin of life, as can easily be seen from the index. However, this is part of the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (molecules to man),14 and is often called ‘chemical evolution.’ Indeed, the origin of the first self-reproducing system is recognized by many scientists as an unsolved problem for evolution, and thus evidence for a Creator.15 The chemical hurdles that non-living matter must overcome to form life are insurmountable, as shown by many creationist writers. Unquote Refuting Evolution chapter 9: Is the design explanation legitimate? - creation.com This is the problem for proponents of the theory of evolution and why they avoid the question of how life began. The hurdles to overcome to form life are too great. The most basic life forms so immensely complex. Biology scientists are finding out just how immensely complex the basic life forms are. To think these complex organisms could just happen by random chance processes is really a hurdle they cannot cross.

Read this article. It gives a lot of evidence why the creation view is far more credible than evolution. Created or evolved - creation.com One of the discoveries is shown in a 1 minute 10 second video clip. It is the Kinesin linear motor which is in a cell. That is something that could never have come about by evolution or random chance processes.

The "how" of a supernatural event cannot be shown or demonstrated. The finished product or result of it is evident all around us. Perhaps at least admit you don't know the answer and are willing to consider God as the answer. Then you need to open the King James Bible and read the beginning of Genesis that describes how God created everything. Nobody on earth can show you "how" God created everything because it was supernatural. The fact that he did create it is all around us. "1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. {the light from…: Heb. between the light and between the darkness} 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. {And the evening…: Heb. And the evening was, and the morning was etc.} 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. {firmament: Heb. expansion} 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." Genesis 1:1-3 KJB "1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. {substance: or, ground, or, confidence} 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:1-3 KJB "6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. " Hebrews 11:6 KJB God has chosen the method of faith. He has given man free will, the evidence of creation, and his written revelation to tell us about himself, what he did, and what he expects of us in return.

It is logical to believe sub atomic particles such as protons, electrons, neutrons, energy and all the physical laws that govern their motion or action could not just have appeared out of empty space by themselves. It is a matter of reason, logical deduction of the fact that something meaningful like the basic building blocks of the universe don't just appear out of nothing without an intelligent designer or Creator, who we call God. How God did that we don't know and he hasn't chosen to reveal that to us. It appears that it was simply a supernatural event. We are used to having everything that happens explained to us in a logical fashion that we as humans can understand. But God is not the same as a human being. He is infinite in power, knowledge, and is a spirit. So this is not something that can be explained in earthly terms like a chemical reaction or how something is built. It has to be accept on faith that it was a supernatural event beyond human comprehension. We should also bear in mind that God is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), omni present, and eternal. In other words he always existed and always will. He is above and separate from the created universe. I don't know any other way to describe it. There is no scientific explanation for how he created the universe. The sub atomic particles could not have created themselves or designed themselves. They have no intelligence to be able to do that. So it is reasonable to believe they were designed by something outside of themselves who we call God. I know some say who created God. But that is missing the point that God did not need to be created because he always existed. We tend to think of things as being finite or having a beginning and an ending. But that does not apply to God because he always was. "one would require fundamental proof in order to support such an immediate conclusion". The fatal flaw in that statement is the fact that we are mere mortals, who were created by an omnipotent Creator or God and God has not chosen to provide a kind of scientific "proof" other than the evidence that exists in the creation before our eyes already. God owes us nothing and expects us to worship him as the God who created us and provides everything we have including the air we breath. Therefore when one says they require "proof" of his existence and work, are they not questioning God who created them? He has already stated in his written revelation, the Bible, that he created everything. God is not a man and does not need anything from man. It is man who depends on God for everything. It is a matter of understanding perspective and our place in the universe or creation. We are mere specks in a universe, but God ( who is a triune God made of Father, Son and Holy Ghost), has been most gracious in that he created man in his own image. That is not a physical image, but with certain similarities.

No, you said it was Dr. Patricia Daly, Chief Medical Health Officer of Vancouver Coastal Health that said it. Now you're saying it was BC's Chief Medical Health Officer who said it. Which is it? Make up your mind. Whoever said it, they would be at odds with the great majority of experts.

Actually, that claim that Covid transmissions do not occur in restaurants and gyms is false. Transmission is known to occur through the air people breath and wherever people are in a building sharing the same air, transmission occurs. That is the basic way Covid is spread. Covid virus are in the air in what they call aerosol, that is, a fine mist of water vapour that people breath out. The viruses are within the vapour or aerosol and just float through the air. So the normal places Covid is spread are inside buildings, homes, gyms, schools, and restaurants. Any place that is enclosed is a potential environment for Covid spread. That is why they say outdoors is far safer.

There is an interesting article which gives strong evidence why we had to have a Creator God who designed and created everything. At the time of Darwin's theory of evolution in about 1859, little or nothing was known about one of the most basic life forms, the cell. All living things are made up of cells. At that time it was thought to be not much more than a blob and not much thought was given to it. Since then, science has led to immense discoveries about the living cell and how it operates. It turns out to be extremely complex. Embedded in this article are several short video clips of around a minute or so each showing how complex the operations of a cell are and how unlikely such a complex system could just come about by evolution or without a designer. "Note that this whole system (DNA, RNA and fully functional enzyme machinery) must be present in any living cell. To get enzymes you need RNA, to get RNA you need DNA, to get DNA you need enzymes … get the picture? No one has any idea how such a sophisticated set of nanomachines could have made themselves without intelligent design. This had to be designed by a super-intelligence. This is one characteristic of the Creator of all described in the Bible: omniscient / all knowing." Created or evolved - creation.com

Interesting short documentary on CTV's W5 program via this link. If you can bear with a minute or so of commercials that come on first, you will see the report that the next pandemic will be coming and why. One reason is livestock like pigs are mass produced in very concentrated pens or quarters that make the spread of deadly viruses possible. CTV News | News Video - Top National News Headlines - News Videos

Man-made climate change is just a cult and a hoax. CO2 in the atmosphere is a trace gas of about 400 ppm. All human activity produces about 12 ppm. Canada produces about 1.5% of all human emissions which is about 0.18 ppm, which is insignificant. So what you do won't make any difference to climate change. You're wasting your time and money. If we use an Olympic swimming pool to represent the earth's atmosphere, Canada's contribution to greenhouse gases would be the equivalent of a medium size cup of Tim Horton's coffee. Too bad nobody tells all these climate protesters and politicians at COP26.

Giving every kid who spent some time in a foster home $40,000 is madness. It will cost the taxpayers billions of dollars and is nonsensical. I believe most of those kids were not abused in any way. The claim that they were denied their native culture and language is absolute nonsense but it is the reason the HRT decided to order the government to pay billions to them. It was not because they were abused physically or sexually; it was because of the new woke belief that they were denied native language, spirituality, or culture. This should never be a reason to pay tens of thousands of dollars in compensation. It is the taxpayers who are being abused.

I like the Conservative plan better. The Liberals and NDP want to provide $10 a day childcare for working mothers. The Conservatives prefer to give families a large tax benefit so families can decide for themselves whether the mother should go out to work or stay at homes and look after the kids. Giving families the right to choose whether mom works or stays home is far better for society than the state using child care payments to force women to go out to work and having the state use day care centres to look after the kids. That sounds more like something from a Communist country. The idea that the state can better raise kids than the mother (or father) is Marxist ideology.

Life is short and we never know how long it will last. My God will supply all my needs. "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou are with me; Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." Psalm 23:4 KJB We never know when or if we are in the valley, but he has said I will never leave thee nor forsake thee.

It's a good thing, for the most part, Canada doesn't leave it to environmentalist radicals on welfare, armchair critics sitting in their mom's basement or the child protestors like Greta Thunberg and the brainwashed school kids protesting on the streets to decide what industries we have in Canada. Your description of yourself as "fighting economic growth" shows you need counseling. Where did you go to school or where did you come from? No, you won't say. It might explain a lot.

People who sign that petition obviously don't have a job in the forest industry or spin-off industries. Most are probably armchair environmentalists who have no clue how Canada's main industries are the natural resource industries. Many might be living off the spin-off industries of natural resources and living in homes made out of lumber that the forest industry provides. PS Calling fellow Canadians vermin for working in the natural resource forest industry is pretty low. Where did you come from?