blackbird

I am not an American and do not study or know anything about the U.S. Constitution. But there are articles that delve into that subject if one wants to know more about it. Here is one: quote Parallel Concepts between the U.S. Constitution & the Bible Our last three monthly newsletters have shown the amazing correlation between Biblical concepts and the Principles of Liberty established by the Founders for freedom, prosperity, and peace, and how they were reflected in the Declaration of Independence. This month we will show how many of those same concepts are also reflected in our structure of government as established by the Constitution of the United States. These reflections should not surprise the honest student of American History. Scholarly studies have shown that the Bible was the most quoted source, by far, in all the Founders’ speeches and writings. The reverence which the Founders showed toward Biblical concepts in both the Old and New Testaments was reflected by John Adams when he said: "Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God.... What a Utopia, what a Paradise would this region be." Unquote Parallel Concepts between the U.S. Constitution & the Bible (nccs.net) There are many anti-Christian people in America (and Canada) who want to move their country further away from their Christian heritage and culture. What kind of culture they would replace it with is concerning. It is becoming more evident that they want a more heathen nation. That is destructive to society and is the worst thing that could happen to a country that had a semblance of Christianity previously. We are seeing it now in Canada with abortion on demand, the push for LGBTQ "rights', the teaching of SOGI in the school system (sexual orientation and gender identity), assisted suicide. Things could get even worse. I don't suppose this bothers you. Sad really to go through life in the wrong walk. One needs to study the Bible and become a believer. That is the only thing that sets a person truly free. That's what Jesus said. "31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. " John 8:32 King James Version.

You are speaking about the U.S. I am not in the U.S. But America has many Christian people and I would assume many hold elected positions. Making laws based on one's personal religious beliefs has always been the way many politicians governed. The code you mentioned has nothing to do with making laws based on one's religious beliefs. Laws against murder, stealing, and many other things may have been made based on Christian beliefs down through the centuries. That is nothing new. A law against murder, stealing, etc. is not establishing religion. Similarly a law against abortion would not be establishing a religion. The Bible is God's revelation to man. It is believed and followed by millions of people. It has been the reference for many politicians down through history. It always has and always will be a guide to many lawmakers. The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." refers to establishing a particular religion as the religion of the state by law as some countries have. An example would be an Islamic theocracy like Iran where the religious leader, the Ayatolla, runs the country. Using the Bible as one's belief about morality is not the same as "establishing a religion" to be the religion of the state. Many people have their own personal religious beliefs and are entitled to that. It is called freedom of religion. Everyone has the freedom to believe or not believe whatever they choose, but we will all be held to account after death.

I already explained that. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Putin make laws too, but that doesn't make them moral. Making laws to allow abortion for example does not make it moral if the Bible condemns it. Laws are man-made and can say anything. That does not mean that God in his word, the Bible, approves of them. Laws can still be immoral from a biblical point of view. It should also be mentioned there are two different views of what the word moral means. There is the secular humanist or world's view and there is the Bible or God's view. I am speaking about the Biblical view when I say moral or immoral. We should not confuse the two views. You may be thinking of morality from a purely worldly or humanist view which is totally different than the Bible view.

No, Christians cannot kill people. You missed what I said. I said all the commandments are repeated in the New Testament as a guide for Christians. So the commandment against killing applies to Christians. Did you deliberately ignore what I said about the teachings in the ten commandments still applying to Christians with the exception of keeping the Sabbath which was only meant for Israel in Old Testament times? The Bible does not say say that Christians should hate people who are different. There you go making up things again. Where did I say the Bible says it is ok to sin? I didn't but you still make the claim. You can say what you want on here, but anyone reading it would know you are lowering yourself to the lowest common denominator. There is nothing to pick and choose about Christianity or the Bible. Pointless to discuss something with someone whose mind is made up to try to defend evil and throw out the total nonsense in an attempt to smear Christianity or believers. I am not here to waste time arguing over nonsense. If you want to have a sincere discussion of truth and what the Bible teaches that is one thing, but what you are saying is totally false. No rational person believes your allegations about Christianity.

The ten commandments are part of the Old Testament law which was directed only at Israel during the Old Testament times. The commandment about the seventh day as a day of rest does not apply to the church which began 2,000 years ago. It was only directed to Israel long ago. The other commandments are still in effect because they are stated in other words in the New Testament. However, a day of rest in the church age has been established as Sunday, but not by commandment, but as a voluntary thing. Nobody is under the Sunday day of rest as a commandment. There are some churches who misinterpret that and have turned it into a command, but that is not biblical. As in many areas, different denominations interpret some things in different ways. That is one reason we have thousands of different denominations. But many Christian churches do still agree on the main teachings of the Bible. quote The Purpose of the Law In Galatians 3:23-29, Paul explained that the law of Moses was a “paidagogos,” which is translated schoolmaster, tutor, or guardian. In the Greco-Roman world, the son of a wealthy man would be cared for by a paidagogos, a slave who was given the responsibility of watching over his master’s son. This guardian would watch over the boy constantly; taking him to school, keeping him out of trouble, guiding him, guarding him, and teaching him. In the life of a young boy, a paidagogos was a good thing. However, when the boy became a man, he no longer needed a paidagogos. He was set free from this tutelage. Paul said the law was just like that in the life of Israel. It’s end-goal was to bring the nation of Israel to a state of maturity and faith, where they would accept Jesus as their Messiah. And once they came to faith in Jesus, like a boy who became a man, they would no longer need the law in the same way. “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” (Galatians 3:23-26). A young boy does what is right because his guardian tells him to, but a man does what is right because he is an heir of his father’s household. When a young boy is under a guardian, he is just like a slave (Galatians 4:1-2). And Paul makes the point that the Jews were slaves under the law. But when Christ came, the law was lifted – at least for those who accepted Jesus as their Messiah – because that was the whole purpose of the law. The son of a king doesn’t need a law to tell him to do the king’s will. The son of a king – in many ways – is exempt from the law, but he does the king’s will because he loves the king and because the king is his father. He does the king’s will because the king’s will has become his will. This is what being a Christian is all about. “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God” (Galatians 4:4-7). unquote Why Christians "Are Not Under Law But Under Grace" - Radically Christian So you see Christians are free to work on Sunday if their job requires it. While it would preferable for Christians to have Sunday off, many jobs, which are not Christian organizations, require their employees to work on Sundays at times. This is not against Christianity or Christian teachings, except in some churches which as I said misinterpret this subject. Donald Trump is NOT the model that Christians follow. He is a politician. Politics or politicians are not the church and is not a guide for Christian beliefs or behavior. As far as voting is concerned, as I have said on another post, Christians should vote for the least evil leaders and parties. In the U.S. there are only two main political parties to choose from, Democrats and Republicans. We know Democrats strongly support things that are evil such as abortion and progressive ideology. Therefore if a Christian is going to vote, he/she should choose the lesser evil. That's what it boils down. Sixty million babies have been aborted since Roe versus Wade was passed fifty years ago. On the question of wealth. The Bible does not teach that it is a sin to be wealthy. It is how wealth is acquired and what one does with it that is important. Many wealthy people do charitable or good works with part of their wealth and they earn it honestly. quote We know that wealth itself is not sinful. Wealth is not offensive to God because He often blessed His servants with wealth when they pleased Him (Deuteronomy 28:1–8). Abraham (Genesis 13:2), Jacob (Genesis 30:43), and King Solomon (1 Kings 10:23) are examples of wealthy men in the Bible who were used by God in mighty ways. In the Old Testament, wealth was sometimes an indicator of the Lord’s pleasure and blessing. However, wealth has never been an accurate barometer of a person’s standing with God. Some righteous people are poor while some wicked people are rich (Psalm 73; Jeremiah 12:1). In the New Testament, too, several wealthy people were instrumental in advancing God’s kingdom. Matthew (Luke 5:27–29), Joanna (Luke 8:3), Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57), Zacchaeus (Luke 19:8), and Lydia (Acts 16:14–15) were all individuals of great means who were called by God for a special work and who used their wealth for a righteous cause. Wealth itself is morally neutral. What we do with wealth can either enhance good or create more evil. Wealth can be used for God’s purposes or for selfish goals. unquote What does the Bible say about wealth? | GotQuestions.org Again the commandment about giving a certain percentage in the Old Testament was directed only to Israel at that time and does not apply to the church in the New Testament age. The Bible teaching on marriage and homosexuality has always been the same in both the Old and New Testaments. God created man and woman and meant for them to procreate. Therefore marriage by definition is only between one man and one woman. That is the clear teaching in the Bible. Anything outside that is wrong. What Is the Definition of Marriage in the Bible? (learnreligions.com) The article on this link answers many claims about same-sex unions: The Bible and Same-Sex Marriage: 6 Common but Mistaken Claims | Bible.org

Really? So people that commit murder, steal, and break various other laws etc. which is immoral behavior should not be discriminated against by having it outlawed in "THE LAW"??? and be punished by the "THE LAW"??? I'm afraid you have it wrong. There is no such thing as "equal rights' in many subjects and areas of life, in the laws, and in how society operates. One could argue that everyone has "equal rights" to hold whatever religious beliefs they choose. The fact is fundamental rights include freedom of religion in the Charter of Rights which take precedence over the law. Where the law conflicts with freedom of religion, the Charter of Rights is supreme. But more important than that, the Charter of Rights and laws of the land are human made documents. Where they conflict with God's law in the Holy Bible, then God's law takes precedence. I give one example. The government of Germany under Adolph Hitler and the Nazis ruled that the Jews should be eliminated and killed six million of them in the gas chambers. They were acting contrary to the Bible or law of God which takes precedence and is supreme. Nobody would disagree with that. People are free under their religion or religious beliefs to have an opinion contrary to what they consider is an immoral law and cannot be forced to do things that would in effect condone or support such behavior such as support the practice of abortion and some other things.

People who disagree with immoral behavior must be free to decline to have any part in it, such as bakers, videographers, photographers when same-sex couples want a wedding service. It simply goes against the conscience of many people and they have human rights. Doctors, nurses and others who disagree with killing unborn babies certainly should not be forced to have any part in it for the same reason. Discrimination has different meanings. Discrimination can be perfectly right and moral. People are discriminated against all the time for all kinds of reasons. There is no blanket definition of the word and no such thing as everyone must be treated equal. Criminals in prison cannot be treated equal to everyone else in society because of the circumstances. People who have religious beliefs or morally oppose something cannot be forced to support it or participate in what they see as immoral or wrong. It cannot be held against them for declining to be part of something immoral. A society that tries to force people to be part of something immoral is a totally corrupt and evil society.

I already gave you verses that would support divorce on the grounds of psychological abuse. It shouldn't take much common sense to understand that unless you think psychological abuse should be ok. Nobody in their right mind would think that is something anyone should have to put up with in their marriage or in any other personal relationship. Abuse is a kind of hell. Nobody should be forced to spend their lives in that situation. God calls us to be able to live in peace with a relationship with him. How is it possible for someone to properly be at peace with God and serve him if they are being tormented and abused by an abusive partner? "14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. " 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 KJV Marriage is to be a loving relationship where the two become one flesh, not a kind of war or situation of mental or physical abuse by one partner on the other. Each partner is to love the other as himself or herself. That is what God ordained marriage to be.

That's the level of discourse. Would rank it as an F.

I've already told you an abused person need not remain in an abusive relationship. Seems simple but you can't understand it. If divorce is required to escape an abusive relationship, how can it be a sin? That is not what God ordained people to suffer in a marriage and destroy their lives in.

When Christians vote, they have to hold their nose because they often have to vote for the lesser evil. There are only two choices in America, Republicans or Democrats. Democrats support killing unborn babies, they support same sex marriage and LGBTQ whatever that might mean, open borders, and environmental madness fighting climate change. So there is no real choice for someone who believe in the sanctity of human life and the traditional family and rejects all this woke, progressive nonsense. The choice is clear and it's not Biden and the democrats.

Different sexual preference? Are you serious. Have you studied what the Bible teaches about the subject before invoking the name of Christ. His word is the Bible. So what it teaches is what he teaches. Actually your argument is with God, not Betsy who you falsely call names. The love of Christ is falsely used to try to silence people who really believe what God said. Before you step out on a limb and criticize or call someone a bigot for standing for God, Christ, and the Bible, you need to get your facts straight. But all this is nothing new. We know those who stand for Christ and the Bible are the targets of ridicule, smearing, scoffing, criticism, and all sorts of false accusations. That is just par for the course because we know who runs this world. Christ is God and God condemned homosexuality. So trying to claim that Christ would support or agree with the practice is ludicrous. He died on the cross to pay for the sins of man. Those who accept him by faith and are born again receive forgiveness and will not face judgment. I pity those who spend their time fighting against God by attacking believers. Does anyone seriously think they can win that one? Certainly not in the long run or in eternity. "27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" Hebrews 9:27 KJV

The Bible is clear. The unborn are humans. The idea of putting a time on it is purely man-made or humanism. The Bible shows God recognizes the unborn as a person. That's should be good enough. We don't make our definitions of who is a person. The Bible also says in Genesis that murder is punishable by death. Murder and abortion are related in that both involve killing an innocent human. But there is the death penalty for murder in some places or there used to be. The death penalty in certain cases cannot be wrong if the Bible allowed it in Genesis. See Genesis 9:6 KJV. If one doesn't believe in God (Jesus) and the Bible, he is on the wrong road to destruction. Death will be a fearful thing.

If Pierre Poilievre said he is pro-choice (women choosing abortion if they wish), yet he got married and his wife had a baby, who he is proudly carrying in the focus of the cameras and apparently loves. He has a mental contradiction. He loves this baby, but would he have approved of his wife aborting the baby earlier if that had been her wish? He has a problem and a serious mental conflict. I wonder what he would say if a reporter asked him if he would have been ok with his wife aborting the baby during her pregnancy. This is a fair question for anyone who said they are pro choice to the world. You can't have it both ways.

If she opposes abortion, she must be pro-wife, pro-motherhood. This is one of the main purposes of marriage but it is being denigrated today by society. But I have not seen anything about her beliefs on it. Sadly I think Pierre Poilievre has said he is pro choice; a poor belief to have. That is the wrong position to have. The slaughter of the babies must be stopped. I noticed Pierre was proudly carrying his little toddler around. Babies, not yet born, are a priceless treasure and their life is sacred. I am not sure how anyone could be ok with that little toddler Pierre is carrying being aborted earlier.

The Haida are still aggressive in some ways. They demanded and the left-leaning, woke provincial Liberals in BC and the NDP bow to their demands. They changed the name of the Queen Charlotte Islands to an aboriginal name called Haida Gwaii. They also are changing the name of a main town or village on the islands which has been called Queen Charlotte City to an aboriginal name. I heard a story about a white man who had a relationship with a Haida woman or girl on the islands which did not work out. They made sure he left the islands.

Who cares? Do I need your permission to reply to your posts now? Since when did you every ask me for permission to comment on my posts?

You just proved what the OP says. You as a liberal are also an evolutionist or Darwinist and believe man is just another animal to be treated as such. Many scientists, paleontologists etc. do not believe in evolution or Darwinism for a number of key reasons. One of Charles Darwin's greatest fears which he stated was that the fossil record would not support his theory of evolution with a record of transitional fossils. This nightmare for him turned out to be true. If evolution were a fact one would think there would be millions of transitional fossils showing the changes from one species to another over the hundreds of millions of years. But they do not exist. By and large the fossils are clear fossils of each species. They do not show transitions from one species to another. Renowned paleontologists will tell you this. Creationists do not disagree with the fact that mutations do occur at times as in the case of viruses or bacteria building resistance to antibiotics. But this is not Darwinian evolution. An example would be the new strains of Covid viruses that come out from time to time. Nobody disagrees about that. That is not Darwinism or evolution from one species to another. Holy Scripture says God created man in his own image and it says he gave man dominion over all fish, animals and the earth. He did not make man as just another animal but created him with a special place in the universe and in this way ordained the sanctity of human life. Evolutionism or Darwinism of course denies this and treats man as just another animal as my OP describes. That is what liberalism and most politicians embrace. So don't expect to be treated much better than another animal in the long run because that is what their ideology teaches them. In fact the public school system is teaching all children the same ideology. Liberalism is in the process of murdering Judeo-Christian culture and respect for human life and religious beliefs. We can expect nothing but evil and further destruction of everything society stood for over the millenium.

I think he pointed out since Canada became a country in 1867, there were no black slaves in Canada. Slavery had been abolished around 200 years ago and prior to that time, when it did exist, it was a relatively small number in British North America. So what is all the outrage about slavery in Canada? I think it is clear aboriginals in north America were not the saints in history prior to colonization many seem to try to portray themselves as.

Excellent post with much very important information. I also read that, back in history probably before colonization, aboriginals who took slaves sometimes treated them brutally or killed them. I once found an arrowhead near a tiny island which was called Massacre Island. Apparently the aboriginal women and children, who lived on the island, were killed by another tribe when the men were away probably hunting.

I ask this because of liberal politicians (includes the Liberal, NDP, Greens and what have you) support policies and ideology contrary to the sanctity of human life, traditional family structure and traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs which built western civilization. Medical assistance in dying is granted as human life is worthless and individual choice takes precedence over what our Creator God has commanded in the west's historic Judeo-Christian belief system. This is also evident in the pro choice for abortion for all in any circumstances. This is also the case in the curriculums taught in schools called SOGI, sexual orientation and gender identity. They support a free for all and every individual can do their own thing. That is all that matters. Evolution, a debunked and unsupported theory, is still taught in public schools as if it is the gospel truth. Evolutionism is really nothing more than the denial of God and the teaching that man is nothing more than an animal with no purpose in his existence. This denial of accountability to God is what has led to doctor-assisted death, widespread abortion, and will further move man to the survival of the fittest. The public health care system need not be funded to provide the best care for everyone because humans are just animals and will die off anyway. If there is not enough money for public health care for everyone, so what? It will be provided according to the budget and those who can't get the necessary treatment to survive, will just have to die off as they are only animals anyway according to evolutionism or Darwinism. And if one is not happy with the system, they can always request MAID, the final solution, which will put them out of their misery. quote Mankind is a doomed race in a dying universe. Because the human race will eventually cease to exist, it makes no ultimate difference whether it ever did exist. Mankind is thus no more significant than a swarm of mosquitos or a barnyard of pigs, for their end is all the same. The same blind cosmic process that coughed them up in the first place will eventually swallow them all again. And the same is true of each individual person. The contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge, the researches of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the sacrifices of good men everywhere to better the lot of the human race - all these come to nothing. This is the horror of modern man: because he ends in nothing, he is nothing." "When Darwin deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptation in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, he knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life." (William Provine) Unquote -from Darwin's Universe, From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing - Survival for Nothing. Is this what liberalism is all about and the driving force behind political liberal policies, and even other parties policies, and governance? I tend to think so. This is the thinking and ideology of Darwinism, evolutionism, liberalism or the New Atheism and is the reason for the atheistic, evolutionary curriculum in public schools and the general ideology of almost all political parties, particularly the left leaning Socialists and liberals.

Glad PP pointed out some of major failings of the Liberal government in his acceptance speech. He mentioned the disasters of the Passport office, the ArriveCan app, the affordability crisis, the housing crisis, etc. He really has his guns set on the disaster which is the Liberal-NDP coalition. If he keeps focused on those things, he will be a resounding success.

I came across another article that debunks the evolutionism or Darwinism as well. It says in part: Quote Naturalistic evolution (Darwinism) is the idea that systems, especially biological systems, get more complex by themselves, without the need for some mind or spirit to guide their development. Darwinism proposes that minor changes which give certain biological organisms a survival advantage compound over time to produce major variations and changes, and that ultimately this can explain the origin of species, including man. If this is so, then mankind is nothing more than a more intelligent animal, and God was not really needed for creation (so why not deny his existence altogether, by an application of Occam’s razor?) No informed person doubts that natural selection occurs in biological systems, favoring some kinds of genetic combinations over others in certain environments. But the assertion that fluxes of physical energy and natural selection explains changes from amino acids to DNA, from reptiles into birds, or from apes into humans cannot really be justified scientifically. The reasons for this I outline below. unquote Darwinism Debunked - Evolution Exposed | Christian Faith (christian-faith.com) Of course to the atheist, this is heresy and many cling to their discredited theory as it has become a religion to them.

Unfortunately Treebeard did not use science. If he had, we might have something to get a grip on. But he really has nothing to say. This book may have been written by a Pastor, but when one reads it, he begins to realize this guy is no ordinary Pastor. He has an incredibly deep knowledge of the subject and has collected a vast amount of information from scientists of various types. Each chapter has a detailed reference listing the sources of information from various scholars, and scientists. He obviously had a huge amount of help putting this book together. This definitely does not have the quality of coming from a lay person, but rather a large number of scholars and people with scientific knowledge of the subject. Speaking on the subject of the theory of evolution: As an example, I will quote part of a section in the book under "Bones of Contention" just to give you an idea of the quality of this book. "Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Charles Darwin) This quote from the father of the Theory of Evolution, Charles Darwin, is a stunning admission that the inventor or author of the Theory of Evolution had great doubts himself about the theory. Yet it has been embraced by much of the world's experts or biologists, etc. as absolute truth. I will continue with quoting: "Evolutionary biologists postulate that evolution did take place but paleontologists are hard pressed to find the evidence in the fossil record. In theory, there would have been millions of transitional forms between the major taxa in the fossil record to make evolution 'as good as cash'. But the truth is that there are massively more gaps than alleged transitions in this fossil record even up to this present time. This is despite 120 years later after Darwin and tons of fossils were unearthed. Word-renowned Stephen J. Gould, paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, was candid in his assessment of the rarity of transitional critters in the fossil record. He writes: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record-persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." " - Darwin's Universe, From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing... Survival for Nothing by Yan T. Wee (available on Amazon) This is just a tiny sampling of the book, which shows the input by paleontologist and evolutionary biologists like the renowned Stephen J. Gould makes the book an extremely credible work that should be taken seriously. I continue to read and study it. When we have some of the greatest experts in the field casting serious doubt from a scientific point of view on Darwinism and other speculations on the origin of the universe and mankind then we ought to take it seriously and not just accept something because it has become entrenched by herd mentality in the public school system and much of the academic world and elsewhere. Acceptance of something when the evidence is against it is the same as acceptance of false religion. Too many people take evolution and the existence of the universe as some cosmic accident as the truth when the evidence points in a different direction. And just to reiterate, the fact that the theory of evolution or Darwinism has failed to authenticate it's claims with the fossil record is one major failing of it. The other point which I expanded on in detail in an earlier posting which we should remember is: The bottom line is random chance processes as in Darwinian evolution cannot produce information. Information is the third pillar of the basic building block of life and information does not come about by random chance processes or produce itself out of thin air. The first living cells required a vast amount of DNA information with billions of bits of data. This could not be produced simply by accidental non-living chemicals randomly coming together. Life required someone to design and create this complex information package within living cells at the beginning or life could not exist.

I am not talking about opening and reading a thread. I was referring to the list of topics submitted by users under Federal Politics. I see four topics I submitted on page 1 are all in faint regular font, but everyone else's are in bold black letters. Click on Federal Politics and look at the list of topics submitted by users and tell me what you see. Are there some in faint font and most in bold black letters? Four of mine are the only topics I see in faint font. All the rest are in bold black font.