blackbird

Michael Hardner said: Blackbird posting in the dead of night. Why me? Why not let the word of God be our guide? "1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. " Genesis 1:1 KJV "19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. 21 And they shall pass through it, hardly bestead and hungry: and it shall come to pass, that when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse their king and their God, and look upward. 22 And they shall look unto the earth; and behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; and they shall be driven to darkness. " Isaiah 8:19-22 KJV This is further explained in Matthew Henry's Bible commentary: "Isaiah 8:17 Vs. 17-22: The prophet foresaw that the Lord would hide his face; but he would look for his return in favor to them again. Though not miraculous signs, the children’s names were memorials from God, suited to excite attention. The unbelieving Jews were prone to seek counsel in difficulties, from diviners of different descriptions, whose foolish and sinful ceremonies are alluded to. Would we know how we may seek to our God, and come to the knowledge of his mind? To the law and to the testimony; for there you will see what is good, and what the Lord requires. We must speak of the things of God in the words which the Holy Ghost teaches, and be ruled by them. To those that seek to familiar spirits, and regard not God’s law and testimony, there shall be horror and misery. Those that go away from God, go out of the way of all good; for fretfulness is a sin that is its own punishment. They shall despair, and see no way of relief, when they curse God. And their fears will represent every thing as frightful. Those that shut their eyes against the light of God’s word, will justly be left to darkness. All the miseries that ever were felt or witnessed on earth, are as nothing, compared with what will overwhelm those who leave the words of Christ, to follow delusions." Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary (sermon-online.com)

I think I know what the Republican's reasoning on that is although I think it is a mistake. They know the Dems are strong on supporting Ukraine, but weak on stopping the millions of illegal migrants from crossing the border into the U.S. So the Republicans are using it as a tool to try to force the Dems into closing the border before they will support the Ukraine. There is no real connection between the two issues except politics. There is only one Democratic Party in power in the White House and Republicans are using whatever tool they think they can to try to get the border shut down. The problem with the Republicans using that is it may hurt the west by giving an advantage to Putin and Russia in the war in the Ukraine. I would not do that if I were an American. I would 100% support the Ukraine. If Ukraine goes down, what country is next?

" OTTAWA — As members of Parliament accuse Bell Canada of corporate greed, the head of the company is defending its decision to cut thousands of jobs, citing a shift in Canadians' viewing habits away from traditional TV. Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats grilled CEO Mirko Bibic during often combative exchanges at a meeting of the House of Commons heritage committee on Thursday afternoon. Parliamentarians had ordered him to appear and answer for the cuts, which affect nine per cent of BCE Inc.'s workforce. Several MPs flung colourfully worded accusations at Bibic, including NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, who appeared briefly to scold the CEO for "choosing greed" over giving consumers "a break" on cellphone fees. Bibic defended his company, blaming factors like productivity, inflation and delays in the implementation of the federal Online Streaming Act — a new law meant to level the playing field between traditional broadcasters and streaming companies, under which Bell is benefiting from significant regulatory relief. He told MPs that the media ecosystem in Canada "is in crisis." "The industry is in flux due to technological disruption, changing viewer habits, shifting advertiser demand and vigorous competition from foreign web giants who are not subject to the same costly regulations as Canadian broadcasters," Bibic said. " Bell Canada CEO Mirko Bibic defends job cuts in Commons committee testimony (msn.com) It seems strange, in a free enterprise system, to drag CEOs of large corporations before members of Parliament and be grilling and rebuking them for the decisions they make on the prices they charge or the number of people they lay off as business factors change. I would ask do these members of Parliament believe we now live in some kind of Socialist or Marxist country whereby the MPs and government dictate to companies how they are to operate their businesses? Herein lies the difference between Socialism and Free Enterprise. A Socialist or Marxist system owns and runs everything. There is no free enterprise or right to determine how a business is run. Big brother does it all. The people have to accept the consequences as it was in the Soviet Union after the Communist revolution. There were massive shortages of goods and services. Government ran everything. Is this the direction Canada is heading. Does anyone not see how we are heading in that direction now? Freedom has a price. Not everything is perfect in a imperfect world. But free enterprise has made the west the most prosperous nations on earth. We need to stand up for freedom and reject authoritarianism, Socialism, and Marxism.

Some cities in BC are trying to solve the housing crisis by trying to solve the homelessness problem by putting up tents in an orderly fashion in a designated space and running them in an orderly way. Some places have put up a group of wooden one room sheds with a washroom building, presumably with showers. That is a better idea than tents. But tents and little wooden sheds are not the solution to the housing crisis. They may work for homeless people who refuse to follow rules in an apartment building. But it's not a practical solution to the massive shortage of housing for normal people and families. City councils need to get their act together to make housing affordable by cutting red tape, excessive regulations, cutting fees, and working to make land available for more housing developments at a low cost. Maybe postpone paved roads and sidewalks until sometime in the future when it is more affordable. Just provide basic infrastructure like sewer, water, and electricity for now. The costs have to be reduced somehow.

I have heard some of the material by a creation scientist. I attended a four or five evening slide show lecture by Professor Philip Stott on subjects related to evolution and I video recorded the presentations on four different video tapes. I have not watched it for years and must watch them again to refresh my memory. I have read some materials on the subject and continue to but from a Christian perspective. The problem with just going to an atheist science book, writer, or material is it is built on a false premise. It is coming from the presupposition that there is no God and the Bible is false. This presents a huge problem for one who believes the Bible. This quote from an article might help explain why it is a huge problem. quote The atheistic worldview, based on this supposed history, says that we had an accidental beginning; we developed through random processes and that there is no ultimate hope for the future. It says that there are no absolutes, no basis for morality or ethics outside of what each person decides is right for themselves. Atheism vs. theism is sometimes misrepresented as ‘science’ vs. ‘faith’. This is untrue because evolution is a worldview that is also based on faith. In fact, evolutionists and creationists have the exact same scientific facts to examine. There isn’t a scientific observation that a creationist would disagree with an evolutionist about. Creationists disagree with evolutionists conclusions because we do not agree with their starting presuppositions. The real difference is that of the world history that each group believes in, by faith. Why by faith? Because we cannot travel back in time to see the first life form evolve or observe God create the universe. So our understanding of what happened in the past is ultimately accepted by faith. We can use scientific methods to observe evidence in the present, and then make an assessment of which history is best supported by that evidence. unquote Genesis: The Missing Piece of the Puzzle (creation.com) Atheism has absolutely nothing to offer. It is a dead end. If you believe in atheism and evolution, there is no hope, no God, and after we die, there is nothing. Our existence has no purpose or meaning. I do not accept that premise and reject it completely. I believe in Jesus Christ and believe he forgave me for my sins. I came close to death six years ago and have been given a second lease on life. But I don't know how long I have. Nobody does. But I trust in the fact that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead as many witnesses saw him as recorded in the gospels. When I die, I have assurance that I will be with the Lord for eternity. That faith which God gave me is priceless. No amount of earthly treasure would be worth more or come near that belief. But I am willing to carry on with a rational discussion around the subject of science.

That's what the U.N. climate chief said. If you read the article you will find the whole thing is all about the U.N.'s trying to force the world to redistribute the wealth to poorer nations. That is what the climate alarmism is all about in the U.N. It is all about the money. " Stiell's speech comes just ahead of meetings of The World Bank and other big multinational development institutions, where poorer nations, led by Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley and Kenyan President William Ruto, are pushing for major reforms in the systems that loan money to poor nations, especially those hit by climate-related disasters. In conjunction with that push, Stiell called for “a quantum leap this year in climate finance.” He called for debt relief for the countries that need it the most, saying they are spending $400 billion on debt financing instead of preparing for and preventing future climate change." " He called for more financial aid, not just loans, and more money from different groups like banks, the International Maritime Organization, and the G20, the world's 20 most powerful economies. Those countries are responsible for 80% of the world's heat-trapping emissions, he said. “G20 leadership must be at the core of the solution, as it was during the great financial crisis,” Stiell said. "Every day, finance ministers, CEOs, investors, and development bankers direct trillions of dollars. It’s time to shift those dollars from the energy and infrastructure of the past, towards that of a cleaner, more resilient future," Stiell said. “And to ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable countries benefit.” Officials said the climate finance problem needs to be fixed by the end of the year with November's climate negotiations in Baku, Azerbaijan, a crucial point. Stiell is “absolutely right” that timing and finance are the heart of the matter, said longtime climate analyst Alden Meyer of European think tank E3G. The carbon action plans submitted by next year will “determine whether we can get on the trajectory of sharp emissions reductions needed to avoid much worse climate impacts than those we are already suffering today,” he said." UN climate chief presses for faster action, says humans have 2 years left 'to save the world' (msn.com)

I wonder how many people realize how Quebec gets favoured treatment over the rest of Canadians. Quebec does not even have a carbon tax. They have a cap and trade system, which essentially means they put regulations on the amount of carbon industries can emit. This takes a lot of the oppressive weight off the citizens who are having a hard time making ends meet, but only helps the people of Quebec. This is totally discriminatory and unfair to the rest of Canadians. Who knows what they are doing exactly with the cap and trade system in Quebec. It is something that is out of sight. The fed liberals/NDP don't care about the people in the rest of Canada. Quebec is Trudeau's favourite and now the maritimes get a break with the carbon tax removed from oil heating.

Of course economists will say it has an overall effect. It is one factor of many. Every bit counts. When you add all the costs caused by many factors, they all add up. Just to pick carbon taxes and say that doesn't count is ludicrous. All costs add up. That is why many Canadians are struggling to make ends. Many can't afford a home or the rent. Groceries take a lot of money. Gas is very expensive, especially in B.C. where it is the highest price in North America and a third of it is government taxes. Adding carbon taxes to the mix doesn't help anyone.

At the foreign interference enquiry today, Defense Minister Bill Blair, said the foreign interference did not change the election outcomes. He stressed that repeatedly. What is he thinking. It is obvious he is downplaying the foreign interference by China. Evidence has already been presented to show it affected several ridings in Ontario and B.C. mainly in ridings with a high Chinese or Chinese Canadian demographic. The CCP is apparently using WeChat to influence the Chinese demographic. Many people don't realize it, but China considers Chinese Canadians and any Chinese descendants as subject to China or the CCP regardless of where they live. Blair's claim that this doesn't affect Canadian democracy is ludicrous because if even a few ridings elect MPs chosen by the CCP there is a huge effect on government and how Canada is governed. Sometimes when contentious issues are voted on in Parliament the vote can be very close and a few votes can mean a vote passing or being defeated.

While house prices have been rising steadily over the years, carbon taxes affect the price of everything. The cost of lumber and building materials goes up because of increasing carbon taxes. It costs more money to ship lumber and building materials because there is a carbon tax on gasoline and a larger carbon tax on diesel fuel which trucks often use. Trucks ship all the building materials that are used to build homes. The construction industry's costs go up and home cost go up. If the costs of society for food, fuel, home heating all go up and carbon tax is part of that, then that just adds to the cost of everything. It is silly to say carbon taxes only affect the cost of fuel or home heating. The costs filter right through society. Carbon taxes were increased on April 1st from $65 a ton to $80 a ton right across Canada. This increasing cost will continue to increase every year under the Liberals, with no noticeable affect on global warming or the climate.

" In this clip (from Album 1 – Episode 5), Neil West, a popular talk show host, does not believe that there are any real scientists who believe in creation. To Neil’s surprise, many creation scientists call into the station and prove him wrong… What is a Creation Scientist? Creation scientists are simply scientists who view the world from a biblical perspective. They believe that science and the Bible are in complete harmony with one another, because they share the same Author – our Creator. Simply put, Creationists believe that God created and masterfully designed the universe and that each creature was created after its own kind, and with a distinct purpose. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1 In our last article, Famous Scientists Who Believed in a Creator, we listed over 50 great scientists of the past who believed in creation. Here are just a few of the thousands of 20th and 21st century creation scientists…real scientists! (Click on the scientist’s name for more information!) Dr. James Allan, geneticist Dr. Steve Austin, Ph.D. in geology Dr. John Baumgardner, Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics Dr. Donald Chittick, Ph.D. in physical chemistry Dr. Tim Clarey, Ph.D. in geology Dr. Ken Cumming, Ph.D. in biology Dr. Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. in nuclear physics Dr. Raymond Damadian, Pioneer of the MRI Scanner In 1994, Dr. Damadian told the magazine Creation, “The highest purpose a man can find for his life is to serve the Will of God.” He questions whether a society that abandons God’s absolute standards revealed in the Bible can “discern the just from the unjust.”[i] Dr. David A. DeWitt, Ph.D. in neuroscience Dr. Donald DeYoung, Ph.D. in physics Dr. Geoff Downes, Ph.D. in tree physiology Dr. Danny R. Faulkner, Ph.D. in astronomy Dr. Robert Gentry, nuclear physicist Dr. Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry Dr. D.B. Gower, Ph.D. in biochemistry Dr. Stephen Grocott, Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry Dr. George Hawke, Ph.D. in air pollution meteorology Dr. Jonathan Henry, Ph.D. in chemical engineering Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Ph.D. in atmospheric science Dr. Bob Hosken, Ph.D. in biochemistry Dr. Neil Huber, anthropologist Dr. Russ Humphreys, Ph.D. in nuclear physics Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology Dr. John K. G. Kramer, Ph.D. in biochemistry Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D. in astrophysics Dr. Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist Dr. George Marshall, Ph.D. in ophthalmic science Dr. David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology Dr. Henry Morris, Hydrologist, Author of over 60 books, and “Father of the Modern Creation Movement” Dr. John Morris, Ph.D. in Geological Engineering Dr. Gary E. Parker, Ed.D. in biology/geology Dr. Georgia Purdom, Ph.D. in molecular genetics Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Ph.D. in biology Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. in physical chemistry Dr. Joachim Scheven, Paleontologist Dr. Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. in Geology Dr. Ker C. Thomas, D.Sc. in geophysics Dr. Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. in atmospheric science Dr. John Whitmore, Ph.D. in biology Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry Dr. Kurt Wise, Ph.D. in paleontology [i] http://creation.com/super-scientist-slams-societys-spiritual-sickness unquote Modern Day Scientists Who Believe in Creation - Jonathan Park

Creation scientists are rational people who understand a lot of the claims made by Darwinists and Big bang advocates. They are able to demonstrate the Darwinists claims to be false or unreasonable. The kind of scientists you are talking about have a biased agenda. They are not the same as the famous scientists that lived in the past five centuries that believed in God. In the past hundred years or so there has been a sudden shift toward atheism or secular humanism which unreasonably denies God. They are not open to the God of the Bible that created the universe in six days. That goes against their paradigm. The kind of scientists that control those kind of journals and reject creation scientists, have a secular humanist bias and reject anything that doesn't fit their paradigm. To them, Darwinism is a kind of religion. It is a narrow-minded belief that excludes anything that includes God or the idea of an intelligent designer. It would be better to not be so narrow-minded and biased; it would be more rational to have an open mind and allow all opinions.

I never said that. I don't think you are capable of good stewardship of the earth. You want to punish mankind for just living normally. You don't even respect God and believe the Bible. You are in big trouble with God I'm afraid.

Why not? God created the earth. Maybe he created it with oil and gas in the earth, just as he created the earth with all the other minerals in it. Maybe God intended for us to mine the earth and use the natural resources including oil and gas. How else could eight billion people live on the earth as they do now without the oil that we use for everything? "26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26 KJV So God gave man dominion over all the earth. That means dominion over all the natural resources in the earth too including the gas and oil. If God gave us dominion over the earth, then why would you think we are not supposed to use the oil and gas and emit CO2. Emissions are just a normal part of using the energy resources.

There are some things that we cannot control. They are acts of God. Things such as when a volcano erupts, when an earthquake occurs, when the weather is sunny and when it is cloudy. On and on. That includes the climate. Man cannot control the climate. It is foolishness to think we can. If you want to believe man can do things like that you are free to. But I see it as nonsensical.

That is not exactly how it is. We have the Holy Scriptures which are full of evidence to authenticate many things. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for example was witnessed by a number of eye witnesses. Some of these witnesses were extremely motivated after witnessing the resurrection and were martyred for defending what they had seen and believed. People don't die for a myth or lie.

In one word...nature. The way it always has. The world's temperatures are a complex thing. Why have there been colder periods and hotter periods in history? The same reason, nature. God designed the universe with a changing climate on earth obviously. Same reason we have different seasons each year. That is the way God created it to be. That is correct. But having faith in the correct thing is the right thing. Faith in the wrong things is bad. The whole thing is faith is essential to please God. Without it nobody can be saved or go to heaven. " Faith is the means by which believers come to God and put their trust in Him for salvation. God provides believers with the faith needed to believe in Him: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9). The entire Christian life is lived out on the foundation of faith (Romans 1:17; Galatians 2:20). quote What Is Faith as the Bible Defines It? (learnreligions.com) Measurements and data can be true or can be false. Not all measurements and data can prove a supposition.

It's not circular logic. Do you know what circular logic even is? When you look at some complex thing that could not just happen, you should know there was an intelligent designer that made it. If you find a wrist watch lying on the dirt, would you say it just happened by chance? Or would you know someone designed it? It is the same thing with the complex creation which could not design and create itself or happen by chance. It is simple logic which a lot of people do not recognize. I think we are getting closer to the crux of the matter.

Where is the evidence that man is causing climate change? I am still waiting. But I won't hold my breath. We know you don't have any idea. OK, what is the evidence for an alternative explanation. Let's hear it.

You still have not told me this big secret evidence. What is it?

Man does not know everything or as much as he thinks he knows. Take gravity for instance. What is gravity? Does anyone really know? There appears to be an invisible force that causes things to fall toward earth. But we cannot see that force and we cannot block it with any kind of shield or object. Yet it exists. That is kind of like God in the sense we don't see him directly. But we can see his handiwork in the complex creation. So why do people often deny God is, but they take gravity for granted even though they cannot see it? Why do people assume man causes climate change? There is no proof and it is one of those things that appears to be impossible to prove. The evidence for God is all around us, yet many people do not believe God created it, but these same people are willing to believe man causes excessive climate change even though there is no clear evidence or proof.

If I take an object and let it go in the air, it falls to the ground because of gravity. That may be empirical evidence that gravity pulls things downward toward the earth. It is empirical evidence because we can see it happen and know it to be true. If I claim that everyone emitting fossil fuels causes global warming, but have no proof, then that is not empirical evidence. Just saying so is not evidence. If I do an experiment in a lab that demonstrates somehow that CO2 traps heat, then that might be evidence that CO2 traps heat in that experiment. But it does not prove that man releasing CO2 into the atmosphere causes global warming. The two occurrences are not the same thing.

"Empirical evidence, information gathered directly or indirectly through observation or experimentation that may be used to confirm or disconfirm a scientific theory or to help justify, or establish as reasonable, a person’s belief in a given proposition. " Empirical evidence | Definition, Examples, Evidentialism, Foundationalism, & Facts | Britannica Man-made global warming has not been verified by observation or experimentation. Those comments are extra stupid and a sign of mental illness.

I don't have to publish anything. It is you and others who blame man for global warming and put carbon taxes, etc. on me. You are forcing me to pay for what you claim. I am not taxing you for what I believe. So the onus is on you to prove man is causing climate change.

Anyone can do a search and come up with countless websites that say this and that about it, but why do you believe in man-made climate change? What is the actual proof in your own words that would explain why you believe in it? We are talking about what you believe and why. Not about what countless other websites claim.