blackbird

Euthanasia for disabled babies? Another fruit of evolutionary thinking. "Conclusion Coyne argues, “When religion vanishes … so will much of the opposition to both adult and newborn euthanasia.” Yet again, I have to agree with him; and it is surely significant that this call for killing babies should appear on a website devoted to ‘proving’ evolution. Having rejected the God who made him, Coyne has lost all sense of reality. He now doesn’t and can’t understand human nature, and can no longer think rightly about these issues. Rather than offering ‘dignity in dying’ (a favourite slogan of the pro-euthanasia lobby), legalising killing devalues people and robs them of their status as God’s image bearers. Only by holding to the biblical account of creation can we assert the true nature of man and prevent society sinking further and further into this kind of confusion and error. Only by viewing people as God does can we make right laws and care for others as we should." For whole article: Euthanasia for disabled babies? (creation.com) This is a consequence of teaching the theory of evolution to our youth in the school system. Canada has descended into darkness. We have abortion on demand and medical assistance in dying now being expanded to people with mental problems. That part has been delayed for another year. But over 16,000 people chose MAID last year in Canada. Abortion has its own consequences. With the low birth rate in Canada, Canada is choosing to bring in half a million immigrants a year from third world countries who do not share our values. We are witnessing just one of the consequences of third world immigration with the large protests demanding Canadians, the education system, and the government bow to their beliefs about Israel and the Palestinian conflict in the middle east. The problem is a low birth rate means there will not be enough people to keep paying for all the social services and old age pensions unless enough immigrants are brought in to compensate for it. Human life is devalued by the theory of evolution when people believe that they are just part of a cosmic accident or a meeting of the chemicals. The theory has lots of unintended consequences.

The debate about the theory often is about the Darwinist theory of natural selection. Evolutionist claim that natural selection results in an evolved species. But the creationist believes there is no such thing as natural selection leading to new DNA information. This article explains this issue from the creationist point of view. quote How often we hear an example of natural selection being used as proof of evolution. Changing sizes, colours, skin patterns and shapes are often paraded as evolution’s honour roll. This bait-and-switch tactic has been so often exposed for what it is, it’s a wonder that it is still used, or that people are still taken in by it. The very term should put people on their guard that something is missing. If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing. Think of being asked to select cards from a pack. You could select cards from a pack every second for the rest of your life and all you would only ever produce is different groups of the same cards. You would not have created anything new—only re-arranged cards, or removed cards or added cards from another pack. If an illusionist asks you to select a card from a pack, and surprises you with something new, you know it is an illusion, a sleight of hand. We need to learn to see the evolutionists’ sleight of hand when they claim to have pulled something ‘new’ out of the pack. Selection is always from a pre-existing series or range; it creates nothing new. This illustration applies equally to ‘selection’ in the biological context. The all-wise Creator knew the different environments that His creatures would have to adapt to after the Fall and Curse, and particularly after the Flood of Noah, in order to survive. He included in the genetic information of each ‘kind’ of creature He created a smorgasbord of variety in their makeup. This includes those features that would interact with the environment: the overall size of a plant, animal or person; the size of individual organs or limbs such as beaks and noses, leaf sizes, skin colours, hair and feather lengths, textures and colours. All of these and many more variations were programmed into the DNA of His creatures in order that as populations of the various kinds moved into new environments, expression of those variations enabled individuals to survive those environments. Individuals with those variations then passed them on to their young. When these variations and the habitat of the population expressing that variation are distinct enough, we might distinguish different ‘species’. In all of this selection process, new information is never added. It can be conserved or lost, but never gained. unquote For the whole article go to: Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)

Who else gets a big pension after six years of cushy living as an MP. That's why we have carbon taxes.

No, I don't think he is basing his worldview on the Bible. It is his own warped thinking. He has a very simplistic view of things and lives in a different reality. The Bible is just as valid today as it was in the distant past. It is not something that needs to adapt to the world. The ways of the world are contrary to the Bible. The Bible has essential truth that is valid for all times. The world does not rule God. God is sovereign over the world and he created it.

I admit I may have erred in saying there are no "evolution scientists". I read on Wikipedia that there are evolution biologists. However, that is beside the point. Your claim that I don't know anything about the theory of evolution is false. I gave a fairly good description from memory that would be accepted by a normal person as factual. I never claimed to have an encyclopedic definition or scientific definition. I don't need to. I have a general idea what it is. That is good enough. Anyone is free to express their opinions. One doesn't need certain qualifications decided by you to comment on here. Wikipedia has a fairly detailed description of the theory of evolution. A lot of it would only be understandable by someone educated in the field. It also says the theory has been modified over the past 160 years. A lot of changes have been made to the theory and nuances added. It is not necessary to have a detailed knowledge of the theory in order to disagree with the general concept and express one's opinions about it. We know the general concept is that all life evolved from earlier life forms and originally from some accidental coming together of certain molecules or chemicals. No, I won't attempt to answer your questions. I am not into your word games and won't bite. You trying to test me is nonsensical. It has no relevance to the debate. I never claimed to be a professor of evolutionary biology or anything similar. I simply state what I believe about it and quote articles which I agree with. You can take it or leave it. Complete bull. I have as much right to speak on the subject as anyone else. Not every trained scientist agrees with the theory of evolution as you claim here. You are incorrect in saying every scientist does and it is just an assumption you are making. I realize the great majority probably agree with the theory of evolution, but we do not know the actual numbers that do not. If you want to see some of the scientists who disagree with it, you can find them on creation.com and other websites. I may have already given the names of a couple of scientists or highly educated men who disagree with it. However, numbers of people who believe in it does not establish truth or fact.

The BC carbon tax is nothing other than a wealth redistribution scheme, or Socialism. That's why the NDP love it. They just said on the news 65% of people will get more in rebates than they paid. Why only 65% anyway? I thought the rest of the country according to Trudeau gets 80% back. BC is being scammed. I don't believe we get 65% back. In fact, the amount we get back is carefully kept out of view. Nobody gets a statement to say what they received and the rebate is combined with a PST or GST rebate of some kind. It automatically goes into the bank account but for a married couple, I believe it goes into the spouse with the lowest income and the person is not notified. So unless one is really up on the system and watching their bank account, they won't know how much they are getting. It is also tied to income, so only low income people receive the maximum in keeping with Socialist-Communist policy. Trouble is they don't take into consideration the increased cost of groceries and everything else the carbon tax causes. So it is impossible to know if one is losing money on the carbon tax. I suspect the majority of people are losing money but it is impossible to prove as it was designed that way. The NDP is going to impose a long list of new taxes or is already doing so. So they are giving a small rebate through BC Hydro. The whole thing is Socialists like to impose all kinds of taxes for everything and then throw some money back to make people feel they are really getting something. But the high cost of living combined with the highest gas prices in north America simply make living very difficult for many people in B.C.

The principle of complexity is the same. A basic cell for example has enormous amounts of data stored in it in order to control how it functions. This never happened by chance. It required an intelligent designer. The theory of evolution claims a process of natural selection causes an organism to evolve into a higher species. This has not been proven. The opposite is true. When a living thing mutates it loses information. It never increases in information. So the long strings of data in a cell could not have increased by mutations. Something had to have placed the data there in the beginning. Evolution cannot create data in cells. There is no mechanism to do that. The complexity of the human eye is a good example. There is no mechanism to create that other than an intelligent designer creating it in the beginning. There are no fossils that show things evolved from one species to another. So there is no fossil record to support the claim that man evolved from from some simpler life form.

The evidence for God is in the fact that the complex life forms all required an intelligent designer. If you found a wrist watch lying on the ground, you would assume that someone designed it. It never happened by chance. The natural world and humans are the same. They all required an intelligent designer. That is actual physical evidence for God. What is it about it that you don't see it? Did someone tell you what to believe? Natural selection, a foundational claim of evolutionists, has been shown to not be evolution at all. Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)

Sorry to disappoint you again, but the fossil record does not prove evolution. The fossil record shows the species that lived but not evolved. There is no evidence in fossils that anything evolved. You never read anything. The evidence refutes evolution. " Refuting Evolution—Chapter 2 A handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M. Variation and natural selection versus evolution Refuting Evolution chapter 2: Variation and natural selection versus evolution (creation.com)

Were you created by an intelligent designer or are you just an accidental blob of chemicals? If you find yourself in hell, which I hope you don't, perhaps you will realize you were wrong. Maybe there is more to it than you thought. The complex creation is all around you. Why can't you see it? Extremely complex things like human cells with massive amounts of information don't just happen by chance. Sorry it so hard for you to wrap your head around that.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no evidence for evolution. The claim that natural selection is a part of evolution has been refuted. That destroys the theory. Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com) The evidence for God is all around you in the creation.

Canada is a post national state. That is the problem. Canada has stopped believing it is a sovereign nation and now belongs to the U.N. Billions of dollars of our tax money goes to fund and support the third world. The message is out there that Canada is very generous and will support you. Any immigrant or illegal migrant is free to come to Canada and receive government support. No wonder they come in massive numbers from the third world. Who wouldn't? The word is out that Canada will support you.

Carbon dioxide is not pollution or toxic fume. It is a normal part of the atmosphere. Plants and trees require CO2 to survive.

"But whether variation is selected naturally by the environment, or artificially by breeders for a particular trait, it remains just that, ‘selection’ from existing genetic information. Nothing new is created." "Today’s Darwinists point to mutations as the mechanism which provides this novelty from which ‘Natural Selection’ selects. Evolutionists should then focus on mutations to defend their theory, instead of ‘Natural Selection’. When pressed for examples of novel genetic information or body organs created by mutation, they typically point to instances such as wingless beetles4 on islands, or the flightless cormorant on the Galapagos islands.5 The problem with these examples is obvious. While they may confer a benefit to the creatures in a specific, very unusual environment, nothing ‘new’ is added to the DNA or creatures’ body parts. They actually involve a loss or corruption of existing genetic information.6" Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)

If you haven't studied it, then how do you know? Do you take the word of humanists who have no proof of anything? quote Natural Selection (≠) Evolution This is an important ‘equation’ that all people should be aware of, namely ‘Natural Selection does not equal (≠) Evolution. Christians should know it so they do not get conned, and evolutionists should know it as a reminder that they still have lots of work to do to be able to claim that they have a mechanism for evolution. If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing. How often we hear an example of natural selection being used as proof of evolution. Changing sizes, colours, skin patterns and shapes are often paraded as evolution’s honour roll. This bait-and-switch tactic has been so often exposed for what it is, it’s a wonder that it is still used, or that people are still taken in by it. The very term should put people on their guard that something is missing. If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing. Think of being asked to select cards from a pack. You could select cards from a pack every second for the rest of your life and all you would only ever produce is different groups of the same cards. You would not have created anything new—only re-arranged cards, or removed cards or added cards from another pack. If an illusionist asks you to select a card from a pack, and surprises you with something new, you know it is an illusion, a sleight of hand. We need to learn to see the evolutionists’ sleight of hand when they claim to have pulled something ‘new’ out of the pack. Selection is always from a pre-existing series or range; it creates nothing new. This illustration applies equally to ‘selection’ in the biological context. The all-wise Creator knew the different environments that His creatures would have to adapt to after the Fall and Curse, and particularly after the Flood of Noah, in order to survive. He included in the genetic information of each ‘kind’ of creature He created a smorgasbord of variety in their makeup. This includes those features that would interact with the environment: the overall size of a plant, animal or person; the size of individual organs or limbs such as beaks and noses, leaf sizes, skin colours, hair and feather lengths, textures and colours. All of these and many more variations were programmed into the DNA of His creatures in order that as populations of the various kinds moved into new environments, expression of those variations enabled individuals to survive those environments. Individuals with those variations then passed them on to their young. When these variations and the habitat of the population expressing that variation are distinct enough, we might distinguish different ‘species’. In all of this selection process, new information is never added. It can be conserved or lost, but never gained. unquote Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)

So childish.

We are not talking about "pollution". Some oppose the forest industry. The forest industry has brought good-paying jobs to tens of thousands of people and allowed them to live meaningful lives, raise families, own homes, vehicles, send their kids to be educated and have careers. It is what made life possible for much of the population of B.C. It has provided lumber to build millions of homes in Canada and other countries. I wouldn't call that "pollution". Shows complete ignorance or childish behavior. You don't respect human rights. What you say is drivel.

No, I don't think it is a superior theory. You have not studied the subject. The reason it has been widely accepted is because most people are secular humanists in the western world. The government and education systems are full of secular humanists. I don't need to develop any theory. To begin with most of the world's religions are false religions. Interestingly the Bible has been the most opposed book among all the religion's holy books or writings. It was fanatically fought against down through history. It was banned by the Roman Empire for centuries. It was even forbidden to be possessed by a lay person in the Catholic Church for centuries. Many people willingly gave their lives to defend it. It is probably the most sold book in history. There are countless people who can testify how it changed their lives. The Bible account of creation is the only account that makes rational sense. There are a number of reasons which I already stated. One important reason is the subject of irreducible complexity. There are things in life forms such such as the human eye that could not have come about by evolution because the complexity of the human eye is such that it required an intelligent designer. The same principle applies to countless things. The bottom line is faith based on reason points to an intelligent designer, not random chance processes as in the theory of evolution. I am aware that is not the popular opinion in society. Another theory which is more speculation is the Big Bang Theory. There is absolutely no proof to support the Big Bang theory.

The theory of evolution has had earth-shattering impacts over the last approximate 165 years. It has been put in school curriculums and used to brainwash the population and turn them against God and Christianity. I could not think of something which has had a more negative influence on the world. It is a major tool of atheists and probably Communists. " Also called Darwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859," Darwinism - Wikipedia Probably most scientists, who have not really studied the subject in any depth, agree with it. But there are scientists who have rejected it. Still, education systems continue to teach it as if it were fact. The teaching of evolution theory shapes students’ beliefs and choices | CEPR About two-thirds of Americans believe in the theory of evolution to some degree. British Columbia is the only jurisdiction to have an explicit policy banning creationist instruction-- --bchumanist.ca it seems B.C. has the most anti-Christian education system around. B.C. also has some of the worst drug overdose death rates in the country and has become quite a Socialist province.

We know that. What does that prove? Globalization does not make people free. They just fall under a different dictator.

Except some theories are phony.

"“The Commission must walk a very fine line in its work,” said Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue, a Quebec judge, referring to the top-secret nature of much of the evidence. Foreign interference inquiry must walk ‘very fine line’: commissioner (msn.com) I think we can expect anything that might embarrass the liberals will not be made public. Most of the hearings will be behind closed doors. Therefore the enquiry will accomplish nothing.

That is why the WEF and globalism must be opposed. Globalism will take away everyone's freedom.

Why? The theory of evolution has been debunked as a fraud. If you think it hasn't been debunked, give the proof. Prove evolution is a fact. You are free to do so, but we know you can't. So your only solution is to dismiss it with a trite, meaningless comment. You probably know nothing at all about it.

Sounds like a form of Marxism. Normally government taxes on income, not what people have already earned and paid taxes on. Maybe you are not aware people with a lot of wealth don't just put it in a bank account where it will earn no interest. Their money would depreciate with inflation. No, they invest it in companies and the stock market that creates thousands if not millions of jobs for other people. If you start tampering with that, like the Commie NDP would do, you will actually destroy jobs because rich people will simple go to some other country and take their investments and money with them. They will calculate how much they will lose and how much they will save by going elsewhere.