Trudeau hires some lefty loon to combat "Islamophobia" (whatever that means)

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 It was a problem, but limited in scope.

The scope of the response was large though.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Those are analogies.  
 

DNA is not literally data.  It’s chemicals.  You quote Dawkins….  Do you think Dawkins believes that a god made DNA?

You think an eye can function and make it possible to actually see and give the detailed image in full colour to the brain without an enormous amount of data in a cell?  We call it data but of course it is not literally 1s and 0s on a piece of paper.  It is still data stored in the cell and like the experts tell us it is vast amounts of information that would fill encyclopedia Britannica many times over.  What is so difficult to accept about that?   If you don't believe it, do some research on information in cells or ask a biologist.   We are talking about complex structures of massive amounts of information or data that only an infinitely powerful intelligent designer Creator could make.  Sadly Dawkins had a mental block that prevented him from seeing the handiwork of God in the creation.

chromosome definition:   a threadlike structure of nucleic acids and protein found in the nucleus of most living cells, carrying genetic information in the form of genes.

A gene is a region of DNA that encodes function. A chromosome consists of a long strand of DNA containing many genes. A human chromosome can have up to 500 million base pairs of DNA with thousands of genes.

 

Edited February 8, 2023 by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

ask a biologist.

Do you think most biologists would say that the cell is too complex to have evolved naturally?

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you think most biologists would say that the cell is too complex to have evolved naturally?

I don't know.  I would be just be guessing because I have not spoken to them.   But from what I know most scientists are probably pagans and exalt man's reasoning above God's word.  I prefer to believe God and his written revelation.  The Bible says the fool does not believe in God.

"24  O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches." Psalm 104:24 KJV

 "19  The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. {established: or, prepared} 20  By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew."  Proverbs 3:19 KJV 

"1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."  Genesis 1:1  KJV

[blackbird]

31 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you think most biologists would say that the cell is too complex to have evolved naturally?

"About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found."

"Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe."

Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline | Live Science

Whether the ones that believe in God believe in evolution or creation is another question.

Edited February 8, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

22 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you think most biologists would say that the cell is too complex to have evolved naturally?

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

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American

[blackbird]

49 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you think most biologists would say that the cell is too complex to have evolved naturally?

"The dissenting scientists all united around one simple statement. “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life,” the Ph.D.s said. “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.”

The growing rebellion among scientists from a broad range of scientific disciplines suggests the science may not be as settled as evolution theorists claim, according to analysts. Despite enormous risks to their careers and reputations, the number of experts willing to speak out about their skepticism of Darwin’s theory is growing quickly." 

"The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which advocates for Intelligent Design, is still growing its list of well over 1,000 Ph.D. scientists who dissent from Neo-Darwinism and its central tenet — the notion that random mutations and natural selection can generate the massive amount of genetic information present in living organisms. Indeed, critics of the evolution theory say there has never been a documented example of a mutation adding genetic information rather than destroying it."

 Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American

Edited February 8, 2023 by blackbird

[Guest]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

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

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American

From the Wiki page about the dissent:

The statement has been criticized for being misleading and ambiguous, using terms with multiple meanings such as "Darwinism", which can refer specifically to natural selection or informally to evolution in general,[7] and presenting a straw man fallacy with its claim that random mutations and natural selection are insufficient to account for the complexity of life, when standard evolutionary theory involves other factors such as gene flow, genetic recombination, genetic drift and endosymbiosis.[8][9] Scientists and educators have noted that its signatories, who include historians and philosophers of science as well as scientists, were a minuscule fraction of the numbers of scientists and engineers qualified to sign it.[8]

Such a statement could easily be agreed to by scientists who have no doubts about evolution itself, but dispute the exclusiveness of "Darwinism," that is, natural selection, when other mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow are being actively debated. To the layman, however, the ad gives the distinct impression that the 100 scientists question evolution itself.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_from_Darwinism

A good effort, I might say, but then, about halfway through, there's this:

In 2017, for example, California State University at Northridge (CSUN) fired a Christian scientist after he published explosive evidence indirectly contradicting the theory in a peer-reviewed journal. Basically, Mark Armitage, a microscopist, found soft tissue in a dinosaur bone that was supposed to be around “65 million years old,” strongly indicating that the dinosaur in question died much more recently. The university paid him almost $400,000 in a settlement.

This fellow has his own page in the Encyclopedia of American Loons

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/03/453-mark-armitage.html

After that the whole thing degenerates into telling us how many Americans believe the Earth is <10000 years old.  As though such things belong in the same article with the word scientific.

Edited February 8, 2023 by bcsapper

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

the ad gives the distinct impression that the 100 scientists question evolution itself.[3]

I am not sure this article you quoted from wikipedia is even referring to what I posted from The New American.  It sounds like it is talking about some other article.

 Your article refers to only 100 signatories while the article I posted from The New American refers to over 1,000 doctoral scientist signatories that disagree with the theory of evolution.   

Also, the article I posted makes it clear they are dissenting from Darwin's theory of evolution or Neo-Darwinism.  Darwinism is a common term used to describe the theory of evolution.  Surely everyone recognizes that.  Your article seems to be grasping for straws in trying to claim the word is used for natural selection also.  The article I posted makes it clear they are talking about the theory of evolution.  The scientists who question the theory of evolution would naturally question natural selection because that is central to the theory of evolution. 

The claim that the word  Darwinism is somehow is misleading and ambiguous is total nonsense.  Everyone understands what is meant by the term Darwinism, especially when it is being used by the skeptics of the theory of evolution.  Your article is making a false argument.

If you want to call people who reject the hoax of Darwinism loons go ahead.  It won't change anything and only shows you have nothing to offer. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

In 2017, for example, California State University at Northridge (CSUN) fired a Christian scientist after he published explosive evidence indirectly contradicting the theory in a peer-reviewed journal.

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

Edited February 8, 2023 by blackbird

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I am not sure this article you quoted from wikipedia is even referring to what I posted from The New American.  It sounds like it is talking about some other article.

 Your article refers to only 100 signatories while the article I posted from The New American refers to over 1,000 doctoral scientist signatories that disagree with the theory of evolution.   

Also, the article I posted makes it clear they are dissenting from Darwin's theory of evolution or Neo-Darwinism.  Darwinism is a common term used to describe the theory of evolution.  Surely everyone recognizes that.  Your article seems to be grasping for straws in trying to claim the word is used for natural selection also.  The article I posted makes it clear they are talking about the theory of evolution.  The scientists who question the theory of evolution would naturally question natural selection because that is central to the theory of evolution. 

The claim that the word  Darwinism is somehow is misleading and ambiguous is total nonsense.  Everyone understands what is meant by the term Darwinism, especially when it is being used by the skeptics of the theory of evolution.  Your article is making a false argument.

If you want to call people who reject the hoax of Darwinism loons go ahead.  It won't change anything and only shows you have nothing to offer. 

It;s definitely the same statement.  2001, the Discovery Institute. The two statements are the same, except in your article the underlined sentence has been added. 

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life,” the Ph.D.s said. “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.”

Also, the Wiki article goes on to say:

The Discovery Institute has continued to collect signatures, reporting 300 in 2004,[32] over 600 in 2006 (from that year on the Discovery Institute began to include non-US scientists on the list),[5] over 700 in 2007,[6] and over 1000 in 2019.[4] The Discovery Institute includes a description of the list in a response to one of its "Top Questions".[33]

 

Edited February 8, 2023 by bcsapper

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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

I don't think he was fired for finding soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil.  It has been found before, in special circumstances.

I think he was fired for implying it meant the Triceratops was only a few thousand years old, instead of 60 or 70 million.

[Moonlight Graham]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The scope of the response was large though.

Quite a bit of overkill.  Iraq and all.

[Moonlight Graham]

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Stop pontificating dude.

Angela "rainbows and unicorns" Merkel said herself that there are "no-go zones" in Germany. 

The simple fact of the matter is that islam is a behaviour modifier, and not a good one from a kumbaya POV. 

I've spoken a lot of sentences with Muslims, I know a lot of people who came from the ME. I lived in Bby/New West/Surrey/Langley for over 30 years.

Our closest friends here came from Jordan/Lebanon when they were in the late 20s/early 30s. We spend Christmas Eve with them (the husband is dead now but we still do it with the wife, kids and grandchild). They know more about the ME than you know about Canada. 

FYI speaking with individual people is usually nice, and of course there are a lot of nice people out of a billion of them, but don't forget, the ones you're talking to are the ones who believe that Canada is a nicer place than Iran. By and large they're the best ones of the whole lot. 

How many Muslim friends do you have?  "Coming from the ME" doesn't count.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Moonlight Graham

[cougar]

On 2/2/2023 at 5:21 AM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I am of course strictly against violence against anyone or any group. Keep in mind that a minority of Muslims have done their part of hate and terrorism too. Yes they have the right to practice their religion peacefully but they have no right to try to impose it on others or come here and try to change our way of life if they do they should be kicked out.

I am against violence too.

However I am against my environment being changed negatively through ill thought immigration practices.

What was a minority before is quickly becoming a majority and as I have said it many times, I had no intention to migrate to Bombay, Beijing or Manilla. 

[WestCanMan]

7 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

How many Muslim friends do you have?  "Coming from the ME" doesn't count.

So you blow past the facts of the matter and ask me that?

The fact that there are no-go zones in Germany doesn't matter as much as how many muslim friends I have?

Dude, friends and acquaintances are like anecdotes. A few friends doesn't constitute a worthwhile statistic. And you're talking about people living in a country where they don't have the option of being religious bigots. If they lived in Iran would they let your wife go out without a hijab? Would the support her choice? 

 

How many times in your life have you heard stupid shit like "He's a Hell's Angel but he's a nice guy."

"Nice guy"? That nice guy makes a living by distributing heroine, meth, crack, etc. If you sell some weed without his permission you'll get beaten within an inch of death. That guy is a psychopath and a cancer on society and he only cares about himself or he wouldn't be in his line of work. But he's nice, right?

BS. Anyone can be 'nice' when it's convenient. The only measure of a person's character is what they do when they're in a position of power over you. Go to Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc and get your wife to stroll around without a hijab. See how many friends you can make. 

Is wearing a hijab in Canada 'nice'? Do you know what it represents dude? It's cute to you because over here it's a symbol of Canada's inclusivity and religious tolerance, but in the ME it's a symbol of misogyny and a tool for enforcing religious bigotry. Why support that? Why gloss over it? The hijab is a terrible thing. 

If you had to give it a proper name it's the universal symbol of systemic genocidal rape. You can't keep your women safe in the ME if they doesn't wear that. It's a matter of time before they're beaten or raped, legally. You have to cave. You have to submit. Or you're at risk of death. 

Who the f would support that?

FYI anyone who wears that thing is supporting misogyny and religious bigotry, period. You just don't understand it because your world view is in first-person mode only. The whole world exists in front of your nose and there's nothing else. You don't ever think of the view from 50,000 feet.  

[blackbird]

11 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I don't think he was fired for finding soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil.  It has been found before, in special circumstances.

I think he was fired for implying it meant the Triceratops was only a few thousand years old, instead of 60 or 70 million.

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

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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

No, it's science.  Creationism is a faith based belief.  There is no science involved in that.  It is simply "written".

Any institution has the right to fire an employee if they do not live up to their expectations. No-one is controlling his speech.  He can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants.  They just don't want to pay him for doing so. 

[blackbird]

11 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I don't think he was fired for finding soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil.  It has been found before, in special circumstances.

I think he was fired for implying it meant the Triceratops was only a few thousand years old, instead of 60 or 70 million.

Here is an interesting part of an article on the subject of the age of the earth.

"

Can science prove the age of the earth?

The widely accepted age of the universe is currently 13.77 billion years and for the solar system (including Earth) it is 4.543 billion years. However, no scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here that strongly suggest that these accepted ages are in serious error. Although age indicators are called ‘clocks’ they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. The starting time of the ‘clock’ has always to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.

There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old. However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now. And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all (see below)."

Age of the earth (creation.com)

The basic thought is the old age given my many scientists cannot be proven as true.  It could well be ten or twelve thousand years old.  

[blackbird]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No, it's science.  Creationism is a faith based belief. 

That's not true.  Empirical science requires the scientific method.  Some of what passes for "science" is not science at all.  It is only speculation or theory.  The theory of evolution or Darwinism is a good example of that.  There is a reason why it has been called the THEORY OF EVOLUTION since it was first developed by Darwin in the 1800s.  It is not an established scientific fact.   It remains a theory which some scientists have rejected.

You need to read some articles on the creation side that go into the subject from different angles.   It can get very complex.  I cant' get into it in great depth because of the complexity and time involved, but I understand the basic principle that true science must based on the scientific method which I understand involves observable, repeatable experiment that demonstrates a certain fact.  If it cannot be proven, it is not science.  It is speculation or assumption.  

Check creation.com

Edited February 8, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Creationism is a faith based belief.

This is where you need to do some studying.   Belief in creation is based on evidence and what is reasonable.  There are many articles that go into this.  You have imbibed the atheist dogma which is just religious dogma based on the religion of secular humanism.  

"There are many categories of evidence for the age of the earth and the cosmos that indicate they are much younger than is generally asserted today."

Age of the earth (creation.com)

Edited February 8, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No, it's science.  Creationism is a faith based belief.  There is no science involved in that.  It is simply "written".

Any institution has the right to fire an employee if they do not live up to their expectations. No-one is controlling his speech.  He can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants.  They just don't want to pay him for doing so. 

This site lists 2,380 articles on the subject of a young universe.   This should keep you busy and give you something useful to read.

Search (creation.com)

 

I find it an interesting subject.  I may read some of these articles myself.

Edited February 8, 2023 by blackbird

[CITIZEN_2015]

9 hours ago, cougar said:

I am against violence too.

However I am against my environment being changed negatively through ill thought immigration practices.

What was a minority before is quickly becoming a majority and as I have said it many times, I had no intention to migrate to Bombay, Beijing or Manilla. 

Muslims becoming a majority is an exaggeration considering that only 5% of Canada's population are Muslims but I get your point. Many of them are not even practicing Muslims and have come here because they hate the imposed Islamic culture and rules there. I know overwhelming majority of Iranians some 250,000 strong fall into that category. 

Immigration Canada must be more selective when it comes to choosing immigrants, especially those from Muslim countries and as it is now they are not doing a good job. In addition more immigrants from Europe and South  America would be a better policy because they pass the adoptability to Canada none of the fanatics Muslims do.

Edited February 8, 2023 by CITIZEN_2015

[blackbird]

7 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Immigration Canada must be more selective when it comes to choosing immigrants,

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

Edited February 8, 2023 by blackbird

[CITIZEN_2015]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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

Canada cannot and should not refuse immigrant based on religion however, it can disqualify them if they are fanatic muslims or those muslims who do not believe in freedom and democracy and equality of women and respect for religions. Adoptability is a criterion in selection BUT IMMIGRATION CANADA IS NOT DOING A GOOD JOB AT IT. We do not wish a future Canada to be like France or UK. Keep them out.