So-called science has repeatedly erred in making false claims.

[blackbird]

This article by Professor Phillip Stott gives a very good overview of the theory of evolution.

quote

Evolution has played such a major role in shaping modern society that it is essential for every member of our culture to understand the theory, the evidence for it, and its implications. It is more difficult than one might first expect to discover exactly what the theory of evolution says. One reason is that it has changed drastically over the relatively brief period that it has been the ruling paradigm of Western thought. Changes are not usually broadcast to the general public. (See Arthur S. Lodge's search for a definition.)

When the theory first became popular, following Charles Darwin’s proposal of natural selection as the means to drive the process, it was a simple and very appealing hypothesis. Life was rather simple in those days. Algae, amoebae and such humble creatures were blobs of protoplasm which Darwin postulated might have just happened in some warm little pond by the chance coming together of chemicals. It was rather easy to imagine that a few relatively simple changes in this protoplasm could lead to developmental change, and that natural selection would ensure that better adaptation would be preserved. Changes which led to worse adaptation would die out as poorly adapted creatures would perish in the struggle for existence and fail to leave offspring with their inferior design.

The idea of natural processes bringing complex life forms from simple ones, which themselves came from dead matter, logically leads to the idea of all things having arisen by chance through purely natural processes. This way of looking at the world is reflected in the definition given in Evolution and Genetics by Julian Huxley, one of the most influential evolutionists of all time :-

"Evolution, in the extended sense, can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution - a single process of self transformation."

For many years this was the accepted view. It is still the view put forward in popular literature, the media and school text-books.

But in "scientific circles" it has become an embarrassment. It contradicts the best established law in the whole of science. The Law in question is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In language easily understood this law guarantees that any physical system subject only to natural processes follows a downward path to ever lower levels of energy, it becomes more disorganized - it suffers decay.

For many years supporters of the theory attempted to overlook the contradiction between evolution’s requirement (self transformation to ever higher levels of organization), and the Second Law’s exactly opposite requirement, by claiming that the Second Law applies only to "closed systems" in which no energy enters from outside. Few now try to support this discredited position, (see, for example, The Mystery of Life's Origins) and changes in the definition of evolution itself have been brought in to address the problem.

Another difficulty for the theory has come from microbiology. As scientists have learned how to examine life in ever greater detail, Darwin’s picture of organisms consisting of a few simple chemicals has given way to one of mind-boggling complexity even in the most humble of creatures. The lowly E coli bacterium possesses not only miniature electric motors of outstanding efficiency, but also the apparatus to build, repair, maintain and operate them - as well as the electricity-generating system to power them.

As it has become possible to calculate the probabilities of evolution’s mechanisms producing evolution’s supposed results, ever growing numbers of scientists have become convinced that there are problems which the theory is unable to cope with. Many are now seriously considering intelligent design as an alternative.

As the founder of the "cult" of evolution, Charles Darwin and his magnum opus, the Origin of Species are presented for study.

A more modern text, an Introduction to Evolutionary Biology by Chris Colby shows the enormous change which has taken place in evolutionary thinking in the last century. My annotations are rather full and attempt to show what I see to be the weakness of much of modern evolutionary thinking. I recommend this annotated work as showing the case for and against the modern theory.

The antipathy between evolution and Christianity is sometimes denied. This idea is examined in "Creation, Evolution and the Christian" . The weakness of evolution as a "scientifically" defensible position and the truth that it is largely a religious question is very ably presented by Philip Johnson, professor of law at the University of California, Berkley.

Johnson's position deserves some explanation. The "scientific" press is a tightly controlled unit which does not allow any neutral discussion of evolution, the time scale or Einstein. Any paper questioning orthodoxy, or submitted by a scientist known to be skeptical of orthodoxy, is simply denied publication. Any scientist questioning the orthodoxy is ostracized and outcast. Scientists are then able to set up a vicious circle to exclude debate. Such questions could only be seriously considered if they were discussed in the reputable journals. Any attempt to bring such discussion to the journals is prevented by editorial policy. The situation was brought into the spotlight in the chapter "The Scientific Mafia" in "Velikovski Reconsidered." A recent example can be seen in Persecution of Richard Sternberg.

Philip Johnson is a highly respected professor of law. The secular humanist watchdogs apparently anticipated no danger from this field. They did not, apparently, set up a similar exclusion principle for lawyers. Johnson was able to question Darwinism by comparing the strength of the evidence put forward to support it with that required by a court of law - without the weight of his entire profession descending to crush and stifle him.

His position is expressed very simply in an interview with Citizen Magazine. Johnson's examination of the stand of influential liberal Reformed Christian scientists can be seen in "The Hostage Takers." The internet has many of his articles examples being "What is Darwinism," a well reasoned account of what evolution really is - a philosophical necessity of atheism. "The Church of Darwin" is a look at Darwinists aims for education. "Shouting Heresy in the Temple of Darwin" and "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning" reinforce his analysis of the way Darwinists operate. Johnson has been involved in may debates -on the subject. An example ("How Did We Get Here?" with Kenneth Miller) reproduced here is typical. Many more of his contributions on the subject can be found on the Internet.

A major contribution to the question of the credibility of evolution was Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box," in which he drew attention to many marvelous micro-biological systems which exhibit what he termed "irreducible complexity." The importance of irreducible complexity is that Darwin had stated that if any case could be brought forward where development could not have been achieved by small successive advances, then his theory would be disproved. Irreducible systems provide that disproof. Evolutionists have fought irreducible complexity fiercely, but many scientists have become convinced that intelligent design is an undeniable feature of living organisms, and a strong "Intelligent Design" group has emerged. Many articles by Behe and the Design group can be found on the internet. Behe explains his stand in Evidence for Intelligent Design. One of his colleagues, William Dembski's "Still Spinning" illustrates the tricky tactics of the opponents of design and how they can be dealt with.

Non-biologists have increasingly entered the evolutionary arena. Examples are given from well know mathematician, and philosopher David Berlinski, ("The Deniable Darwin" and "Keeping an Eye on Darwin" ). Physicist Lee Spetner in A Scientific Critique of Evolution demonstrates an important point for anyone wanting to enter the arena. The claims of the evolutionist are expounded with intimidating authority, and a superior knowledge of the scientific literature is needed to show up their fatuous claims for what they are. Despite the evolutionist's bluster and the total commitment of the scientific establishment to supporting it, I believe most would concede that evolution is in its weakest and most unconvincing state for many years. (See for example, Atheism In Decline Everywhere)

However weak or strong the orthodox evolutionist's position may appear to be though, it would be unwise to be swayed simply by the strongest "scientific" argument. As can be seen by contrasting Darwin and Colby, "science" changes its mind - sometimes very quickly. Whichever side is considered to have the strongest arguments today may find itself discomfited by new arguments tomorrow. The Word of God though remains the same for ever. God is true though all men be liars.    unquote

Studies in Evolution - Reformation International Schools (refcm.org)

[Yakuda]

On 3/18/2024 at 6:29 AM, Michael Hardner said:

The fact that the ideology allows open discussion, and empirical knowledge Built dynamically over time is a feature.

Those who cling to superstition might see it as a detrimental.

 

 

Kind of like how climate change nuts react when they are challenged? 

[eyeball]

On 3/18/2024 at 8:22 AM, blackbird said:

The theory of evolution, which has been taught in schools for decades, is not based on empirical science.  It is based on unproven assumptions.

It's a theory, based on educated assumptions that are supported by empirical science. 

It's taught to students because it's the best explanation we have for the great diversity and origin of species that we see all around us today and throughout the geological record.

I suspect the theory will continue to be taught until such time as a better explanation comes along or the authorities ban it.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

It's a theory, based on educated assumptions that are supported by empirical science. 

It's taught to students because it's the best explanation we have for the great diversity and origin of species that we see all around us today and throughout the geological record.

I suspect the theory will continue to be taught until such time as a better explanation comes along or the authorities ban it.

1.  Many scientists would dispute that it is based on educated assumption that are supported by empirical science.  In fact it is not supported by empirical science.

2.  That's not actually the reason it is taught to students.  

3.  That is true.  It will likely continue to be taught.   

It is interesting to learn that science developed in the Christian culture in Europe in the past several centuries.

Here is an article which explains the problem today.

quote

Scripture and Science General Considerations: Introduction

Science and Christianity have an intertwined history. Even atheist historians of science find themselves having to admit that it was only under the Christian worldview that one could expect nature to behave in a way that would make science a reasonable pursuit. In spite of the fact that some steps towards a beginning in science had been taken by other cultures it was only in the Christian culture of Europe, and in particular that of Reformation Europe, that science came to fruition.

The great pioneers of science, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Euler, Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin and many others professed Christianity and accepted the Bible as God's revelation to mankind. Many spent much time studying the Scriptures. Newton claimed the most important aspect of his work was in showing the greatness of God. Maxwell noted that his great pioneering work in field theory was inspired by the Scriptural revelation of the way God himself is and works.

But during the twentieth century science was taken over to a very large extent by secular humanists. Such a world-view actually has no rational basis for expecting science to succeed. Yet secular humanists have cultivated the idea that science is essentially an atheistic domain which is at loggerheads with Christianity.

In fact there have been three main topics on which Christianity and science have come into obvious and serious conflict. It is largely on the basis of these three areas that the idea that science implacably conflicts with Scripture have been deliberately cultivated. These three areas are:

The theory of evolution: This originally dealt with ORGANIC EVOLUTION but logically proceeded to MATERIAL EVOLUTION leading to various theories of origins, the most popular currently being THE BIG BANG.

The age of the earth and the universe and their mode of formation: This topic embraces UNIFORMITARIANISM, GEOLOGICAL TIME and ASTRONOMICAL TIME.

The centrality of the earth in creation: This topic usually comes under the heading GEOCENTRICITY, GEOCENTRISM OR GEOSTATIONISM.

Geocentricity was the first major point of conflict. The inerrancy of Scripture was challenged and the ensuing "Galileo affair" had a profound effect on both scientists and Bible scholars. Since that time the scriptures have been interpreted ever less in accordance with understanding of ancient languages and ever more as a harmonisation with "scientific truth." The influence of geocentrism on science has been equally profound. The rejection of the possibility that the earth could have a special place in creation led to the Theory of Relativity, the rejection of the "aether" (the medium through which light propagates) and its consequences - Quantum Theory - the whole of "Modern Physics." It is also the basis for assuming that the laws of science discovered here will be the same elsewhere - probably a good assumption if the earth is not in a special position, a bad one if it is. The whole of astrophysics depends critically on this assumption.

Geological time, popularised by Charles Lyell, was the second major point of conflict between Christianity and science. In his famous book "Principles of Geology" Lyell argued for an age of the earth far greater than could be accommodated by scripture. Later editions ridiculed the book of Genesis, particularly the section on Noah's flood. Since Genesis is the foundation on which the whole of Christianity is built his book became an attack on the whole of Christianity.

Evolution is a very old hypothesis which was long rejected by the scientifically knowledgeable as untenable in view of the obvious necessity for a designer to account for the complexities of life. When Charles Darwin proposed Natural Selection as a mechanism which could produce ever increasing complexity without design it suddenly became possible to be as Richard Dawkins put it, "a fulfilled atheist." Since then evolution has become perhaps the most commonly used weapon in attacking the credibility of the Scriptures. Its influence on society at large has been immense. Karl Marx noted that Darwin’s book was the foundation for "Scientific Socialism" (Communism). Stalin pointed out that "Evolution prepares for revolution and creates the ground for it." Many would argue that no other "scientific" concept has had such influence on not only the progress of Christianity, but the whole of society.

There are other topics which could be considered relevant. Archaeology has at times presented challenges to the Bible. However archaeology is a question of history rather than science, and challenges have been answered as new discoveries have thrown light on one disputed point after another. I believe the stage has been reached where few, if any, now consider Archaeology a serious challenge to their faith or the credibility of the Scriptures. In the case of the three topics mentioned above this is certainly not so.

In "General Considerations" I look in more detail at the broad claims made above, present what I hope are thought-provoking insights into the workings of science, and also into the interpretation of scripture as influenced by science and scientists. I would suggest looking through these general consideration before going on to whichever of the topics on the side-bar you would like to consider further.

End of Introduction

Scripture & Science HOME | Reformation International College (refcm.org)

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. Many scientists would dispute that it is based on educated assumption that are supported by empirical science.  In fact it is not supported by empirical science.

2.  That's not actually the reason it is taught to students.  

3.  That is true.  It will likely continue to be taught.   

1. A mere handful compared to those who wouldn't dispute it.

2. Actually it is.

3. Because it's the reasonable thing to do, given the ability of the evidence to stand up to scrutiny.

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

It is interesting to learn that science developed in the Christian culture in Europe in the past several centuries.

Despite Christianity's attempts to stamp it out.

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

Despite Christianity's attempts to stamp it out.

The church in Rome did oppose Galileo's claim several centuries ago, but I don't think there was a general attempt to "stamp it out" as you put it.  Bear in mind the church of Rome was a false religious system that imposed a totalitarian system over the western world for over a thousand years until several centuries ago.  In spite of that some of the world's greatest sciences did pursue science while believing in God and the Bible.  The Reformation in northern Europe began 500 years ago and after a long struggle, managed to break away from the control of Rome in many areas.  This resulted in the development of Parliamentary systems and far more freedom.

There is no conflict between genuine science and the Bible.  One must just recognize God had a central part in the creation of the universe and mankind.  Genuine science has its place within the realm of God's creation.  Atheists or secular humanists just don't accept that and want to deny God his rightful recognition and place in the world.

Did you read the article I quoted just above.

Prof. Philip Stott said in part:

"The great pioneers of science, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Euler, Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin and many others professed Christianity and accepted the Bible as God's revelation to mankind. Many spent much time studying the Scriptures. Newton claimed the most important aspect of his work was in showing the greatness of God. Maxwell noted that his great pioneering work in field theory was inspired by the Scriptural revelation of the way God himself is and works.

But during the twentieth century science was taken over to a very large extent by secular humanists. Such a world-view actually has no rational basis for expecting science to succeed. Yet secular humanists have cultivated the idea that science is essentially an atheistic domain which is at loggerheads with Christianity."  -- Prof. Philip Stott

So some of the greatest scientists in history were Christians and professed to accept the Bible as God's revelation.

It was only in the past 100 years or so that science became dominated by secular humanists.  That is why the paradigm changed in the 20th century and it became in vogue to dismiss God or the Bible as being relevant to science, particularly creation or where everything came from.

Why is that?  Could it be a shift in beliefs to a more pagan or godless world?  The Bible prophesied that this would happen in the latter days and that was prophesied almost 2,000 years ago.

"1  This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3  Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good.  4  Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5  Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6  For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7  Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8  Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." 

2 Timothy 3:1-8 

This was written over 1,900 years ago and it appears to have come to pass.

Edited March 21 by blackbird

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

Did you read the article I quoted just above.

No

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

No

Thanks.  After all my work in finding the information and posting it, that's all I get from you.  

[Yakuda]

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

The church in Rome did oppose Galileo's claim several centuries ago, but I don't think there was a general attempt to "stamp it out" as you put it.  Bear in mind the church of Rome was a false religious system that imposed a totalitarian system over the western world for over a thousand years until several centuries ago.  In spite of that some of the world's greatest sciences did pursue science while believing in God and the Bible.  The Reformation in northern Europe began 500 years ago and after a long struggle, managed to break away from the control of Rome in many areas.  This resulted in the development of Parliamentary systems and far more freedom.

There is no conflict between genuine science and the Bible.  One must just recognize God had a central part in the creation of the universe and mankind.  Genuine science has its place within the realm of God's creation.  Atheists or secular humanists just don't accept that and want to deny God his rightful recognition and place in the world.

Did you read the article I quoted just above.

Prof. Philip Stott said in part:

"The great pioneers of science, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Euler, Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin and many others professed Christianity and accepted the Bible as God's revelation to mankind. Many spent much time studying the Scriptures. Newton claimed the most important aspect of his work was in showing the greatness of God. Maxwell noted that his great pioneering work in field theory was inspired by the Scriptural revelation of the way God himself is and works.

But during the twentieth century science was taken over to a very large extent by secular humanists. Such a world-view actually has no rational basis for expecting science to succeed. Yet secular humanists have cultivated the idea that science is essentially an atheistic domain which is at loggerheads with Christianity."  -- Prof. Philip Stott

So some of the greatest scientists in history were Christians and professed to accept the Bible as God's revelation.

It was only in the past 100 years or so that science became dominated by secular humanists.  That is why the paradigm changed in the 20th century and it became in vogue to dismiss God or the Bible as being relevant to science, particularly creation or where everything came from.

Why is that?  Could it be a shift in beliefs to a more pagan or godless world?  The Bible prophesied that this would happen in the latter days and that was prophesied almost 2,000 years ago.

"1  This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3  Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good.  4  Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5  Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6  For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7  Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8  Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." 

2 Timothy 3:1-8 

This was written over 1,900 years ago and it appears to have come to pass.

You ignore Jesus and have the nerve to say the church in Rome is a false religious system. Jesus says, whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved, but you say, nah that's not so. So many people have been led astray by your heresy. 

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Thanks.  After all my work in finding the information and posting it, that's all I get from you.  

Kind of like Jesus saying, whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, and you saying "No". 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Thanks.  After all my work in finding the information and posting it, that's all I get from you.

You're completely wasting your time posting anything that's informed by religion.

55 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

You ignore Jesus and have the nerve to say the church in Rome is a false religious system.

Same to you.

[Yakuda]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You're completely wasting your time posting anything that's informed by religion.

Same to you.

Same to you what? Did you think you just had to write something? Anything? 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

Same to you what? Did you think you just had to write something? Anything? 

You're wasting your time too. Religion is a pastime at best and at worst its like driving while wearing a blindfold.

[Yakuda]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

You're wasting your time too. Religion is a pastime at best and at worst its like driving while wearing a blindfold.

First of all I wasnt talking to you when I posted that. This site for some peculiar reason merges posts. Second of all you being an atheist because you didnt get the pony you prayer for isnt very compelling. 

[blackbird]

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You're completely wasting your time posting anything that's informed by religion.

That may be true with you.  Maybe someone else will get something from my postings.

You reject Biblical truth at your own peril.

However, not everyone is saved.  I gave you the information to try to help but you rebuffed it.  You can't say you were not told.

Just a little warning.  God is merciful but those who reject his free offer of mercy and salvation have chosen their own path.

"18  Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? {repliest…: or, answerest again, or, disputest with God?} 21  Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22  What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: {fitted: or, made up} 23  And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24  Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? "  Romans 9:18-24

[Yakuda]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That may be true with you.  Maybe someone else will get something from my postings.

You reject Biblical truth at your own peril.

However, not everyone is saved.  I gave you the information to try to help but you rebuffed it.  You can't say you were not told.

Just a little warning.  God is merciful but those who reject his free offer of mercy and salvation have chosen their own path.

"18  Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? {repliest…: or, answerest again, or, disputest with God?} 21  Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22  What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: {fitted: or, made up} 23  And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24  Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? "  Romans 9:18-24

Its true not everyone is saved but "Whoever believes AND is baptized..." will be according to Jesus. 

Edited March 21 by Yakuda

[blackbird]

6 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Its true not everyone is saved but "Whoever believes AND is baptized..." will be according to Jesus. 

You are applying a negative inference to that verse.  In other words you are claiming Jesus is saying baptism is necessary for salvation but the verse doesn't say that.  You are twisting the meaning.  If it meant baptism was necessary it would say so, but it doesn't.  Countless other verses say salvation is by faith.  None say if you are not baptized you will not be saved.  Show one verse that says if someone is not baptized they can't be saved?  

Edited March 21 by blackbird

[eyeball]

23 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You reject Biblical truth at your own peril.

The fact so many people do accept it is dangerous. You people actually think there is another planet B up in heaven and you care about it more than this one, like it's disposable or something. That doesn't bode well for sustainability.

[blackbird]

Evolution is a philosophical necessity of atheism.  

An important issue in the debate is on the topic of irreducible complexity.

"A major contribution to the question of the credibility of evolution was Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box," in which he drew attention to many marvelous micro-biological systems which exhibit what he termed "irreducible complexity." The importance of irreducible complexity is that Darwin had stated that if any case could be brought forward where development could not have been achieved by small successive advances, then his theory would be disproved. Irreducible systems provide that disproof. Evolutionists have fought irreducible complexity fiercely, but many scientists have become convinced that intelligent design is an undeniable feature of living organisms, and a strong "Intelligent Design" group has emerged. Many articles by Behe and the Design group can be found on the internet. Behe explains his stand in Evidence for Intelligent Design. One of his colleagues, William Dembski's "Still Spinning" illustrates the tricky tactics of the opponents of design and how they can be dealt with."

Studies in Evolution - Reformation International Schools (refcm.org)

 

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The fact so many people do accept it is dangerous. You people actually think there is another planet B up in heaven and you care about it more than this one, like it's disposable or something. That doesn't bode well for sustainability.

That's not exactly what Bible believers believe, but we do believe in a heaven and a hell, which are clearly taught in Scripture.  Nobody claims the earth is "disposable".  The Bible teaches to be good stewards of everything.  In other words, be responsible.  Do not pollute the environment.  Carbon dioxide is not pollution.  It is a necessary part of life on earth.  When Trudeau says he is putting a price on pollution with the carbon tax, he is not being truthful.  CO2 is not pollution.  However that is another topic.  

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The Bible teaches to be good stewards of everything.  In other words, be responsible.  Do not pollute the environment.  Carbon dioxide is not pollution.  It is a necessary part of life on earth.  When Trudeau says he is putting a price on pollution with the carbon tax, he is not being truthful.  CO2 is not pollution.  However that is another topic.  

You know damn well what he means and it's irresponsible of you to fall for the sophistry that says carbon is necessary for life therefore there's nothing to worry about.

Water is responsible for life but it will also kill you.

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

You know damn well what he means and it's irresponsible of you to fall for the sophistry that says carbon is necessary for life therefore there's nothing to worry about.

Water is responsible for life but it will also kill you.

 

Total man-made fossil CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is only 0.1 to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases.

Canada's fossil emissions are 1.511% of total world fossil emissions.

China, the largest emitter by far, emits 32.884% of total world fossil emissions.

   So first it is highly unlikely that humans are causing global warming or climate change.

Secondly, carbon tax on Canadians will not do anything to slow or reduce climate change because our contribution to greenhouse gases is almost nothing.

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia

   

Edited March 21 by blackbird

[Aristides]

On 3/18/2024 at 3:17 AM, blackbird said:

The theory of evolution has become absolute gospel truth the past 150 or so years.  But it has been refuted by a number of scientists.

Now the so called "dark matter" in the universe has just been refuted or called into question.

"We’ve long been told that mysterious dark matter makes up the bulk of our universe.

And yet, a new study suggests that this is not – and, indeed, cannot – be true.

The research, published in The Astrophysical Journal, challenges our current understanding of the cosmos by suggesting there’s simply no room for dark matter."

There may be no dark matter in our universe after all (msn.com)

This just goes to prove that much of what is called science is not really science at all.

 

This is another theory.

Just goes to prove that science evolves as knowledge increases as opposed to religion which hasn't learned a damned thing in 2000 years.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Just goes to prove that science evolves as knowledge increases as opposed to religion which hasn't learned a damned thing in 2000 years.

Most religions are false.   The Bible has the truth because it came from God, not fallible men.

Science is not infallible and has often been proven to be wrong.  Man does not know everything, especially about such things as the origin of the universe and life.  It would be wise to show a little humility and admit we don't know everything and maybe not much really.  But to go against God's written revelation is really foolishness.

[Aristides]

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Most religions are false.   The Bible has the truth because it came from God, not fallible men.

Science is not infallible and has often been proven to be wrong.  Man does not know everything, especially about such things as the origin of the universe and life.  It would be wise to show a little humility and admit we don't know everything and maybe not much really.  But to go against God's written revelation is really foolishness.

Like I said, you have learned a damn thing in 2000 years.

Makes life really simple not having to ask any questions.

Edited March 22 by Aristides

[blackbird]

11 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Like I said, you have learned a damn thing in 2000 years.

Makes life really simple not having to ask any questions.

You're not making sense.  You don't explain what you mean or why.  I know from experience you don't engage in any meaningful discussions.  So go away and don't waste my time.