It is incumbant on the religions to prove they are right, not on anyone else to prove they are wrong. It is the religions that are making the fantastic, extra-ordinary claim. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.
Religions ask you to have "faith" and beleive in things that have no evidence or even evidence to the contrary. Atheism simply says "I don't believe that". It is an act of examining the evidence and drawing conclusions. It says that "Don't believe without compelling evidence". It doesn't say "You must believe this".
For example, Christianity says "Jesus was born of a virging, died and came back from the dead and accended into heaven. He is the Son of the Omnipotent Creator God, so if you don't beleive this, your soul will burn in Hell for ever, you better believe it!"
An Atheist would say "Jesus? Ok that's pretty fantastic, and violates the known, observable laws of physic, biology and chemistry. So do you have some very hard evidence that theis Jesus actually lived? Do you have evidence that, if he existed, that all of the fantastic things happened? And even if he existed and these things happened, do you have evidence that this God he is supposed to be the son of existed? And do you have evidence that I have a soul? And where is this Hell place? Evidence? None of that fits in with the observed world around us. I'll be happy to believe if you can prove it"
Now none of that says the the Atheist must believe a certain thing. Some Atheists believe in karma and non-stop cyclical existance. We call the Buddhists. Some believe in nothing. We call them nihilst. Some believe we were created by Aliens. We call thm Kooks.
The only thing they have in common is that in their cosmology and world view, they do not believe in or see the need for supreme beings like God(s) or Godess(es).
Atheisim is simply a lack in belief in a god or gods. No more no less. Buddhism, Taoism and Confusianism are eamples of atheistic religions - that is, religions that exist and flourish, have entire sets fo ethics and philisophic underpinnings that do not have, or see a need for, an omnipotent creator or supreme being.
The point of separation of church and state is to ensure that no one religion, including the atheistic ones take over.
The school board is teaching a science class and is teaching the fact of evolution. Evolution has a tonne of evidence supporting it - evidence that continues to grow, not shrink. "Intelligent Design", on the other hand, has NO evidence supporting it and is simply the latest incarnation of Creationism - a belief based not on facts but on the creation myth of a particular religion, Christianity. As many posters have pointed out, ID takes a conclusion ("God created the Universe" or "We appear to be designed so there must be a designer" etc) and try to find evidence to support it (I can't give an example of this becasue apart from the sophistry of "Irreducable Complexity" ther is none). This is not the scientific method and thus not science.
I would not want the Christian creation myth taught as fact in a science classroom, no more than I would want the Native American one taught, or the Autstailian Aboriginal one taught or the Buddhist one taugh. Like it or not they are not fact. ID can be taught in Comaprative Religion classes or Philosophy even, but not in science because it is not science.
Now perhaps some day some real evidence supporting ID will come along. The beauty of science is, if that unlikey day ever comes along, science will re-evaluate and change it's stance to better fit the observable and experimentally verifyable facts. In this instance ID will become part of the science class then. Ironic that ID proponents don't do the same - despite all of the evidenced to the contrary the refuse to change their view and cling desparately to a myth.
Whether you like it or not, teaching something as fact, based not on evidence but on a strong belief in the Judeo-Christian creation myth, is not science. Teaching this in a public school is the state actively endorsing as fact the mythology of a single religion - Christianity. This is a clear violation of the separation of Chruch and State. Would you like it if the school in question was teaching the "Earth was created by a Dream" Australian aboriginal myth or the Pagan\Ancient Greek version in science class? I doubt you would. And non-Christians don;t want your version taught as fact either.
If you want ID taught as fact in a science classroom, prove it. Provide evidence. Until then, it belongs in mythology class.
Philosphy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
Actual, all 'theistic' religions are bigoted. We're not talking about Saudi Arabia, we're talking about Washington. In the USA. Where there is supposed to be separation of church and state.
It was written by a bunch of old men 2500 years ago in a desert halfway around the world. The books in it got there via a vote of 568 to 563 at the Council of Trent in 397 - those that weren't politically favourable were dropped.
Now, if you have some actual evidence that the Bible is the word of God, by all means provide it.
Until then it has about as much of a chance of being the word of God as the Koran, the Bhagvangita, or "The Stand" by Stephen King.
Michio Kaku and other M\String theorists along with some qunatum theorists have come up with a fairly reasonable set of "many worlds" theories that may explain it.
"Our" universe is just one of a possibly infinite number of universes poping in and out of existance all the time. "Ours" may be only 12 to 14 Billion years old, but it was part of another similar universe before that, which itself was part of a similar universe before that etc etc ad infinitum. the "Metaverse" itself is infinite - no beginning and no end.
So, this is one hypothosis that does not require a first cause or a creator. No need for a God. No begining and no end.
Check out a very good radio programme from last Saturday on this very subject: Multiple Worlds, Parallel Universes on CBC's Quirks and Quarks.
Besides, just because we can't yet explain the "First Cause" doesn't mean that it must therefore be "God". A God of the gaps always grows smaller in the face of scientific discovery.
Oh, and if you are claiming that there is a supreme being, the onus is on you to prove the existance of this God, not on science to prove that it doesn't exist. The evidence for the non-existance of God is simply a logical byproduct of scientific discovery of the nature around us.
Well Mr. Hollan, you are a liar. Thanks the the AC above who graciously posted a link to the incident of your father's death, in your own words, it appears that your father died suddenly of an undiagnosed medical condition . He died of this condition even after taking advantage of the Canadian healthcare system to sucessfully fight cancer.
In other words, it would not have mattered if this condition struck your father in Canada, the US or any Libertarian Utopia you care to dream up - there was simply nothing that could have been done to save him. It was too late when the doctors found out what had happened to him. Your father's death was unavoidable and not the fault of any particular healthcare delivery system in place in Canada.
I am very sorry to read of the way in which your father died. It was painful and it was a tragedy. I feel for you and your family, especially your mother. I can see from your posts that this grief has torn you up, and destroyed you to the point that you are lashing out at the very system that actually saved your father from cancer only a few short years earlier.
Mr. Hollan, get some help. The bitter bile you spew will not bring your father back and not destroy the people you believe killed your father, it will only destroy you. Please seek counselling before it is too late.
Yeah, I snsed that vide too early on...that's why I recommended therapy (which is covered by OHIP;). As a former mental health worker, he is exhibiting classic symptoms of mild paranoid schizophrenia - extreme views, delusions of persecution and almost religious fervor in his "cause". I wouldn't be surprised, considering his posting history, that he already IS under "supervision".
Now, where did that hammer and sickle pin get to?;-)
Oh, ok I've got it now. The surgery was covered but there was no doctor available to do the surgery or your dad died waiting for the operation to come up on the schedule of one of the doctors that did do it (this could have been months or minutes). So, if a doctor was availble, our socialized healthcare system would have paid. And even if you could have purchased that operation in a private clinic in Canada, it wouldn't have mattered because there was still no doctors to perform it. Yet it's the fault of the public health insurance system?
So why isn't there a doctor to do it? Oh, because the various Conservative provincial governments and the Liberals in the Federal government have slashed funding for our healthcare system for more than 15 years. Do you think if the likes of Mike Harris or Ralph Klein decided not to piligage healthcare to give the wealthiest members of their provinces tax cuts throughout the '90s, that maybe there would be enough money to employ those specialists?
If what you say is true, your Dad died because the Conservatives, in their ideological drive to have private, American style healthcare in Canada (so their cronies can make money off it), underfunded the system to the point that there were not enough doctors to perform services, nurses to assist them, hospital beds and surgery time. Why don't you blame them? Why don't you blame specialists who earn their degrees in Canadian medical schools and then go to the States to practice?
In other words, if the system was not under attack by the very Conservative, right wing, libertarian forces and ideals you espouse, your dad would be alive today, because there would have been proper funding levels in the system.
But hey, Alberta is debt free and Ontario was "open for business". I'm sure that should make you feel better.
So, tell us the condition and the place and time of this diagnosis. If what you say is true, then this should come out in our rapidly approaching election.
Please, provide the details. I can find out more information as I can access them up here.
If what you say is true it is an outrage that needs to be dealt with. I would hardly call it common in our system, though.
Of course, if you choose not to provide the details of the condition and what the operations was, then this will have to stop right here. Without those details, I have no way of knowing if what you say is even true. Many of your posts seem to indicate a pathological hatred and I cannot be sure your anre not delusional on this account unless your tell us more.
Otherwise all your posts are the ravings of an unbalanced programmer with a chip on his shoulder in Richardson Texas.
So let me get this straight, your Dad, who lived and worked in Canada all his life and happily used the healthcare and other systems got sick. He died of some un-specified disease that, according to you, is not covered under the Canada Health Act (I'd be quite curious to know the details of THAT, since I know there are precious few things like that). Therefore, our universal healthcare system is to blame for 'murdering' your father and I, as a supporter of said system, am an accomplice to this 'murder'. Oh and everyone who has ever used said universal healthcare system is not only an accessory to 'murder' but also a thief for 'stealing' your father's money.
So despite the fact that it saves thousands of lives every year and has made Canadians very healthy, reduced infant mortality and the spread of disease, because in your view it is responsible for your father's death, the whole system is horrid and needs to be done away with. Sounds like you have a few un resloved issues around your father's death and are trying to blame the health care system for his death.
Do you realize that the recent degradation in our healthcare system, which may have contributed to that system NOT paying for the $30k operation you claim, is the result of the slashing of the funding by various Conservative governments at botht eh federal and various provincial governments? You know the old trick: cut the funding, create a crisis, then ride in like a white knight with the "privatization solution" to "improve service". The added benefit would be that all those business cronies and friends of the Conservatives get to be the ones to make profits off this new healthcare system. Why don't you blame them for your father's death? They are the ones who cut the funding which likely lead to the delisiting of that operation.
Do you think that your Dad would have gotten better treatment from an HMO in the US? Or and insurance company? Not bloody likely.
Don't paint yourself as some kind of idealistic crusader for libertarianism, your not. Your a sad, sad man who seems to blame and entire governemtn and system for his foather's death. I honestly think you have serious mental health issues and you should really seek some help.
I'm not joking about that. Your viceral hatred is quite pathological.
Well, don't forget to pay us back for all of your medical expense you incured from birth onward, since paying for Health Care out of your own pocket is what you want to do. Oh, and throw in your education as well (especially in Quebec where tuition for university is cheaper than some single courses in the US). Make the cheque out to the Reciever General of Canada. You personally are probably responsible for about $50 to $75k alone just on thoise two counts.
I am truly sorry your father died. But call me a murderer and saying my father lived becasue he stole from others? Fuck you. You are truly one cold hearted facist, elitist prick. I suppose it just natural selection then if someone is too poor to afford hospital and dies. You realize that there are thousands of people that are alive because of our health care system. I don't know what happened to your Dad, but I can tell you, he is the exception not the rule.
I hope you get your US citizenship because I for one am glad you are gone. Good bye and Good riddance.
Then leave. But shut the fuck up with your "taxed to death" fud. My dad is alive today becasue of universal health care. I we had hadthe US style healthcare you and the Conservatives seem to love, he would not have been able to afford going to the hospital and would have died in our kitchen, refusing to go to the hospital because he couldn;t afford the bill. I pay my taxes with a smile on my face for that reason alone.
BTW, Vanderzalm and the Social Credit party were about as "socialist" as the "national socialist" - in other words, not at all.
And laugh at Bob Rae all you want, he didn't gut social servies and healthcare in Ontario. You know the running joke in Ontario - "The best thing Mike Harris ever did was make Bob Rae look good"
Don't hold your breath on them eliminating any tarrifs or winning the next election, no matter what goes on a Gomery. They brought us the GST remember?
Yeah, we used to have a fairly respectable party called the Progressive Conservatives. They were socially progressive and fiscally conservative - what we in Canada call a "Red Tory" party. They were swallowed up in a "merger" with the Alliance, thus become the Conservatives. Needless to say, there is good reason they no longer have "Progressive" in their name anymore.
Well, if, by your moniker, you've been working for the Reform Party, which became the Canadian Alliance and is now the Conservative party, you should certainly know about chest thumping.:)
And no, I'm not a Liberal...lokk just a little further to the left...
I'm more curious how you got modded as 'Informative' since you actually provide little real information and go out of your way to spread disinformation.
Or evidence that fossilization and preservation of soft tissues works a bit differently than presumed. The article says that this kind of fossilization has been seen before in eggs and feathers, but not true soft tissue, so it is not unprecidented or completely unknown.
Remember, there is still lots of other geological evidence that the earth is WAY more than 6000 years old. The find is interesting, but you certainly can't jump to that conclusion from it.
Of course, using logic isn't the strong suit of the ID\Young Earth\Creationism set anyway, so I fully predict those guys will show up here in force with a bunch of "I told you so" posts, mostly with out actually reading TFA.
Slashdot Mirror
It is incumbant on the religions to prove they are right, not on anyone else to prove they are wrong. It is the religions that are making the fantastic, extra-ordinary claim. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.
Religions ask you to have "faith" and beleive in things that have no evidence or even evidence to the contrary. Atheism simply says "I don't believe that". It is an act of examining the evidence and drawing conclusions. It says that "Don't believe without compelling evidence". It doesn't say "You must believe this".
For example, Christianity says "Jesus was born of a virging, died and came back from the dead and accended into heaven. He is the Son of the Omnipotent Creator God, so if you don't beleive this, your soul will burn in Hell for ever, you better believe it!"
An Atheist would say "Jesus? Ok that's pretty fantastic, and violates the known, observable laws of physic, biology and chemistry. So do you have some very hard evidence that theis Jesus actually lived? Do you have evidence that, if he existed, that all of the fantastic things happened? And even if he existed and these things happened, do you have evidence that this God he is supposed to be the son of existed? And do you have evidence that I have a soul? And where is this Hell place? Evidence? None of that fits in with the observed world around us. I'll be happy to believe if you can prove it"
Now none of that says the the Atheist must believe a certain thing. Some Atheists believe in karma and non-stop cyclical existance. We call the Buddhists. Some believe in nothing. We call them nihilst. Some believe we were created by Aliens. We call thm Kooks.
The only thing they have in common is that in their cosmology and world view, they do not believe in or see the need for supreme beings like God(s) or Godess(es).
No faith. Not a religion.
Atheisim is simply a lack in belief in a god or gods. No more no less. Buddhism, Taoism and Confusianism are eamples of atheistic religions - that is, religions that exist and flourish, have entire sets fo ethics and philisophic underpinnings that do not have, or see a need for, an omnipotent creator or supreme being.
The point of separation of church and state is to ensure that no one religion, including the atheistic ones take over.
The school board is teaching a science class and is teaching the fact of evolution. Evolution has a tonne of evidence supporting it - evidence that continues to grow, not shrink. "Intelligent Design", on the other hand, has NO evidence supporting it and is simply the latest incarnation of Creationism - a belief based not on facts but on the creation myth of a particular religion, Christianity. As many posters have pointed out, ID takes a conclusion ("God created the Universe" or "We appear to be designed so there must be a designer" etc) and try to find evidence to support it (I can't give an example of this becasue apart from the sophistry of "Irreducable Complexity" ther is none). This is not the scientific method and thus not science.
I would not want the Christian creation myth taught as fact in a science classroom, no more than I would want the Native American one taught, or the Autstailian Aboriginal one taught or the Buddhist one taugh. Like it or not they are not fact. ID can be taught in Comaprative Religion classes or Philosophy even, but not in science because it is not science.
Now perhaps some day some real evidence supporting ID will come along. The beauty of science is, if that unlikey day ever comes along, science will re-evaluate and change it's stance to better fit the observable and experimentally verifyable facts. In this instance ID will become part of the science class then. Ironic that ID proponents don't do the same - despite all of the evidenced to the contrary the refuse to change their view and cling desparately to a myth.
Whether you like it or not, teaching something as fact, based not on evidence but on a strong belief in the Judeo-Christian creation myth, is not science. Teaching this in a public school is the state actively endorsing as fact the mythology of a single religion - Christianity. This is a clear violation of the separation of Chruch and State. Would you like it if the school in question was teaching the "Earth was created by a Dream" Australian aboriginal myth or the Pagan\Ancient Greek version in science class? I doubt you would. And non-Christians don;t want your version taught as fact either.
If you want ID taught as fact in a science classroom, prove it. Provide evidence. Until then, it belongs in mythology class.
Philosphy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
The demographic least likely to contract AIDS or HIV?
Lesbians.
So, what was that you were saying about Homosexuality being the main cause of AIDS?
Actual, all 'theistic' religions are bigoted. We're not talking about Saudi Arabia, we're talking about Washington. In the USA. Where there is supposed to be separation of church and state.
And the Grandparent was a Christian.
The Bible says all that stuff.
It was written by a bunch of old men 2500 years ago in a desert halfway around the world. The books in it got there via a vote of 568 to 563 at the Council of Trent in 397 - those that weren't politically favourable were dropped.
Now, if you have some actual evidence that the Bible is the word of God, by all means provide it.
Until then it has about as much of a chance of being the word of God as the Koran, the Bhagvangita, or "The Stand" by Stephen King.
Just in case you were wondering...
Buddy, 'God' has nothing to do with 'reason.'
Blindly following a 2500 year old book without questioning it's clearly hateful passages makes your a good person?
As a great person once said:
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use"
(PS it was some dummy named Galileo).
I quite sure that if there were a God, he or she would be pretty pissed at you or anyone else discriminating agains any of his "children".
Thank you for reminding me why I no longer subscribe to your particular brand of superstition (Christianity).
On that basis, I think disrimination against Christians is a good thing.
How do you like it?
Pretty much....
Michio Kaku and other M\String theorists along with some qunatum theorists have come up with a fairly reasonable set of "many worlds" theories that may explain it.
"Our" universe is just one of a possibly infinite number of universes poping in and out of existance all the time. "Ours" may be only 12 to 14 Billion years old, but it was part of another similar universe before that, which itself was part of a similar universe before that etc etc ad infinitum. the "Metaverse" itself is infinite - no beginning and no end.
So, this is one hypothosis that does not require a first cause or a creator. No need for a God. No begining and no end.
Check out a very good radio programme from last Saturday on this very subject: Multiple Worlds, Parallel Universes on CBC's Quirks and Quarks.
Besides, just because we can't yet explain the "First Cause" doesn't mean that it must therefore be "God". A God of the gaps always grows smaller in the face of scientific discovery.
Oh, and if you are claiming that there is a supreme being, the onus is on you to prove the existance of this God, not on science to prove that it doesn't exist. The evidence for the non-existance of God is simply a logical byproduct of scientific discovery of the nature around us.
Well Mr. Hollan, you are a liar. Thanks the the AC above who graciously posted a link to the incident of your father's death, in your own words, it appears that your father died suddenly of an undiagnosed medical condition . He died of this condition even after taking advantage of the Canadian healthcare system to sucessfully fight cancer.
In other words, it would not have mattered if this condition struck your father in Canada, the US or any Libertarian Utopia you care to dream up - there was simply nothing that could have been done to save him. It was too late when the doctors found out what had happened to him. Your father's death was unavoidable and not the fault of any particular healthcare delivery system in place in Canada.
I am very sorry to read of the way in which your father died. It was painful and it was a tragedy. I feel for you and your family, especially your mother. I can see from your posts that this grief has torn you up, and destroyed you to the point that you are lashing out at the very system that actually saved your father from cancer only a few short years earlier.
Mr. Hollan, get some help. The bitter bile you spew will not bring your father back and not destroy the people you believe killed your father, it will only destroy you. Please seek counselling before it is too late.
Yeah, I snsed that vide too early on...that's why I recommended therapy (which is covered by OHIP ;). As a former mental health worker, he is exhibiting classic symptoms of mild paranoid schizophrenia - extreme views, delusions of persecution and almost religious fervor in his "cause". I wouldn't be surprised, considering his posting history, that he already IS under "supervision".
;-)
Now, where did that hammer and sickle pin get to?
Oh, ok I've got it now. The surgery was covered but there was no doctor available to do the surgery or your dad died waiting for the operation to come up on the schedule of one of the doctors that did do it (this could have been months or minutes). So, if a doctor was availble, our socialized healthcare system would have paid. And even if you could have purchased that operation in a private clinic in Canada, it wouldn't have mattered because there was still no doctors to perform it. Yet it's the fault of the public health insurance system?
So why isn't there a doctor to do it? Oh, because the various Conservative provincial governments and the Liberals in the Federal government have slashed funding for our healthcare system for more than 15 years. Do you think if the likes of Mike Harris or Ralph Klein decided not to piligage healthcare to give the wealthiest members of their provinces tax cuts throughout the '90s, that maybe there would be enough money to employ those specialists?
If what you say is true, your Dad died because the Conservatives, in their ideological drive to have private, American style healthcare in Canada (so their cronies can make money off it), underfunded the system to the point that there were not enough doctors to perform services, nurses to assist them, hospital beds and surgery time. Why don't you blame them? Why don't you blame specialists who earn their degrees in Canadian medical schools and then go to the States to practice?
In other words, if the system was not under attack by the very Conservative, right wing, libertarian forces and ideals you espouse, your dad would be alive today, because there would have been proper funding levels in the system.
But hey, Alberta is debt free and Ontario was "open for business". I'm sure that should make you feel better.
Buddy, get some psychological help. Really.
So, tell us the condition and the place and time of this diagnosis. If what you say is true, then this should come out in our rapidly approaching election.
Please, provide the details. I can find out more information as I can access them up here.
If what you say is true it is an outrage that needs to be dealt with. I would hardly call it common in our system, though.
Of course, if you choose not to provide the details of the condition and what the operations was, then this will have to stop right here. Without those details, I have no way of knowing if what you say is even true. Many of your posts seem to indicate a pathological hatred and I cannot be sure your anre not delusional on this account unless your tell us more.
Otherwise all your posts are the ravings of an unbalanced programmer with a chip on his shoulder in Richardson Texas.
So let me get this straight, your Dad, who lived and worked in Canada all his life and happily used the healthcare and other systems got sick. He died of some un-specified disease that, according to you, is not covered under the Canada Health Act (I'd be quite curious to know the details of THAT, since I know there are precious few things like that). Therefore, our universal healthcare system is to blame for 'murdering' your father and I, as a supporter of said system, am an accomplice to this 'murder'. Oh and everyone who has ever used said universal healthcare system is not only an accessory to 'murder' but also a thief for 'stealing' your father's money.
So despite the fact that it saves thousands of lives every year and has made Canadians very healthy, reduced infant mortality and the spread of disease, because in your view it is responsible for your father's death, the whole system is horrid and needs to be done away with. Sounds like you have a few un resloved issues around your father's death and are trying to blame the health care system for his death.
Do you realize that the recent degradation in our healthcare system, which may have contributed to that system NOT paying for the $30k operation you claim, is the result of the slashing of the funding by various Conservative governments at botht eh federal and various provincial governments? You know the old trick: cut the funding, create a crisis, then ride in like a white knight with the "privatization solution" to "improve service". The added benefit would be that all those business cronies and friends of the Conservatives get to be the ones to make profits off this new healthcare system. Why don't you blame them for your father's death? They are the ones who cut the funding which likely lead to the delisiting of that operation.
Do you think that your Dad would have gotten better treatment from an HMO in the US? Or and insurance company? Not bloody likely.
Don't paint yourself as some kind of idealistic crusader for libertarianism, your not. Your a sad, sad man who seems to blame and entire governemtn and system for his foather's death. I honestly think you have serious mental health issues and you should really seek some help.
I'm not joking about that. Your viceral hatred is quite pathological.
Wow,
You are seriously mentally ill. Seriously. You sound quite paranoid. You should really get some help.
Seriously, I'm not trolling.
Well, don't forget to pay us back for all of your medical expense you incured from birth onward, since paying for Health Care out of your own pocket is what you want to do. Oh, and throw in your education as well (especially in Quebec where tuition for university is cheaper than some single courses in the US). Make the cheque out to the Reciever General of Canada. You personally are probably responsible for about $50 to $75k alone just on thoise two counts.
I am truly sorry your father died. But call me a murderer and saying my father lived becasue he stole from others? Fuck you. You are truly one cold hearted facist, elitist prick. I suppose it just natural selection then if someone is too poor to afford hospital and dies. You realize that there are thousands of people that are alive because of our health care system. I don't know what happened to your Dad, but I can tell you, he is the exception not the rule.
I hope you get your US citizenship because I for one am glad you are gone. Good bye and Good riddance.
As an Ontario Cannuk, I thank god you and your kind have moved to Arizon too.
:)
Now if we can get the memebers of the Alberta Conservatives to leave, we'd be OK.
Then leave. But shut the fuck up with your "taxed to death" fud. My dad is alive today becasue of universal health care. I we had hadthe US style healthcare you and the Conservatives seem to love, he would not have been able to afford going to the hospital and would have died in our kitchen, refusing to go to the hospital because he couldn;t afford the bill. I pay my taxes with a smile on my face for that reason alone.
Wow, Welcome to 1993.
BTW, Vanderzalm and the Social Credit party were about as "socialist" as the "national socialist" - in other words, not at all.
And laugh at Bob Rae all you want, he didn't gut social servies and healthcare in Ontario. You know the running joke in Ontario - "The best thing Mike Harris ever did was make Bob Rae look good"
Don't hold your breath on them eliminating any tarrifs or winning the next election, no matter what goes on a Gomery. They brought us the GST remember?
Yeah, we used to have a fairly respectable party called the Progressive Conservatives. They were socially progressive and fiscally conservative - what we in Canada call a "Red Tory" party. They were swallowed up in a "merger" with the Alliance, thus become the Conservatives. Needless to say, there is good reason they no longer have "Progressive" in their name anymore.
Well, if, by your moniker, you've been working for the Reform Party, which became the Canadian Alliance and is now the Conservative party, you should certainly know about chest thumping. :)
And no, I'm not a Liberal...lokk just a little further to the left...
Oh man, Please MOD this UP!!!
Most insightful comment yet.
Good Job Doc.
Perhaps you should read an example of the logical fallacies of ID \ Young Earth\ Creationist, including Mr. Dembski before you so glibly dismiss my assertion. That people aren't ID, Young Earth or Creationists at the same time is irrelevant. All three are based on flawed logic, questionable evidence and bad science (or no science for Creationists). Therefore, they are all illogical.
I'm more curious how you got modded as 'Informative' since you actually provide little real information and go out of your way to spread disinformation.
Ah the joys of Slashdot.
Or evidence that fossilization and preservation of soft tissues works a bit differently than presumed. The article says that this kind of fossilization has been seen before in eggs and feathers, but not true soft tissue, so it is not unprecidented or completely unknown.
Remember, there is still lots of other geological evidence that the earth is WAY more than 6000 years old. The find is interesting, but you certainly can't jump to that conclusion from it.
Of course, using logic isn't the strong suit of the ID\Young Earth\Creationism set anyway, so I fully predict those guys will show up here in force with a bunch of "I told you so" posts, mostly with out actually reading TFA.