Benz

Stop the fallacy Machjo. It's like blaming the democracy for Hitler getting the power in Germany. You are mixing up the concept. The Age of enlightenment DID NOT lead to the oppression of those people. Otherwise, tell me who is the intellectual of that time that has at least suggest it.

Is she canadian?

How will you convince me that I am a subgroup of you? My nation is NOT a subgroup of you. PEI is a subgroup of English Canada. Not Quebec. But the way the structure actually is, it makes you think that you can dispose of us as you wish and that is what we do not agree. We are going to get the respect of a sovereign nation. With or without you. Either you adapt the Canada in a way that we can share it, or we go independent. I am fine with both. As long as the status quo is ended. I understand and I agree to your concern. Québec must not behave like that. Usually, such attitude can only turn against ourselve because it also means that you will not allow us to get what we want. It's called, negotiation. Such system does not give us an advantage over you. It places us on the same level. You want something, we want something, let's find a way to come to an agreement. That's the way it should be. I dare you to prove it. I dare you to show me where in the history that we were not in good faith. On the contrary, it is easy for me to demonstrate that YOU were not in good faith. The 1981's betrayal that even the federalist in Québec are still mad at you. The death of Meech. Charlottetown 1992. Social Union 1999. So many other backstabbing also occurs before I was born. Let's concentrate on the recent ones. Every time, Québec is trying to negotiate in good faith and every time, you betray us. Every single time. You are blaming us for something YOU do. In 1981, René Lévesque has proposed something that alot of independentists did not like. He proposed to let go the veto and in exchange, the federal would allow an opt out with full compensation from a federal program. Lévesque thought that the english canada was on the same page and that they would never allow the federal to break that principle. He was wrong. The other provinces did betray us and allowed the federal to gain more power at their own expense. What is their excuse? They were mad that Lévesque wanted to convince them that it was a good idea to use a referendum to make the constitution accepted by the population. I blame directly your leaders of that time and all your leaders now that are not trying to correct this stupid decision. It also explains why, we no longer trust you and why even the federalists in Québec want a veto for Québec. Because there is no more room for another knife in our back. Because you don't even have respect for yourself and you allow the federal to treat your provinces like whores who can exchange their powers for money.

That is exactly what you do regarding the republic. You are trying to build a link between the oppression of the minorities under a certain republic government, with the brainstorming of the Années Lumières. That is a fallacy. I dare you to quote the intellectual(s) of the Années Lumières who said such thing or encouraged that course.

Ahhh, the good old Goebbels technique. Lie, lie, something will remain. Québec DID NOT declare itself unilingual. Québec declared french the official language. It is not the same at all. English people still can have english services from the Québec state, they still can have schools in english, they have more universities than they need and they have more hospitals than they need too. There is nothing in our laws saying that english is banned. Meanwhile, some french in your "bilingual" province have to use the Supreme Court to send their children into french schools. YOU ARE PATHETIC!!!!!!! The situation of Québec is a bit comparable to Finland. A land that has been for so long under the possession of Sweden. Despite the language in Finland is Finnish, the swedes have the same rights the anglos have here in Québec. They can continue to have schools and services in their language. Like here, they still can feel home in a land where they are the minority. Stop your bullshit and move on. I dare you to prove it. The anglos can get a job at the government like any other citizens here. You need a psychiatric consultation. You are imagining things. Taxme, you are so hypocrite. Tell me that french does not look foreign to you. Explain me in french how familiar you are with that language. English looks like is a foreign language for me. But unlike you, I am not afraid of foreigners. I learned english because I want to and if I could, I would learn many other languages as well. I know a bit of spannish. But what english has here that the others do not, is that they can have public schools in english. Not bad for a foreign language, isn't it? It's because although it looks foreign to us, it is not. We respect our anglos and let them have the place they deserve. Not bad for a society that is supposed to entertain hatred to their persecutors. What is going on in your head has nothing to do with the reality.

What you are saying is like blaming the concept of federalism to explain the cultural genocide of the natives and some french communities. If I tell you exactely what I think about your reasonning, I would probably get banned. lolll Seriously Machjo.

We agree on the roles played by the federal and the provincial. I do not know if we agree about what powers go to whom, but I have a feeling that we are very different about that. Where we strongly desagree, is about the constitution. The reason we cannot agree about it, it is mostly explained by your understanding of the state vs the nations. If there is one thing that it is not acceptable to have the majority ruling the others, it's the constitution. As I told you before, if the English canadians are ruling the country at the House of Common because they outnumber the others, I am ok with that. However, it is out of question that the constitution is set by the biggest nation without a say from the others. If you can't understand that, you definitly do not know how to keep this country united.

The way you describ it, the state owns the nation(s). That's not republican for sure. You do not look very familiar with the Années Lumières and the concept of sovereignty of the people to the people. I bet you think it is totally normal to have a crown like the current british queen. Obviously, you and I have a total opposite position regarding the role and the importance of a nation. For me, the state belongs to the nation, not the other way around. So, if we desagree on that basis, it is normal afterward that we can't agree on how the country should function. Everything you say is irrelevent. Because your understanding is that the state is the sovereign body, not the people. There is a state, called Canada, which is the outcome of the UK's disposal of the north american possessions and you think that specific state is the sovereign of all people under its territory. There is no way you and I can agree on that. You will always be in conflict with any nations that are not your's. Québec, natives, name it.

Quebec is not a minority of a greater nation, Quebec is a nation. Beside the natives, how many other nations are there in Quebec? You are trying to deny the existence of the quebec nation. Plain and simple. It is your condition to consider our laws as hypocritical. but whether you like it or not, Quebec is, and always been a nation. The incoming immigrants that choose to come live in Quebec or english canada, are not nations. They are migrants. They choose to fit into a new nation. What are the source of those changes? Do you think the english language has been a natural course in north america? It is the result of the imperialism. It's ok, what has been done, has been done. Is it necessary to continue into this course? Can't the english language live among the people with other languages? I am ok with the idea that english became the common language, as long as it does not become a threat of the existence of my language. There are plently of room with all those languages in the world. They are an asset to the humanity. Pas un boulet! It's the result of the british empire victory. That is the fact. Not opinion. So the point is, what is important to you? The continuation of the british empire agenda? Or the will of the human beings? The british beat them more than a century ago. Ok, so what? They still exist! What do they have to do to gain your respect? They have to fight you like the old time back when people were making wars? Is that what they need to do? Take weapons and fight you? Only them you will respect the sovereignty of people that have been sovereign for centuries before your ancestors kick their ancestors assess with technological advances? Aren't we more further than that into our human relations? Yes, it is a fact that the english people has forced the natives to be a second class citizens that most follow the rules established by the winners of a war. That's what you want things to be, right? You want them to accept that fate and become a subnation of YOUR nation concept. That's what make sense to you.

Yes, a different thread might be a good idea and yes, I understand it looks contradictory to your point of view. But it is not. The EU is the best example of it. 20 different nations trying to make a federation (more precisely a confederation) with sovereign nations willing to share some levels of their sovereignty for a common good without letting go their own sovereignty. They are trying to get along even if they are different nations. It is a major challenge and it is difficult for them. But they are trying. Guess what, it is exactly what the french wanted in 1867 and they never got it. They wanted a decentralised federation. They could have do their own things and share what they have in commons with their neighbors. But it is not what London has decided. Or should I say the crown, or that house of Lords, depending on what the british nation was about at that time. We finally ended up with a centralised federation. More conveniant to the english majority, but to the defense of the english speaking people, it was more conveniant to the cown and its long term goal. I cannot blame the people for a decision that was made by the elite ones. It would not be fair. It would be against my own principles. There is nothing incompatible with the sovereignty of a nation and the alliance it can have with other nations. Sovereignty of a nation is one thing. Alliance within one federation is another thing. Is it a team work or a total alpha male domination? Does it have to be that binary? After all, the english and french did not exist if you go back more than 2000 years ago. The human spicies is born on a different continent anyway. The only obstacle to a solution, is the conviction that you are right and the other ones are wrong. Look, on one end, you admit there is an exageration regarding the media exposure of a situation that got resolved easier than than it looks like. On the other end, you keep on thinking that somehow, it's a written convention or policy to have non sense consideration to something that common sense cannot fit in. Really? Listen, Bureaucrates are bureaucrates. Whether they are french, english or else, it doesn't change a thing. The ones trying to rule those language rules, are bureaucrates and they have a check list to fill. If there is a complaint, they have to process it. Most of the time, it ends up as the common sense would lead it. But by the time it is, the medias nourrish on the big fuzz it can creates in the mean time. Especially for the english community that does not give a f*** about the drama the french are living outisde Quebec. Where do you stand? As long as the final result is acceptable to us all, that is what matters to me. I do not give a **** about the millage the anti-french medias will do on the exploitation of that rule. I admit it. Sometimes it is getting offroad. But the most important thing is, the politicians and the people here are making it go back on the road. It's something you should appreaciate. Unless it does not fit your agenda to bash the language rule. Where do you stand? Me? I am in the seat of the one who sees a tryout domination of a culture which I can only appreciate when it is not threatening mine. I consume alot of english culture products. I have no problem with that. It becomes a problem for me when the english culture is trying to be imposed to me, which has been the situation so often until now. As long as the language rule is for the protection, I say bravo. But if that rule is overpassing its mandate, it is rather an insult to my intelligence. People are not stupid. We do not agree when they are doing too much. Otherwise they would not back down. Try to to see the big picture from our standing point for once. We need that rule, even if sometimes one zealous one is overpassing its mandate. Under no circumstances, this is making us haters of the english culture. What do you think you understand about the situation of the french people?

No. The justice of your own country does not agree with you. It's two different things. It's not normal that the english canada can set up the constitution that will be applied on all canadians. The constitution is too important to be dominated by only one nation at the expense of the others. However, I agree with you regarding the distribution of the power to each level. Once we agree what powers will be in the hands of the federal, I have no problem with the fact that the english majority have a bigger say matching their proportion in that House of Common. I am federalist too. Listen... it makes more sense than killing a culture by preventing them to have schools in their language. Assume what your predecessors did and stop doing the same mistake over and over. Who do you think you are to call who can preserve or not its culture while your nation is responsible for the cultural genocides that occured in your borders? Don't you realise how hypocrit this is? When you do it, it's ok. Once you have established your superiority, out of sudden, it is bad to protect one's culture that is victim of your past decisions. Regarding the culture and the language, mind your own business. We preserve it and you have no say. It's our decision and you must respect that. How conveniant. It suits so much the imperialism. That is exactly what they do not want anymore. For several thousands of years, they were free sovereign people, you put them into small reserves, call them indians despite they never put a foot in India and you expect that they must accept the fate that you decided? hmmmm! You can be sure that you will hear from them again and again.

Of course. Québec is not bilingual. It has a great number of bilingual people but, the majority does not have a sufficient language skill to be considered bilingual. It depends what you understand by official english status. Québec is a french status and still, the english people here still have the rights to be served in english by the provincial and have the rights to go to school in their language. I expect the same regards to the french in Ontario. No matter what official status Ontario would be. Yeah. I thought that maybe he meant that there are no french outside of Dieppe. I was assuming wrong. Sorry for cybercoma. Well, I agree with you regarding the branding. I understand the point some are making regarding this issue. There are alot of english names which make us feel not home or invaded by americans. We prefer when companies are making the effort to have a local compatible name. Like Stapple with a french name Bureau En Gros. Personnally, I think it is not important. It's not a fight I agree to spend time and energy on it. As much as I strongly defend the actual rules, I do not want to apply the same kind of rule with the brand names. I understand the point of those who want to convert those names but, I do not agree with them. I doubt that will happen. Regarding the font size, it depends. So many people are stubborn regarding the respect of the french fact, the font size sends a message that, here, it's a french society. I agree with that rule for now but, maybe some day the context will change, the french will be less threatened and there would be no point to maintain that rule. I expect to change my mind eventually and just have equal size would be fine. Don't say it is idiotic without even arguing on the reasons why we have that rule. Are you french? Are you living here? Do you even deal with the issue of respecting the frenc fact? I believe that some day with will get rid of it but, for now, it still is necessary. So many immigrants come here thinking that Canada is an english only country. We have to make it clear and obvious that this is a french society. That said, some of my fellows are exagerating when they claim that the same rule must be applied with the federal institutions. They would like the federal to apply bill 101 within their walls. Again, I understand their point but, I do not agree. I think it is normal that the federal does not give any predominence in their services. I do not mind if they have signs with equal size of the letters and I think it is normal because it is the federal. It may looks idiotic from your point of view but, it's not. I understand them. But I think they are wrong. Not necessarly idiotics. I am a convinced sovereignist and I think the federal must stay bilingual with no predominence of french in Quebec. I do not like when some of my fellows are wasting their time with that. They will not make it possible. Regarding the dumb hunts, you can bet that when it happens, few angryphones will complain for a long time and they will continue to complain even after the issue is solved. Everytime they are exagerating, they step back or the government, even when it is a PQ one, force them to step back. All the issues, name it. The Pasta Gate? They stepped back and let it go. I remember when this small online company making business with only US clients, got the visit of the language police. When they realise that company had no clients in Quebec and was doing business only in USA. They let it go and the company could continue to do business without using french language. I bet you never heard ending, right? Of course you won't. Your medias will only focus on the zealous one. At the very same time, the french in English Canada are fighting up to the supreme court to have schools in their language. That does not occupy much place in your medias. I guess this is not idiotic, right?

ok.

No. We do not expect them to have french as main language. We expect them to use french for common use with other people. We do not mind if the immigrants speak spannish, finnish, turkish, tamil, tagalog or anything else. We do not mind if the language at home is not french. What we do mind is, the french must be the common language of use with the others. If you think that is hypocrisy, then the whole word, including yourself, is. You are mixing up the language and the cultural values. The french in France speak french like us with a different accent. Are we the same people? No. We are two different nations. We have our own identity. We are also different from the english canadians on some values. Not alot of differences, I am sure we can get along very well but, we must respect our differences and either bring those laws on a more local application or negociate them until we agree. That is exactely the problem right now. The english Canada does not mind if we do not agree and they proceed anyway. I agree with you. Québec is not asking for their citizens to follow different rules. Québec is asking to be considered as a nation and have a say on those rules so we can fix them together. Once we agree on the rules, everyone must follow those rules, no matter what culture we come from. This is how it works in a normal union. Well, the native sovereignty issue is not an easy one to solve. Some are in a much better position than others to manage their sovereignty on a reasonable territory. Your point is valid and I must admit I do not have the perfect solution in hands. It is easy to recognize the Cree or Innuit or Innu with a specific territory. It's not in the case of the Mohawks, Huron, Mi'kmaq and many others. Some of them are surrounded by non-natives and it is almost impossible to extend the territory. More discussions are needed to come to a solution that could be acceptable for everyone.

You are not wrong with your observations, but you are bias in your conclusions. I have no problem of what-so-ever if Ontario declares itself an english provinces and force english language to be shown up alot any other used languages, just like we do here in Québec. I would not called that racist. I would just think it is normal and legitimated. French is not a threat to your culture, but the number of arriving immigrants that do not even try to assimilate to any of the english or french culture, can become a threat. I agree with you on that. But you are so used to hate french that you just see us as ennemies and you are the only one to blame for. It is a choice you make. In Québec the english can use their language, can be served in their language in the provincial institutions and can live a normal life in english without a problem. Yet, you get mad because they cannot do business without french. Like if doing business without the french language in the only french province is something abnormal. You do not claim the english in Québec to do business in their language, they already do. You claim the right to avoid french language in the only one french province of north america. That f---ing plain stupid. We help the stupid people to avoid stupidity. We protect them from themselve. The majority of english speaking people do understand why the rules are there and they respect those. Except some whinning ones. You want BC to have a rule that force everyone to have english signs along any other foreign languages? No problem. I will be glad to help you with that. But you fear me, because you have been raised and conditionned to hate me. Just because I am french.

ok then. So let's get rid of english. Because I will not let that happen while I am alive. What are you going to do? Are you going to do a R.H. Bain of yourself? You are too hard on your predecessors. They did ban french in many provinces and they manage to genocide that culture. However, it is true that they failed in Québec. You seems to forget that they tried very hard in the past. Thet did try to erase the french culture for several years. They tried but they failed. At the rebellions of 1837, the french were forbidden to have a french journal. The only one french journal was named Le Canadien. But eh, despite all the oppression, the french managed to survive. It's because they survive that now Canada has to offer minimum of respect to what is left of the french outside Québec. Very interesting how those very tiny communities survival are making you feel like a major fail of Canada's imperialism. Stayed? Stayed? The english canada is more english than it ever was. When Manitoba was founded, the french were already there. At the creation of Canada, the french were 35% of the population. The english had to ban french from public schools to destroy that culture. You have a huge problem with the reality and your own history my friend. You are such an hypocrit. That pityful mindset is a heritage of the former british empire colonizing worlds and destroying cultures. Get over it. You are thinking like a loser. It's time to move on and accept that you cannot destroy everyone. Québec is already more bilingual than any other province. We have more bilingual people than the self-claimed bilingual NB. If you think that having bilingual street names in Ontario is enough to say that it's a bilingual province, then you are living in an alternate reality. It does not work that way. That is because in your mindset, a good canadian, is an english canadian. You believe that french are not canadians. They do not deserves the same respect. You do not want to share the country with them. You want a total domination. Therefore, allowing french to be served in their language is a failure for you. That is exactly what you choose to be. The loser that can't stand the fact that you are too weak to fight the french and get rid of them. That's also why you hate your fellows that now accept that they must respect the presence of the french like brothers of the same family. You never accepted the french in the family. The job is not done yet and you need to get rid of the french once and for all. So you can finally get rid of the language you consider dying and useless. Yes, the french are not superior than other language. It's you, that is inferior to all existing humans on earth. An inferiority that you choose to be. Afflicted by your own decision to be that loser. Let me know whenever you decide to be more open-minded redirect your critizism into a constructive opinion.

33% of the people in NB are french. Do you think they all live in Dieppe?

But the prerequisite is to remove anything false from the religion and keep up only what is not demolished by scientific discoveries. The religion has this bad habit to step off its spiritual range and stuck its nose where it does not belong. One individual can find a way to manage a good balance between its spirituality and its critical thinking. The churches and other religious institutions can't. It's against their nature. Their purpose is to vanish the critical thinking or format it to suit their agenda.

The way Machjo worded it is indeed a bit clumsy. I have often think about the solutions to make sure the nations of this country can both respect the will of the nations without creating racial or cultural base system. It's not obvious. The more the government is centralized, the bigger for a distinction per individual is needed. I also think it is not a good approach, even if it is tempting. The best example is the current "indian law" which is still active. Natives have individual benefits that other canadians don't. On first sight, it looks unfair to other canadians but, it's a trap. It's a tactic, a diversion, to not allow natives to have a say as a nation. Easier to manipulate individuals than a group of people under one bloc. There are two notions we must not mix up. Language and culture/nation. Regarding the language, the current system might not be perfect but it's not that bad. With some adjustment, it will feed the need of all canadians. The problem lies for the nations. They are all drowned into the majority. That is not acceptable. A nation status is needed for Québec and the other natives. It's important regarding the constitution and the supreme rules that are applied to all canadians. It's not acceptable that the english majority fix the rules only because they outnumber the other nations. All canadians, whether they are natives, Québécois or english Canadians should all follow the same rules. All individuals must be equal. However, they are from different nations, therefore, the nations should have a say to the supreme rules. A constitution should not be modified by the majority without the consent of the other nations. All nations must agree. However, there are so many native nations and they are all so small, giving them all a sort of veto would rather condemn the constitution to be totally paralized. They should count as one voice on the constitution. The majority of the natives, plus Québec, plus the english Canada should be required to modify the constitution. The House of Common with the representatives is ok like that. I do not care about the fact that it is dominated by english canadians. What I do care is that they can put their nose in matters that should rather go in the provincial/reserves sand box. I would just decentralise it a little. But then again, most of the rest of canada is happy with the current structure. So allowing an opt out with full compensation as discussed in 1981 and with Meech 1987-90 would just be fine.

I can't remember which one created god between those two. I always forget. Is it DC comics or Marvel?

I always been amused by how, the people who pretends to know so much about god, actually know so little about science, physic and history. God would have created the universe and life, but would have wait 13 billions of years before it creates humans and suddenly feels to obligation to serve its latest creation. "There is no spoon" -Matrix

When are you going to reply to what I said regarding their sovereignty that would solve most of the problems by allowing them to have their own system. The federal would then be a much smaller issue. An issue they could deal with it. Whether it is in french or english.

Ok, I will take that as an admission. English is not my main language as well, so, I have no problem to accept that explanation. Or... you failed to ask the right question... maybe because your level of english. Anyway, what matter is to understand each others, no matter how many attempts it takes. A human being can sleep during the day and be awake during the night time. It will survive. However, because of the melatonine production I have explained you before, the humans are more adapted to live during the day and sleep at night. It's the behavior that humans had before they were humans. Back in the time when we were homo erectus. The humans are not adapted to live a normal life in the poles. Lucky for them, they have the technology to overcome the obstacles. The humans using artificial lights and other technologies can live in the poles like if they were not in the poles. This is why they will never adapt to the environment, because they don't need to. Well at least for that part. Their body is very adapted to the temperature. They tolerate the cold much better than you and they would struggle to stand the warmth in your country as you do. This is again an answer to your question. Unless I do not understand your question again. Look, first you say you cannot be healthy without meat, now you say you can. I know there are some vegetables having B12 but, I know it's kind of complicated to find. I am not an expert in that matter. I think you can get it from some nuts and cereals. It's way more easy to get it from meat, or animal products (milk, cheese, etc..). The human body is adapted to eat meat and vegetables. If we decided to stop using meat right now, in a couple of thousands of years, our metabolism would change and we would not longer be adapted to eat meat. We are actually eating more meat than our body is supposed to. Well, it the case of people here in north america. My brain is pretty much open thank you. I am not saying that it's a chance that we have calcium. I say there is calcium and our body found an utility for it. The principle of evolution is that life is adapting to its environment. I will give you a clear example. Seals need salty water, they cannot survive in non-salty water. In the lake Ladoga or Onega, you can find seals living in non-salty water. Those same seals would not survive in a salty water. How is that possible? Long time ago, the lake was connected to the ocean. The level of water was reducing throughout the years and that area became isolated. Then is amount of salt started to slowly reduce in that new lake, until the day it had none. The change was very slow and the seals were able to adapt themselves in that new environment. If the change would have been too fast, they would not survive. The same explanation can be found for all species in the world. Including us. You take for granted that we are the point zero. We came out of nowhere and the environment is brought to us to serve our need. It's the other way around. All the elements were there and we adapted to it and use them for our own benefits. You want other examples? Millions of years ago, the level of oxygen on earth was much higher than today. All small insects we have today were much bigger back then. The level of oxygen was higher at the time of the dinosaures. If we were able to go in the past, pick one and bring it here in our time, it would struggle to survive due to the weak amount of oxygen. Homo floresiensis. A small race of human living on an isolated island. the resources of that island were limited. So the humans over there were smaller. As well as other species on the same island. The color of the skin. The reason why some people are black, white, yellow, red... is because of the exposure to the sun. When you have a short and weak exposure to the sun, your skin need to grab as much vitamin D as possible. When your skin is constantly exposed to the sun, your skin rather needs to protect itself from the UV rays. The human race started in Africa and a branch of it left that area to spread everywhere else. Those living up north for a long time, eventually had a white skin. The reason why neither the Bible, nor the Quran or anything else is not talking about it, is because the people at that time totally ignored this when they wrote those books. They were doing like you do. They were looking for a "why" that would only please their wish to prove that their god is true. Everything I am saying is not proving that god exists or not. It's destroying the arguments of those trying to prove the existence of god though. The only THEORY explanation that could hold the line regarding god is, that a god would have created the universe and the first lifeforms (cells) and everything had evolved to the current situation we have now and will continue to evolve.

I am not accusing you. Not yet. Now I will. I now accuse you of stating things not founded. I do not have a hard time understanding. You are the one being cautght in contradiction. WestCoastRunner did caught you. But there is no need to feel accused or fight about that topic. It's a debate. It's ok to have different opinion and point of view. Exposing one's beleifs and challange it, is not an attack. It is a debate. Not at all. You fail. I am not the only one who explaned you how it works. It's not because you do not understand that it means we fail. No. Vegans are not unhealthy. You do not know what you are talking about. But your fault is not that you do not know, it's ok to be unaware. What is not, is saying anything wrong and pretend it's true. It is your credibility that you put on the line. No we don't and I explained you why. What you are saying does not change anything. What are you saying, god makes the milk harmful to adults? bad god! baaaaaad god! Look, this is what happen when you give god intentions it never had. The reason you get all wrong, is because you are only looking for a "why" that could suit your beleifs and the existence of your god. That also explains why you are not interested of the "how". It gives you serious limits to your capacity of understanding the big picture. Sometimes I wonder how could be a god if there is any. What such god would do. That entity is living for more than 13 billions of years. It is so powerful that it created a whole universe. One thing I know for sure. If I was that god, the last thing I would need, is to be worshiped by few lifeforms I created myself. I would not allow a prophet to speak in my name. I would do it myself. If I wanted so much that people behave well, I would make it more clear and obvious. I would not play with people's life, like a little girl playing with her barbie doll. What would be my mindset if I knew so many things, how would I behave if I live so many years. It is very interesting to try to imagine a real god.

Your religion is not more true than any others. It's true for you only because you believe, because you have the faith in scriptures written a little while ago. If you think the need for sleep disprove adaptation, you fail badly. On the contrary. The need for sleep IS a demonstration that the life is adapting to the environment. What do you mean by need? No we do not need to cook. We do it because it has better taste and helps for digestion. If we stop cooking, we survive very well. If we stop breathing, we die. Bad comparison. Do you have the evidence that god took the decision to light up fire for us? No you don't. It please you think it. We do not need to drink milk. Several nations and cultures do not drink milk. Among them, the Japanese and Koreans. Calcium can come from other products as well. The women in Korea do not suffer from the problems linked to a lack of calcium and they do not drink milk. Did your god created them differently? Nope! Milk provides stuff we need, but other products too. We use milk because it is convenient. Are you sure? You seems to think that without milk, we can't survive and cooking is as vital as breathing air.