?Impact

You are doing a lot worse than the average of the top 1% of Canadian income earners who pay only 33% in federal and provincial/territorial income tax.

I think the conclusions (page 25 of the source document betsy has referenced from the National Academy of Sciences) are worth reading: Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation. Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

Certainly there are lots of pitfalls for tenure track positions, I agree there are some teachers coasting because they are protected by the system. What also needs to be considered are that not all public school teachers are tenure track. First they need to have a minimum of three year probationary period, intended to weed out the incompetents. Many teachers are what are termed LTO (Long Term Occasional), which is essentially full time non-tenure positions. Finally, the reason that tenure track positions were created in the first place over a century ago was because of the political interference in the education system. With people like Jason Kenney around, it seems those reasons have not vanished. As to being overpaid, who do you think is more valuable? A teacher with a bachelors degree from a university and another year at teachers college (many also have additional Master and PhD degrees), entrusted with the education of our future workforce, or a high-school dropout driving a truck? Many high-school dropouts earning over twice what the average teacher makes, and several times the entry level salary. I have nothing against either, just pointing out that 'overpaid' is a relative term.

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary: evidence noun: ev·i·dence a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices ------------------------------ opinion noun: opin·ion a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : approval, esteem a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based I don't recall seeing any evidence, only opinion.

I am good looking because I am rich I am good looking because of my parents I am good looking because I groom daily You might claim these all have differing premises, but someone might argue they all have the premise that I am good looking as well. Your threads are not devolving because you argue about creation, against macroevolution, who is the creator, but in all three cases your implicit premise is about creation (or intelligent design or whatever you term it).

No, NASA doesn't claim to believe at all. There is no merely about it. Read what you quoted: Big bang theory is supported, based on observations, and made successful predictions. There is no belief involved, merely or otherwise. Do you have a better theory that explains the observations, or do you have new observations that are in conflict with the theory? Science is always open to new observations and ideas. Science has no problem accepting Nicolaus Copernicus (De revolutionibus orbium coelestium) over Claudius Ptolemy (planetary hypothesis) because it better explains the observations, it was only the church authorities of the time that did not agree with its heliocentric model. While the tables that Ptolemy created still work within certain bounds, they offer no practical advantage and are based on an incorrect assumption that requires countless special cases to explain. In the same manner, Albert Einstein (general theory of relativity) offers a far more comprehensive explanation of the observations than Isaac Newton (Philosophiæ Naturalis Principe Mathematica). Newton also made an incorrect assumption, that gravity is a force where Einstein saw it as a property of the geometry of space-time. The complexity of the math involved in calculating the geometry of space-time however was too great for the computers of the Apollo era, so NASA still fell back on Newtonian math because it was good enough to successfully put man on the moon. While Apollo didn't upset Newton's apple cart, today's consumer technology does because Newton didn't account for the changes in space-time that become apparent with the precision required for GPS calculations.

CTV always called Canada AM "Canada's most watched national morning newsmagazine", but the problem it had was in major markets like Toronto where Breakfast Television surpassed it in ratings long ago. I expect CTV have something up their sleeve for a replacement news show, but we probably won't see it launch until the fall. There probably were many closed door planning sessions, but they couldn't have kept set design and construction quiet so I doubt we will see the replacement until after the summer lull. Of course I could be totally off base, and CTV will become the goto source for yoga, workout, and cooking in the morning.

Scientific theories are not based on faith, they are always subject to revision if new evidence is found. A theory is based on a rational thought process that explains the evidence we have. Scientists are open to accepting new evidence that contradicts theories, or to new theories that better explain the current evidence. Often new theories provide direction for searching out new evidence.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. Now you know why there is that fear of the trans-gendered.

It is not plagiarism by definition, but it could be a copyright infringement. When you post to [some] public forums, you give up rights to your own work. I don't necessarily read and remember all the terms and conditions of every forum in which I may post something, and I doubt the 'management' of MLW do either. The safe practice is to not copy/paste, even your own work, and then there will be no claim on infringement. Additionally, if you do copy your own work, you should cite the original place where you 'published' it.

I can make any claim I want about that which is unknown and you cannot prove me wrong. Does that mean I am right? Does that mean I am likely to be right? I can however mock you scientists, and use terms like 'proof' and 'evidence' when I clearly have none.

I guess that would depend on what drives you. If you are interested in the subject and want to exchange ideas then why does the number of people you engage in discussion matter? I find there is a decent diversity of opinions on this site which I find far more important than a large number of people all nodding in unison (e.g. Ezra Levant's rag).

Hence the red?

So how should dividend income be taxed? Do you want it to receive special corporate taxation, or taxed as personal income at the full rate (not 50% off) of the person receiving it?

Maxime Bernier has changed his tune on supply management, saying it is in conflict with the principals of free markets that the Conservative party support. He represents a rural riding in Quebec, and has vigorously defended supply management in the past. Now that he is a leadership candidate for the party he is rethinking his position. I agree this is an important topic that should be discussed, both in Parliament and here (where opinions may not count, but often are well considered). Some of the issues we should look at are: 1. The Australian model, they moved off of supply management. Has it worked? Is their model right for Canada (being right next to the major US producers)? 2. What about food labeling? My position is that if we import dairy, then it should be clearly labeled if they contain growth hormones or antibiotics, etc. Perhaps something similar to the labels on cigarette cartons. 3. What about the quota's that farmers currently have? Should they be compensated? Is this a similar issue to TAXI's and their plates?

The economy has to work for all people. Remember the economy is just an artificial construct, we need to shape it benefit all.

I think the only viable estimate would be to extrapolate from other jurisdictions. Colorado was $135 million in tax revenue last year, assuming it scales with population that would put Canada as a whole at about $890 million.

I agree that he should not be debating, but the point is this just illustrates what a fraud he is. He is all full of bluster, until his bluff is called and then he runs away.

Our economic model is based on growth, and with a low birthrate and aging population we look at immigration to maintain that growth. I see the first two of your issues as intertwined. Maybe it is time to rethink our economic models.

You will find comfort in Genesis 6.

It is worth noting that Glacier Resorts Ltd. don't own the land either, they want to develop crown land. I am only pointing out that the public, especially the public that lives nearby, should have as much (nay, more so) say in the development of public lands as a far away corporate entity that only sees the exploitation of public land as the ticket to a fast buck.

Ok, I think we are using different terms. I see the foliot (and balance wheel) as what you are calling the spring assembly, and the balance spring being an enhancement to that assembly to improve its performance. Early foliots (not sure about balance wheels) did not have a balance spring to limit their travel and just relied on inertia from the force of the escapement [edit: and friction]. That became a problem as the primary drive would not be consistent throughout its travel (eg. as a weight got lower, or a mainspring unwound). There were other enhancements to even out the primary drive like linking the primary drive through a conical pulley to the escapement, but it was the balance spring that obsoleted those methods. Of course there have been subsequent improvements in the balance spring itself, like the use of bi-metal laminates to compensate for temperature, etc. When you originally said pendulum and spring, I thought you were referring to the mainspring as the primary drive. I expect weights as a primary drive predated that use of springs, but they were both in use in very early clocks. Obviously weights would pose significant problems for ships chronometers.

Problem (1) - Not a problem While your argument is true for all secondary authorities, it obviously does not apply to the primary authority. There is a hierarchy, we have the equivalent in modern legislation like the Constitution of Canada is the primary authority to which all other legislation must be tested against. Problem (2) - Not a problem God is known by many names (God, Lord, Jehovah, ...), I believe over 900 names have been documented and there are probably countless others that never made it to paper. Yes, those common names may derive from other concepts to which man is familiar. The true name of God however was only revealed directly to Moses, who never shared it with others. The Lord promised to revel his name in: Exodus 33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. and then delivered on that promise: Exodus 34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.

Lots of good BBC series I never saw, those sound like good ones. Connections is available at the Grande Bibliothèque (downtown library part of Quebec National Archives), I will have to pick it up. It appears that Burke also wrote a book to accompany The Day the Universe Changed that I can get from the local public library, but I can't find the series. Didn't the foliot pre-date the pendulum? I hope betsy gets back from purgatory soon, I am afraid I am not doing a good job holding up the Creationist side of the argument.

Going back to what I said earlier, I see it as the interaction between people. Yes there are a few truly self motivated trolls out there, but often I see a conversation as "my way", "no, my way", etc. Very little new arguments, just two or more people bickering back and forth without any progress. It is the quest to get the last word, because obviously that is the winner.