SkyHigh

Actually you live in a confederation, there's s difference May seem like semantics but the distinction is important

Don't judge Montréal based on its worst,it's really an amazing city

You assume alot probably because you're an ass. I'm not an "investor" I'm a foster kid that dropped out of high-school (went back in my late 20s) worked hard,. opened my own business (actually on my second one now). Both with profit sharing for everyone that worked there I got no discount and still put some money into the building. What do you mean find an apartment for that price in my neighborhood, it's the one I rent right above me Who's leeching? Again if you don't have your finances in order, don't get mad at others because they actually worked for what they have

Boomer? Dude im in my mid 30s and own a duplex on the plateau. My rental unit is just shy of 1200 square feet and I charge 950$ which by the way is more than 50% of my mortgage. So if you're to stupid to find a good apartment or to poor to get a bank loan, well that's on you

Dude if you pay 1500 for 850 Square feet in a "developing neighborhood " your top priority should be to learn how to research things and nothing to do with politics because you're getting ripped off. As for 2500 a month for a 420k mortgage (or around 350k after down payment) then maybe stop worrying about those other "greedy fucks" and get yourself a better job or at least improve your credit so you can get s better rate

They don't really want to be separate, the only actual proposition that came out of the PQ (Bouchard during the 95 referendum)still expected to to keep Canadian currency, military and infrastructure payments, the words they use are souveraineté association

Interestingly enough most of the territory north of Québec city is federal land that was "given" to the province via a long term lease

That's because the best francophones are Acadian, hahahahaha But seriously

Possibly the best politician Canada has ever had. First he fooled the separatists into thinking he agreed with them, all to have the ability to bring about the social change he wanted But just for campaign financing he should be lauded

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389 Like this resume from one of the most respected medical journals in the world? I await one giving contrary evidence P.S Facebook posts don't count

Again my point was you need to already accept the Bible to find truth in it, I can't say it any clearer. I probably have a better understanding of your holy book than you do and by not even recognizing that you have not addressed my original post in the slightest, it is you that has proved your not serious and are not willing to even consider anything outside your own presuppositions As far as your video he says the same thing virtually every presuppositional apologist says and the reason I didn't watch the entire 40 minute video is because I've heard it all before many, many ,many times before. Have you never heard of confirmation bias? Obviously not or you wouldn't refer me to such things. As far as creation.com, the way the scientific community works is someone has a theory publishes a paper for PEER Review, but apparently you either don't understand this or know that no such research exists. Concerned about my eternal destiny? Made up my mind to be in darkness?What ridiculous statements and when you ( or anyone for that matter) proclaim you have the truth that's a tell tale sign you don't have it I have no bias against God, but if you think asking for evidence of what you believe about very important issues is not acceptable, maybe you should take a look at why you believe what you do If you want to take your ball and go home because I asked a couple "simple " questions seems to me tantamount to admittance you not only can't answer them but have never even looked into why you believe what you do, but by all means run away

No Sir, you gave me a link to a pastor(someone who already believes in the Bible) saying why the book he presupposes the truth of is better than holy books he doesn't subscribe to, if you want to actually address my point find me a practicing Hindu that makes an argument why the Christian Bible is superior to the Bhagavad Gita. Then you pointed me to a propaganda website (creation.com) where non scientists make unsubstantiated claims to rationalize their ad-hoc explanations, please provide any peer reviewed scientific papers that support any of these assertions. As for your so called "prophecies "I could most likely prove that none are actually prophetic (though I don't know for sure your specific situation, I know more about the Bible than many, many, many, self proclaimed Christians) but for the purpose of this conversation I'll keep it general. 1: when athors have access to the original documents (in this case the old Testament) it isn't very difficult to tailor a new document ( in this case the new Testament, written at best 30 years after Jesus's supposed death) to fulfill these " prophecies ". In Harry Potter there was prophecie about a boy born on a specific date that would vanquish evil, by your logic that would make Harry Potter a messiah and the novels sacred text 2: There exists a whole group of people that believed (and still do) in the old Testament, yet completely disagree with your claims of prophecie they're called Jews.

I in no way have the expertise to explain the building blocks of life to someone who obviously knows even less about the subject than I do, but I'm pretty comfortable in my opinion as it Is in the consensus of EVERY credible scientist. Let me be clear, even though I vehemently disagree with you opinion I would fight for your right to express it. Sadly in every response to me you have ignored my central premise, which is to believe the Bible ( or any other holy book) you MUST presuppose its truth, everything you said is at best ad-hoc.

OK if you're going to just make things up, I will no longer be responding

I gave it a look but honestly couldn't sit through 40 minutes of presuppositional apologetics, particularly since I could find examples of the exact same thing from Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc... My point was, and still remains that virtually any world view can be justified if you already believe it and any book that suggests the cosmos are only six thousand years old has no credibility outside those who who choose to deny scientific evidence

Scientific research is neither propaganda or an oversimplification, it isn't a "novel" treatment in the way you're trying to present it (if propaganda is being used it's by you) again not only has it been around for a long time, many of the clinical trails used variations of S.A.R.S viruses not unlike covid 19

Easy, this is the first pandemic (the reason the platform was developed) since the mrna system has been sufficiently studied

Funny that you ignored the main premise of my post and yet confirmed what I said at the same time. Unless you presuppose the Bible is true, there is zero truth in it and referencing a site like creation.com that goes against EVERY scientific consensus does nothing but prove this

It's your body and neither I nor anyone else can't tell you what to put in it, that being said the mnra platform has been around for a long time and they've been doing clinical trials with it for almost a decade,so your above statement is not supported by facts

Honest question, why do you think your book holds anymore truth then say the Quran, the Pali Canon, the Bhagavad Gita or Dianetics

With all due respect, the Bible answers no questions unless you read it with the presupposition that it is already true. Fictional text(my opinion) written by scribes based on the oral traditions of first century illiterate bronze age fisherman and farmers (scholarly consensus) is nomore reliable then the iliad or huckleberry fin in their ability to provide truth Please don't get me wrong, I support your right to believe in whatever you may choose to, but the idea that your faith in a book can answer scientific queries by those outside your faith is laughable, or do you believe in Allah, Xenu, Brahman or Ahura Mazda as well?

Hahahaha , good one

You've said some batshit crazy things before but blaming the metric system for gas prices maybe my new favorite. I'll put aside the fact that metric is objectively and demonstrably a far better system. That's like getting mad that im shorter in metric because i only measure 1.89 as apossed to imperial where im 6'3. I find it hard to believe that what you spout are sincere opinions and you're not just playing a character. Though I will thank you for reminding me why i stopped coming here

First the theory of evolution(which is pretty well established) has almost nothing to do with origins of life(abiogenesis) Because it was an expansion of a singularity, there was no bang tide pools and hot springs. However, recently some scientists have narrowed in on the hypothesis that life originated near a deep sea hydrothermal vent. The chemicals found in these vents and the energy they provide could have fueled many of the chemical reactions necessary for the evolution of life." Funny no mention of pond or slime there What i was commenting on was the obvious lack of scientific understanding when one uses pseudoscientific terminology to describe complex theories they don't fully grasp, especially when it's to argue the existence of somthing that has zero scientific support the OP correctly states the atheists' Big Bang theory being touted in parts of academia Many religious people agree with both evolution and the big bang, and furthermore the notion that it's only "parts of academia" is a ridiculous claim. In conclusion neither of these theories in anyway disprove any god concept(which are by definition unfaulsifiable), and misrepresenting science just shows that some believers are willfully ignorant, of as you said "reality"

Seems so, atheists are in no way a tribe. Atheism still only answers one question, do you possess a god belief? The moral values, ideologies superstitions, philosophical opinions, etc.. . vary widely amongst atheists. Again unlike a religion there is not one book that everyone follows, no authority we must abide by,no specific tenets or ceremonies, etc, etc, etc..... Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but understand that what you've put forth in this discussion, is nothing more than that ,your opinion, and does not correspond with the consensus of academia or that of the general public.