betsy

How sure are you that he had no hand in orchestrating his funeral? Note that I said, "funeral," not "state funeral." He couldn't have known that he was going to be given a state funeral.

A fact cannot be contradicted by a supposition. The facts listed did not become facts merely by my decision. All the facts listed on this board are facts - supported and documented. If you want to contradict the listed facts, then do so. But support your reasons with irrefutable facts! You can deny them....but that is merely your own opinion. In a debate, personal opinion that's not properly backed up is worth nothing. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Who's talking about you or cybercoma? I'm responding directly to Kimmy's post. WHy don't you read her post again? Hello, Canadien? Yoo-hoo. Can you hear me? Can you read or the words appear jumbled to you? Not getting enough oxygen, are we? And? So, it's physically impossible. Where's the argument? You're the ones who keep bringing it up like as if Noah's Ark is already a fact! You're arguing with no one! So I'll just set your so-called argument aside and ignore ....because I guess you just like to argue for the sake of arguing. BINGO! It could be. Since there's still debate going on - and who knows what future discoveries might be unearthed - we cannot make any definite conclusion! So you see, there's really nothing to argue about it! My supposition only happened to include other possible scenarios like "it's only the summary that was given, the account is therefore not complete," or that the flooding was a regional in the sense that it's probably the worst flooding they've ever had - a catastrophe - and never seen before. Just like we still hear about the destruction made by Katrina - they've had their own "Katrina." Why do you think I'm stating out clearly that my view could possibly shift? Because I don't consider it as an irrefutable fact!

I've been watching news and some political talk shows. CBC had viewers sending comments on who the next leaders should be. One comment brought up Olivia Chow, along with a request directed at Chow - "will you please consider running?" A pundit talks about the disparateness among the NDP members and that it was Jack who was the "glue" that held them together. He advises that the NDP needs someone to be the same, and recommends Olivia Chow, despite her poor French. I put my money on Olivia Chow. She'll be the next leader. That whole show during Layton's state funeral affair was designed to pave the way for her, imho. The more I think about it, that funeral affair - regardless whether it was a state funeral or a regular funeral - was well-planned in advance. Layton could've had a hand in orchestrating it, geared to propel his wife (or friend/advisor) to continue his vision, after all apparently he believed in, " a project that requires more than a lifetime." Runner up will be Layton's close friend and advisor - Topp(?).

I don't know why I'm even responding and explaining about hydrologic cycle and asking questions about Mt Ararat. My answer still stands: There is no argument for the simple reason that Noah's Flood is not listed as a fact. You may be trying to contradict the listed fact on finished creation, however, Noah's flood does not contradict it! How can you contradict a fact - finished creation - by using a supposition - Noah's flood? We're just surmising about Noah's flood! I don't know. You don't know. But you're using it like as if it's fact! Where is the evidence? I have stated that my view - that it's a regional flood - may even possibly change depending on any future discoveries. As for regional flooding - I think that's what it is! A major catastrophe in those days! Was it apocalyptic in scope? Was it like a miracle - something impossible that did happen? We don't know. And as I've reiterated, Genesis does not seem to give a blow-by-blow account. Maybe it's a summary. I don't think we'll ever know....unless there's another scroll out there that will be discovered - like the dead sea scroll - and perhaps shed light into this. How do we know that Noah's Ark is not allegorical? If I am able to believe that Creation did not happen in 6 actual days....why shouldn't I think that Noah's Ark is only allegorical - God's way of emphasizing about sin and repentance, redemption and punishment?

I've answered that so-called contradiction! I've answered your "volume of water." Your mind is so wrapped up in one ocean and one region alone, like as if the whole area is barricaded by walls of dam that no water can go through in or out! Like as if the whole world consist of just that one area! That there are no other oceans or seas to draw water from. And I even gave you the fact about HYDROLOGIC CYCLE - which explains just that! Do you understand how that works? But the rest of your argument - whether Noah's flood is localized, regional or global - cannot be argued really because nothing is stated as a fact regarding that matter. Which part of that is hard to understand? Boy, your way to debate reminds me of those old Newfie jokes. You want to gain entry by trying to climb up a very high wall with nothing but your bare hands, repeatedly falling...and yet ignoring to use the front gate that is wide open! HYDROLOGIC CYCLE. Drought elsewhere = because all the water that's been taken up are being dumped in one region? Other seas and oceans - I didn't say "empty" btw - from which to draw water from! How tall exactly is Mt Ararat? Give me that detail....I probably missed that, if you already did. Cite. Support that statement.

He would probably say that changing conditions led to extinction - but I don't think availability of prey would be one of them. Anyway, what happened to the simplest form of evolution? ADAPTATION? Did all food source -prey - suddenly disappeared that there's no time to adapt? If availability of prey is a problem, you'd think they'd at least learn to live on other things? Develop gills and start doing some dive-fishing? How about eating plants? Becoming vegetarians? Isn't evolution supposed to be for survival? My cat prefers to be a vegetarian - and there's not even any meat shortage in her diet! If my cat can eat veggies, why didn't the large predators of the past learned and adapted, considering it was a matter of life and death situation?

My eyes were moist a few times after learning of his death. I think it's more of the irony - it's like a Shakespeare tragedy. Politics is obviously his passion. To have taken the NDP Party this far, only to have to leave and not partake in it. It is very sad. It makes me wonder if it was the rigorous campaigning that ironically got him to succumb to cancer. But without his energy and passionate campaigning....would the NDP have become the official Opposition Party?

I'm not sure about it. I've heard the middle of an interview with the President (?) of the NDP (Anne McGrath) and the way I understood it Jack had expressed those wishes. Now, were they rehashing his words and retelling the incident when he appointed the interim leader? I don't know.

Watching the funeral this afternoon, as the screen shows a dignified, solemn woman walking behind the hearse, the NDP speaker being interviewed by CBC (or CTV?) spoke of Layton's widow, Olivia Chow, as a strong politician in her own right. That she was Layton's sounding board with his policies, that Chow shares the same passion....and that she is the "female version of Layton." I can't help but think: Is she being groomed for leadership? How many widows - some with no political experience - ended up winning and acquiring the seat of their late husbands, simply because of their husband's popularity? Corazon Aquino comes to mind (who toppled down Marcos). Then during the service, the anchorperson mentioned the "passing of the torch." Michael Layton - a councillor - gave a nostalgic father/son biking trip story that showed both are from the same mold. It shows he is his father's son. I wonder, does that torch be also that as leader of the NDP - to continue his father's work? I don't know if the funeral was exactly as Layton had wanted it to be - a lot of politics in it! In a way, it smells like a propaganda that can be used later. But we do know that Layton couldn't have known that Harper would offer a state funeral held for him. It's just this thing seemed to be so excessive. Layton must've been a truly nice, caring gentleman - but they've turned him into a folk hero or a martyr (can't think of the appropriate word). If I'm not mistaken - pls correct me if I'm wrong - one of Layton's expressed wishes is for Mulcair and Davis not to run for leadership. To give others a chance at it? Will Mulcair accept that without a fight? In the past, Craig Oliver and other pundits have hinted at Mulcair's political ambition to be the next leader....and how Layton keeps careful watch. For Jack to stipulate such clear wishes - clipping the wings of two hopefuls - there's more here than meets the eye. Possible storm brewing in that party. Do you think Chow or young Layton will run as leader?

To a believer, yes it is. Do we take it literally....or allegorically? Then of course, like in Genesis - there is evidence that God did not give a step-by-step account. Other verses from other authors give additional accounts or facts about the universe. As an example: FACT: EXPANDING UNIVERSE According to science, the universe is expanding, or "stretching out." There are at least 11 passages in the Bible written by five different authors that talked about God "stretching out the heavens," and all were made in the context of creation. These are all taken from the New International Version. More.... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=45 EXPANDING UNIVERSE: Science uses the word, "STRETCHING/STRETCHES/STRETCHED!" So once again, science proves that The Bible clearly described what science had only recently discovered. The Bible used the exact term, "STRETCHED/STRETCHES," in the right context pertaining to creation or design - the same term now being used by science! http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=274 http://www.science27.com/english/introduction1.html http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=90 ---------------------------------- No. There is nothing to argue about the Genesis flood for the reason I've stated earlier. What's to argue?? I have not listed it as a fact, have I? Because I don't have any scientific evidence that irrefutably supports global flooding - there are still debates going on out there. Nothing conclusive yet. Right now, I believe it's a localized - regional -flooding. I also stated that my view may possibly change depending on future discoveries or conclusion. Deal with the ones listed as facts. What's the conditions in other parts of the world? How many seas and oceans - all over the world - are there in those times? Was there any wind when and while the waters were subsiding? How sure are you that every drop of water was deposited right back into that sea - the Dead Sea. Anyway, where did all that rainwater come from in the first place? Which brings us back to another listed fact. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=45

Evidence of climate change. And that's without the C02 from your exhaust pipe!

Floated up in the ark.

Pardon?

Well, if you insist to say so, then what can I say? There are indeed some Christians who think Genesis is allegorical.

So you believe that God Planned, Designed and Created everything! That nothing comes from nothing. Okay. Now I understand you. Well, I do wish and hope you understand where I'm coming from too. We're not really miles apart in belief, you know. I just happen to believe that there some passages in Genesis that are literal.

Okay, I'l grant that perhaps you did read it....but as your responses show - empirical evidences I must add - you didn't understand it. Maybe you picked and choose? Skipped verses? Didn't have Bible Study footnotes for explanations of customs, word meanings, significance, correlations etc..? There is reading, you know. And then, there's actual reading....and comprehension. This is my second attempt at it. I'm still studying and learning.

Usually when one reads something, one can feel the emotion being evoked by the writer. Most definitely when the writer feels mirth or amusement, that emotion transcends and is felt and even visualized by the reader. Weird thing.....when I read your post above, I visualized a sour puss instead. You don't evoke like you're having fun at all. Maybe....you got problems with creative writing?

I'd be very surprised if you hadn't thought that....since I've plainly explained it before, on numerous occasion, that there are parts of the Bible that cannot be taken literally - such as the mustard seed as an example. That's why I'm telling you guys.....you should read and try to understand the Bible (even if you don't believe in it), since you're criticizing it and arguing about it! How can you criticise and argue about something you don't really understand. Mind you, you don't seem to understand your own position either....so I guess there shouldn't be any surprise there.

Since we've already established you cannot explain your own argument....I'll move on ahead. Ta-ta.

<stage whisper> Psssst. DOP..... Are you getting so flustered already? Frazzled, perhaps? Post that in the other topic, "What is a Christian?"

Well, why don't you explain your arguments for them so I can respond. The others sound familira that perhaps I've already touched on thgose, and you're just bringing them up again. ! Yep! That's another tactic used by the repetitive atheist. Bury it...and resurrect it again like as if the rebutt will somehow change the next time around. Just like Kimmy brought up the the pillar of salt argument again! If I bring it up again now, maybe the response will be in my favour. Such faith on their belief and great anticipation for that miracle! Are you fooling and lying to yourselves now?

New Atheists tend to pick and choose what they read, and love to take things out of context.

And I never said all of Genesis shouldn't be taken literally,either. So? That's the problem when you guys just pick and choose what you want to read....and take things out of context. Which by the way, is another defining characteristics of a New Atheist! Did I post that characteristic already? I don't think so. Excuse me, gotta go next door. Gotta add that. Thanks for reminding me.

So, you believe in Intelligent Design! Good! I, too believe that God Planned, Designed and Created everything! The only way we differ is that I don't believe in macro-evolution - basing that belief on the verse in Genesis (literally this time), and the fact that science has shown the fallacy of macro-evolution! Science supports the Bible on this one!

Nice try, again. Are you resorting to cheap tactics now? Is this the next strategy?