betsy

Prior to the debate, everyone in the media expected Harper to just hang on to his seats in Quebec. All he can do is to defend his position, explain his platform and emphasize on the economy. All media and political talk panels (including strategists) know that all three will pummel on him, and Harper is Diuceppe's "boogeyman," his main intention is to stop Harper majority. We'll see how Quebec will vote.

Scientists who remain close-minded and afraid to leave their comfort zones to seek answers - like Dawkins and company - and who are blinded by their faith are not scientists. They're paralyzed on spot. They don't want to know. They refuse to want to know. Numerous rebukes from other scientists/philosophers, some from the evolution camp (as supported by my various articles) only show the narrow-mindedness of Dawkins and his supporters) who are blinded by their religious fervor in the belief of no-god. They're nothing more but similar in mentality to radical Islamists who see no other options than to insist "death to all infidels," or to looney-people professing religious faith in committing atrocities. Scientists who remain open-minded and unhampered by bias are the true scientists. Dover School got slapped simply because of secularism in our society. As explained by the author - an agnostic - of the original article The Church of the Non-Believers.

If the polls on friday or at least 2-3 days after the debate show no further movement....I'm betting a majority for Harper. Harper did so well on that debate - downplayed by the media of course. All the other 3 (which were all fortunately bunch together as the 3 amigos - which is good subliminal message to viewers of a coalition) did all sorts of personal attacks on Harper. A lot of adhominem drive-by shooting from the three. Furthermore, they dug up and threw everything at Harper from Bush, to hidden agenda (such as re-opening of abortion and capital punishment), to rightwing Reformers among other things....which are really irrelevant in a debate whose focus should be on important things that truly matters. I thought Ignatieff was going to launch a Browning poem when he started the passionate "flowers blooming" line... Harper was the only one who refrained from personal attacks. He addressed the nation, and was very eloquent and articulate in his explanations. He displayed true statemanship, befitting a leader of a nation.

"Bad timing" indeed - and obviously well-orchestrated to come out on the eve of the debate. http://www.financialpost.com/todays-paper/Auditor+Generallaunches+probeintoleakedreport/4605368/story.html Most importantly, I want to know which Opposition source called the Canadian Press.....and since when did that Opposition Party know of the existence of that leak.

Phooey! "Messenger" my foot! This draft report - emphasis on draft -need not have any so-called messengers to deliver its message. It would've been delivered in Parliament - the final report, that is - had the Oppositions not disrupt Parliament for this frivolous election. This is not the case of a Whistle-blower! This is election opportunism, plain and simple! Refresh our memory please how this compares to Goodale's in '06. As far as I know, the RCMP were called by an NDP MP.

Yes there is. It's the reason Joan Dryden/Canadian Press did not ask for a copy of the draft! Furthermore, Frasier has now launched an investigation.

Joan Dryden from Canadian Press who did the expose' said that the leak came from a source of the Opposition (what Opposition?) and that she knew it was a classified document bearing several warnings one of which was says "no copies to be made." She said that's the reason why she did not want a copy, and her informant only showed it to her to read and just take notes. Pat Martin, member of the Kangaroo Committee commented on tv that the Tories will probably throw another aide under the bus. This guy's more interested in partisanship than asking the crucial question.....who committed the illegal act? I want to get to the bottom of all this. What Opposition Party was the leak source working for? How long did that particular Opposition Party knew of the existence of this draft? How long did they abbett this illegal act? It is not coincidence that this leak came about at the eve of a debate. I want to get to the bottom of this! This remind me of the Wikileaks - except this one was obviously done in the name of cheap shot partisanship! We cannot tolerate this kind of behaviour. Nip it in the bud. There should be a full enquiry....and prosecutions!

This was written prior to the official founding of the New Atheist movement. Excerpt from... For science to truly want to know, there is yet lots to explore....

Of course there is. We believers call it faith. And you just said it. It's personal.

I am not the one seeking truth. In my view, I've already found it. I agree wholeheartedly with that. Actually that's the point of one of my argument with the radical evolutionists such as Dawkins and his followers, or those who would not consider Intelligent Design. As what one of our members here clarified that science is based on wanting to know. It seeks answers. If you truly want the truth....you shouldn't put a limit as to how you will find it. You've got to be prepared to think and step outside the box, and have the courage to face whatever it is that gives the truth.

This is the interpretation from the Bible study: In comparison to one's devotion to Christ, one's family ties must be secondary. This does not set aside Jesus' other teachings to love one's enemies, to honour father and mother, and the like. It does highlight that absolute loyalty to Christ is paramount, even though in many societies, including the one in which Jesus taught, as well as many today, following Him involves precisely the either - or that this verse sets up.

The samples were given...had you bothered to read the whole response!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Richard_Dawkins.27_battle_with_online_fans No wonder the dispute was bitter among them. It's the classic pot calling the kettle black! If I'm a radical atheist, I'd be whacking Dawkins too! http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Abrasiveness_of_Richard_Dawkins His followers are just mimicking him...and yet, Dawkins ends up calling them names! Unbelievable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html

"Proof of evolution!" Pfffft. "Proof of evolution!" Pfffft. There's been so many hoaxes and fraud committed in the name of evolution. There's been so many irresponsible assumptions done in the name of evolution. Boy, it's like dealing with the boy who cried wolf. Can you blame me? Wake me up when you've got proof. Irrefutable proof.

Oh boy, he's throwing a fit again! I tell ya the civility couldn't last.

So what if there are only 4 or 3 or 2 or even 1 Creationist scientist(s)! One lone Creationist scientist who managed to get some evolution scientists to abandon evolution and instead embrace Intelligent Design speaks for itself!

Here's what I found from my side. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/#presentsci Not as long as yours admittedly. Besides I told you what's numbers got to do with it? Is this an election? Are you polling? You equate greater numbers as proof of evolution? Anyway, I've given names of some prominent atheists (some are scientists) who ended up converting to Christianity, or becoming deists....meaning, seeing/understanding evolution to be false. Can you provide names of prominent Creationist scientists who defected to the evolution camp?

You know what, Toadbrother....I've got a big problem with this term "NON-FUNCTIONAL." Let me quote my source again: This reminds so much of vestigial organs. Remember? The presumed non-functional organs such as the appendix, the tonsils etc..? Let me refresh your memory. http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html And now here you guys go again jumping to hasty conclusion with these ERVS. Be patient. With hi-tech you probably need not wait a century to discover why it's been Designed that way.

Yes there is. The group that bangs hookers and blames natural disasters on homosexuals are not following the teachings of Christ! Whereas your group's doctrine - for all its bravado about their "rational religion" - is not rational! And yes, they do have one thing in common: hypocrisy! or lunacy! That statement is out of context. It's not the atheists in general I'm talking about! Either you're being blatantly deceitful in your argument - or you're not paying attention to the discussion! Get on the right page! Not bigotry? Really? What's your definition of bigotry, btw. These offensive disrespect are all done on Christianity. Give me a sample where they showed blatant offensive dis-respect on Mohammed or the Quran....along the same lines as the one portrayed above on Blasphemy Day. CITE! Your words alone aren't worth much considering the way you bastardized history in the thread TEACHERS BRAINWASHING CHILDREN....which I patiently corrected your gaping errors! Therefore, cite a sample from your source.

Go nextdoor to video debates for the answer. "Quote-mining," is a convenient accusation thrown at creationists by atheists, even though not all creationists do this deceptive measure. However, some atheists do the same thing - quote mining - you need not go any farther to see some examples. All you have to do is check some of the quoted statements taken from some posters by quote-miners in this site....they're usually taken out of context. Anyway, when I posted that long original article in Video Debates, some complained why I posted the whole thing (which I didn't).....and if I post only a part of an article, they say that's "quote-mining." Gee, it seems you guys don't want your opponent to be able to present her own argument. At least an article is more informative than miles of useless ranting! Btw, that url that's given....you know what's that for. To check out for yourselves where the material was taken. You can verify for yourselves whether there was dishonesty or deception involved with this "quote-mining." How do you know they're "incredibly small numbers?" Do you have the exact numbers? Besides, what's numbers got to do with it? They managed to get some atheist scientists to drop evolution like a hot potato, didn't they?

So they say that it is proof of evolution! I've given you a link that critiqued Theobald, and which you ignored. This is just an excerpt from that critique. It's a long one, a very long read....and I didn't even bother reading the whole thing myself. You should read that since you've seem to have got your belief hinged on it. My belief however, is not hinged on this...what endogenous retroviruses do as they go do their little going on moving from here-to-there, carrying whatever it is they want to inject and how what they inject can do their own little gig blah-blah-blah. I hope you get my meaning.

Why does it concern you so much what I know? I gave you better sources scattered all over several threads....from CREATION, to NATURE OF EVIL, to FUNDAMENTALIST ATHEIST PREACHER, to CHURCH OF THE NON-BELIEVERS, to VIDEO DEBATES and INTERVIEWS, to REJOICE ON THIS DAY (which btw is my favorite thread of all). Most of these sources are more credible and authoritative than you and I - unless you consider yourself along the same level as Schroeder and other scientists who deal with cosmology, physics, math, biology etc..,

http://philophil.blogspot.com/2008/01/antony-flew-richard-dawkins-and-gerald.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder

That's what you say.