betsy

Let me expand on my statement above. In a way, I am envious....or in awe (I can't seem to think of the proper word at the moment) of these scientists who wavered, and most especially...especially of those who eventually converted to Christianity. Fascinated by that inner struggle....what a dilemma to bear! Envious and in awe in a way that only mere contemplation and speculation on my part....about how it must feel for them to suddenly come to the realization that with all their superior knowledge and capability....they unmistakeably found God! I assume these people did not just come to that shattering conclusion so easily...there must've been great skepticism and reluctance....of double-checking...or triple checking to make sure. But they just keep coming to that road sign saying, "Yield"...."God Up Ahead." I could only imagine how it must feel that exact moment of realization....the one that made them convert.

Wow! I said: Speaking as a believer in God, what fascinates (is that the right word?) me about scientists is the awful position they must find themselves in when they find science inevitably pointing to the existence of "Design"...or "Intelligent Design".....their sort of acknowledgement of a God. Do you even read at all? I was explaining about my own fascinations and speculations....SPEAKING AS A BELIEVER IN GOD! I don't even think we're on the same page. Bye-bye.

I pulled this thread up for TruMetis. As for that link, here's another one. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html

This is my statement which you just answered: However or whatever scientists do to arrive at conclusions does not alter the fact that some scientists wavered (and that includes Darwin).....and some are still wavering as we speak. And you say that means absolutely nothing! Then pray explain why there is such a term called "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" being bandied about by some scientists? Nothing is wrong with my sources. Btw, where are your sources? And on that same token I have to mention that if Darwin himself said evolution was entirely false.....it could very well also mean that he spoke the truth and was right! No, you're wrong on that. If you honestly and truly want to know what Darwin really thought about spiritual matters, including the origin of species....read his correspondence, specially the ones written AFTER the publication of Origin Of Species. Try this link: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html So you say I got my ass kicked. Why such crudely contentious, almost- insulting words in response to what I'd consider just plain simple statements from me. Kinda gives the impression you're on defense mode right away! Mind you, that's just your opinion, you're entitled to it. But really, why does talking about this kind of topic makes it seem so contentious right away from start? And speaking of opinion, you ought to read that thread again....and I suggest you also read the thread, "REJOICE ON THIS DAY" before giving yours. For your convenience, let me pull the Darwin thread up for you. That way, I can't say you're just doing a typical pick-and-choose statement here and there....or just loosely throwing baseless opinion. Makes debate more credible and worthwhile that way.

Sorry. Double posting.

I am not talking about his alleged conversion near the time of his death. So the reference to Lady Hope is irrelevant. I am talking about his waverings. Darwin himself - in that letter which he wrote Fordyce - clearly stated his own admittance regarding what he called his FLUCTUATIONS ! His long correspondence with ASA GRAY also clearly shows his spiritual torment! Speaking as a believer in God, what fascinates (is that the right word?) me about scientists is the awful position they must find themselves in when they find science inevitably pointing to the existence of "Design"...or "Intelligent Design".....their sort of acknowledgement of a God. I am not setting out to prove anything either. As a believer I don't need any. I was just referring to scientists and people who set out to do their own investigative work to prove their belief.

However or whatever scientists do to arrive at conclusions does not alter the fact that some scientists wavered (and that includes Darwin).....and some are still wavering as we speak. I mentioned Darwin because his correspondence with Asa Gray showed the conflict in him. The following is taken from an old thread titled, "DARWIN," in this forum. "Finally, in December, Darwin sent up the white flag, conceding that "f anything is designed, certainly Man must be; one's 'inner consciousness' (though a false guide) tells one so; yet I cannot admit that man's rudimentary mammae ... & pug-nose were designed .... I am in thick mud;--the orthodox would say in fetid abominable mud."[/1]16 From this point on, the topic is not as central in their correspondence. Following the publication of Darwin's book on orchids, however, he asked Gray to look at the last chapter, since Darwin believed that it bore on the design question. Gray's response was found in both his review of the book and in a letter to Darwin. In his review, he praised Darwin for having "brought back teleological considerations into botany." He concluded: We faithfully believe that both natural science and natural theology will richly gain, and equally gain, whether we view each varied form as original, or whether we come to conclude, with Mr. Darwin, that they are derived:--the grand and most important inference of design in nature being drawn from the same data, subject to similar difficulties, and enforced by nearly the same considerations, in the one case as in the other.17 Gray may have believed that Darwin "brought back teleological considerations into botany," and Darwin may have swung that way in his book on orchids, but by 1867 Darwin had definitely swung back to the other side." http://www.asa3.org/...F9-01Miles.html http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14060&st=0 And an excerpt from his letter: "what is perhaps his most revealing response, a letter in 1879 to John Fordyce, an author of works on scepticism, Darwin writes: "My judgment often fluctuates…. Whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term … In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. — I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older), but not always, — that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind." http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/what-did-darwin-believe-article

double posting.

So the Liberals are back to the Numbers Guy (Census). At CBC Evan Solomon Power and Politics, they vow to waste time and taxpayers money by rehashing this issue come September. The Liberals staunchley declared that they will eliminate that clause in the census form that threatens citizens with jail-time. Evan Solomon clarified: Well, so therefore it won't be mandatory then. The Liberal MP was only momentarily stumped, and quickly added something like: Oh, we'll threaten them with fines instead! Solomon asked: Wasn't it a Liberal leader who said that government has no business inside the bedrooms of citizens? Isn't this intrusive? I forgot how the Liberal MP answered that....but I mean, they will hijack the time in the House to prolong this non-issue issue....instead of them addressing real concerns!

I doubt if theists with true faith seek spiritual comfort from scientists. It is just interesting to note that views of some famous scientists were not conclusive with the findings they hoped and wished to find. The fact that they wavered - like Darwin -, some even to the point of conversion really say a lot. As I said in the other thread "Rejoice....," if you set out to prove your belief, if you're honest, you must be prepared to disprove it. The honesty is the hard part.

Who rammed this fantasy called multi-culturalism? Resulting in a climate siwnging like a pendulum....from one extreme to the other! The never-ending kowtowing of politicians towards some "flavor-of-the-month or pet-of-the hour" by the liberals ...(some of these politicians are forced to do some politicking in order to survive)..demonstrating a double standard that condones offensive insensitivity by one group towards another....what do you think? How long do you think this will go on without any repercussions? You may justify the building of this mosque and invoke constitutional rights.....nevertheless, it is a provocation. It is utterly offensive and insensitive! You think only the Muslims have citizens with misguided sense of martyrdom? "Heroism?" You think only the Muslims have looney tunes?

Leaders of Muslim Congress call on all Imams to publicly denounce jihad and Hamas. They say not to do so means that the Imams approve. Further, the Muslim Congress leaders say that this is not the time to be politically correct. They express concern that the backlash from growing anti-Muslim sentiments will hurt all Muslims. If there is indeed Islamophobia that is starting to sweep the USA....I am not surprised. It is not the protests that enboldens radicals and extremisms. The irony of it all, it is actually the liberals who unwittingly created this kind of climate.

Einstein was not an atheist....he was a deist.

Governments are helping....but the lack of response are from individuals. Where are the concerts by rock stars? Fundraising events by hollywood celebrities? Understandably, it's hard to open one's wallet when you see the hate-protests aimed at you. Unfortunately for them the generous mostly are from the west.

...and the CRTC guy. There's so many in quick succession I gave up remembering their names! <yawn> I smell desperation from the Opposition. Not just simple desperation, but the mother of all desperation! A couple of separate press conferences by the Liberals (Martha F Hall and McGuinty). The dramatic backdrop for Martha Hall's press conference were four black-and-white photographs of "Harper's casualties." Her tone, matched by her face, was so somber. The clicking of cameras added to the ambience. At first I thought somebody died. Talk about Drama Queen! Then with CBC Evan Solomon, Liberal MP McGuinty was on a roll about the latest straw the Liberals pulled out of their hat: the RCMP guy who's an ardent supporter of the Gun Registry. He started naming the people fired by Harper.....and bravo for Evan Solomon who interrupted and challenged McGuinty's sneaky nice try when he included the name of the Ombudsman. Solomon corrected him saying, he was not fired. His position was not renewed, and that there's a big difference. And the truth of it, that won't be the last. But what's giving me heart palpitation is the way they keep throwing that word "enquiry" like as if taxpayers' money grow on trees! I tell ya you gotta watch those Liberals. They will do just about anything these days.

Plus what with our economic hardships....most individuals have limited funds to spare. Apparently a lot of poeple state their preference where the money they are giving should go. I remember humanitarian organization (I think it was World Vision) asking people not to specify "Haiti" anymore. The organization wanted to be able to direct the funds where they are urgently needed.

Real concerted effort by media and UN to raise funds. I am not sure if this had happened before but guy claiming to be from World Vision came knocking in our neighborhood yesterday.

So you hate Harper. That is your issue. Then start your own topic about it then. I've already explained to you about my statements....

And how did the Liberals view Chretien's tantrum - physically assaulting a protester - while he was a Prime Minister??? I wouldn't have brought out this comparison between Guergis and Chretien....however, just only recently during Ignatieff's bus tour stop in Shawinigan, that photo op with Ignatieff and Chretien (and Liberal Prince Trudeau laughing his head off in the background) strongly showed how insensitively they trivialized that incident - when our then-Prime Minister had clearly lost his cool in public and behaved like a drunken hooligan,- treating Chretien's shameful behaviour not only as acceptable.....but as a badge of honor! That photo-op showed it all! So Harper was praising her for her work! So what? She may have been good at her work before the incidents...don't some if not most employers try to stand up by their employees in public until they have real reasons not to? As you said, who knows what the real reason was why he got rid of her. At least he refused to be pressured to spit out the allegations in public. As for Rona, I'm curious why do you bother to wonder when it's all just a fantasy in your head at this point? Instead, why not chew on the obvious? That photo-op of the three laughing amigos. Ponder on the glaring contradictions that the Liberals had presented on how they view and treat the Guergis tantrum and the Chretien tantrum. Quite brazen, in fact. Scary if they sit in power....no need to even wonder about that. Two-tiered justice. Untouchables. Abuse of power. Those are just a few things that quickly pop in mind.

Well read again what I had to say about the Liberals.....and why! For someone who claims he isn't defending the Liberals, your reaction seem to be just that! I am fuming of the way the Liberals played the Guergis scandal! It was the Liberals who pushed too hard to get Guergis fired or to step down when she had her airport tantrum. It was the Liberals who again, wanted her to step down or get fired when the Jaffer scandal broke out. When Harper finally moved her out of caucus and gave the case to the RCMP, it was the Liberals who strongly pushed for Harper to divulge the allegations publicly! Harper stuck to his guns and refused to go down the tabloid path. Conservative MPs in talk shows cautioned and reminded everyone that these are just allegations. It was the Liberals who were rabid at these talk shows in shredding Guergis' reputation - even the NDP showed some restraint! AND THEN SUDDENLY, when Guergis was cleared by the RCMP....the Liberals started to play the hero to this fallen lady! This is not about partisanship on my part....although I am admittedly a Conservative. I am just so appalled at the way the Liberals treated Guergis....and the sleazy way they tried to cash in on it at every possible angle! Like it or not, among all three leaders....Harper and Layton behaved as they should. Ignatieff, being the leader of the Liberals, unfortunately, for all his high education and all....ended up lowly and trashy. The bus tour photo ops with Chretien parodying Chretien's goon-like behaviour only proved it all the more! The Liberals made a big deal out of Guergis' verbal tanturm at the airport....and yet they see nothing wrong - in fact they're even proud of Chretien's PHYSICAL ASSAULT tantrum directed at a protester! You might hate Harper....but that doesn't mean the incidents I've described above did not happen. Hating Harper is one thing....but turning a blind eye on the reality that played out in high definition is another!

Yeah, he got me the first time. Upon reading some more....this guy is actually fun! Couldn't helped but be amused by him. Yep, he's a character alright!

Aid to flood ravaged Pakistan trickles so slowly. The voluntary aid is dismal in comparison to world reaction towards Haiti which garnered millions in the first week. News reports had cited several possible reasons why the world is so slow to respond, CBC Evan Solomon quoted UN in giving the growing "anti-Muslim sentiment out there" as a reason. I tend to think that that is one of the real reasons why. Pakistan has been prominent in the news relating to Afghan war, Taliban insurgents and anti-Western protests besides, there are numerous other nations in the planet that need help.

Where did I "strongly implied that the Conservatives would not act like hypocrites?" If you are not defending the Liberals, then you agree with my opinion regarding their shamelessly sleazy behaviour regarding the Guergis scandal! So why are you arguing? I'm more like directing those accusing fingers where they ought to be pointed. The Liberals! I just pointed out how the Liberals are trying to do a sleight of hand....it's kinda like a shell-game. You gotta follow that hand real well...because they are sharks! You seem angry. Are you angry?

I am deeply troubled when I read a couple of pages from this topic. WHY IS THIS MANSOUR MOHAMMED....or whatever his name is....ALLOWED FREE REIGN TO SPEW HIS VENOM IN A CANADIAN FORUM???? PLEASE, DON'T SPEAK ABOUT THE VALUES OF FREEDOM FOR ALL! wE ARE AT WAR, AND CLEARLY THIS GUY IS AN ENEMY SYMPATHIZER AT THE VERY LEAST! If Maple Leaf would not remove him on this board....I urge the rest of the forum community to show solidarity as one....and ignore and refrain from acknowqledging his existence on the board! He is nothing!

I was talking about the Guergis scandal. I was referring to the sleazy outright bald-faced move by the Liberals regarding Guergis! Stick to the topic. According to polls, so did other Canadians....and that includes me. The NDP, at least showed some ethical restraint - and common sense - about the Guergis affair (at least that's what I saw in some political talk shows). The Liberals, of all people, had the shameless gall to demand the resignation of Guergis when she had her airport tantrum....and yet during the bus-tour, Ignatieff and Chretien (with a laughing Justin Trudeau in the background) gleefully parodied the the thug-like behaviour of the-PM Chretien when he grabbed a protester by the throat. When you compare the tantrums of Guergis to this physical assault by Chretien....not only does it glaringly show the hypocrisy of the Liberals...but also their arrogant contempt for all Canadians whom they believe to be all stupid!