gc1765

Well, I already pointed this out to you, but perhaps you missed it. From the same link: "Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution."

I love it when people can't admit they are wrong. Perhaps you should be arguing with all of These Academics

Employers do no such thing. Employees pay for it through lower wages.

I really hate this kind of crap. No kidding. It really takes away from people's arguments when they use insults like that. Aren't insults against the forum rules anyway?

The link I provided was This One ""Listen, I recognize the surface of the Earth is warmer, and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," said Bush." If you can't see where he says humans are contributing to the problem, I can't help you. I never said he was an expert on global warming, I was simply pointing out to you that you were wrong...and in the same post where you chastised someone else for being wrong, who actually turned out to be correct

Actually, the link says this: "Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution." You're right, maybe Bush thinks the substantial increase in carbon dioxide levels since the industrial revolution have nothing to do with humans ...and in case you don't know how to use Google, here's another Link "Listen, I recognize the surface of the Earth is warmer, and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," said Bush."

That's certainly the impression I got from This Thread

Don't laugh, a lot of people still think there were WMDs in Iraq...

Great, so you have no problem with a "Muslim Party of Canada"?

Exactly. I consider Canada Day a day to celebrate how lucky we are to have been born in (or be citizens of) Canada. Think of how lucky we are to be in Canada, rather than....say....Iraq. I'd say that's a good enough reason to celebrate

Fair enough. My original comments were directed towards a literal interpretation of the bible, even if I didn't state it explicitly.

If we are talking about a literal interpretation of the bible, then someone please explain how evolving over millions of years is not incompatible with being created in six days...and while you're at it, perhaps you could explain why something as seemingly important as this was simply left out of the bible?

Have you ever wondered why these things give us such experiences? Could it be that we evolved to appreciate these things?

I'm not trying to argue one way or another whether he has a right to refuse, I'm arguing whether he should have the right to refuse. Put it this way, homosexuals have the right to marry. Does that mean you are perfectly Ok with homosexuals getting married? Or will you continue to argue that homosexuals should not have the right to marry?

Only if it interferes with their ability to do their job. I could claim that working hard is against my religion, but employers can't discriminate against me because that is my religion, so employers should have to hire me even if I refuse to work hard? Is that what you are saying? Employers discriminate based on these things all the time. How many atheists get hired as priests? Perhaps I should apply for the position, then I can preach atheism and say "you can't fire me just because of my religious beliefs!". If I don't do my job, I would expect my employer to fire me.

I am arguing what the law should be. I suppose you could argue that it should be legal to steal someone's kidney and sell it for money, but I certainly wouldn't make such an argument. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not here to argue what the law is, but rather to give my opinion as to what it should be. I think you already know what my opinion is on the matter.

Is Dr. Gish breaking the law by refusing to prescribe morning after pills? No. Is a doctor breaking the law by stealing one of your kidneys? Yes. See the difference? In answer to your question, no I don't think they should have the right to refuse...just as you don't think cabbies should have the right to refuse passengers with alcohol.

Don't be silly, doctors still have to obey the law.

You think nationalism is an ugly beast, but provincialism is Ok?

I assume then, applying that same standard, that you have a problem with this?: I'm sure you'll start a new thread on how exclusive that political party is

I realize you're not a physicist...but "particles" = "matter"

From my links: "Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle" "This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles" "Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure." Again, my links were only intended to be an introduction to the topic. I suggest reading further on the subject if you want to learn more. I'm sure there are plenty of books out there which are much more in depth, and much better than the articles I posted. As for the rest of your post, you are clearly trolling, and I try to avoid feeding trolls as much as possible. Otherwise, they keep coming back for more.

Hmmm, for some reason I thought you were a Christian...but obviously I was wrong on that.

Very good point.

I agree with cybercoma. Once you acknowledge that the bible is not 100% true, where do you draw the line? How do you know what is true in the bible and what isn't? How do you know any of it is true?