gc1765

Exactly. Now you're getting it. Now there's a catch-22. God can't create himself unless he exists...but God can't exist unless he created himself. Then you'd just have to explain where the entity that created God came from, ad infinitum see above The creation of man clearly depends on the existence of God, and the existence of God depends on the creation of God (you can't exist without being created).

Banks and airlines do not detain potential customers for 8 hours, and treat them they way these people were treated. It's one thing for the U.S. to refuse entry to their country, that is entirely understandable...but what's the point in detaining them for so long when there was no reason to believe they are a threat? How would you feel if I owned a bank and you walked inside and I arrested you?

What are you talking about? God exists doesn't he (it, she)? Just as man exists. Now, man came into existence through evolution. Most theists believe this is not possible, man is too intelligent to have evolved. God came into existence through some apparently unknown process. Most theists have no problem believing that something much more intelligent than man could come into existence through this "unknown" process. Is that more clear?

I'm not saying other cultures are superior to the west...but perhaps you could tell me in what way our culture is superior to every other culture?

Likewise, people who don't drive (or ride in) cars are also in the minority. Thus, it's easy for the minority to get stuck inhaling the toxic fumes from the majority. And being a minority, there's not much they can do about it. A carbon/pollution tax would not be politically popular.

Looks like we're back to square one. If you or any other theists have trouble believing that life as intelligent as humans could evolve from "nothing", then why do you have no problem believing that God, who is presumably much, much more intelligent than humans, could come from "nothing"?

That's pretty much what I figured you'd say. Your culture is superior, and everyone else's is inferior. At least you're are honest about it, I'll give you credit for that.

In other words, you don't have an answer to the second question?

Just like "we" integrated with the Natives.

Who created these life forms, and where did this creator come from?

Normally I wouldn't respond to such obvious trolling...but in your case I'll make an exception because I'm not actually sure whether or not you actually know the answer to that question. Here is the reference for murder being illegal...and if she didn't die, it would at least be Assault . Now, be honest...you already knew that and were just trolling, right? I mean you must know that murder is illegal, right?

They're not? Isn't that why we have elections?

Well, personally I don't go to smoking bars. But even if I did, I wouldn't ask you to pay for the extra health costs, but someone would have to pay for them. It could be me, or it could be the person actually doing the smoking. It's up to the private business to decide which. If it were my business, the smoker would pay. That's basically what I've been trying to say all along.

Because the Bloc will pretty much side with the Conservatives on any matter of confidence, since the Conservatives have promised to address the "fiscal imbalance". If I remember correctly, Duceppe has already said as much. I think that, given the choice between the environment and the "fiscal imbalance", the Bloc will choose the "fiscal imbalance". Hence why I think it depends a lot on the Bloc. ...but if the Bloc does have a free vote and votes against the Conservatives, it's just as likely that the Liberals or NDP will have a free vote and vote with the Conservatives.

Well, except when it comes to global warming threads. Then it's perfectly acceptable to think that global warming is a conspiracy theory and that kyoto is a socialist scheme.

Well, let's see. These numbers are rough estimates, but assuming that there is no "pairing": Liberals + NDP = approx. 129 seats Conservatives + Bloc = approx. 173 seats. That means 44 out of 124 Conservative members would have to be absent, and I think that big of an absence would be noticed. It's possible, but I'd say it's highly unlikely.

If it's the Conservative's plan, then I can't see the Conservatives voting against their own plan. That wouldn't make much sense.

Like Michael said, he was caught on tape removing boxes which he was ordered not to do.

I'm surprised that even the rest of Canada isn't too pleased with Harper's decision: "Nationally, only 27 per cent of respondents leaned toward Harper's position, while 32 per cent sided with the premiers." (same link)

At the very least "obstruction of justice", I would think.

I don't think so either...unless of course the polls show he is in majority territory. If the majority of MPs support Kyoto, why would they vote against it? The only scenario I can think of is the Bloc says "Give more money to Quebec" and Harper says "no"...assuming of course that the Liberals are doing well in the polls. The NDP? They oppose everything.

Such as?

Many theists don't believe that a life form as intelligent as human beings could have evolved. I'd like to know, then, how a species "a lot more intelligent than us" could have evolved.

I don't think we'll see a fall 2007 election, but that really depends on the Bloc. I don't think Harper can engineer his own defeat (even if he wanted to) without looking like a hypocrite on the fixed election dates issue.

Seems to me your argument here is about what "costs us" and not what humanity did or did not start with.