Canuckistani

But don't drag in science. Metaphysical means besides physics - ie the books of metaphysical ideas were kept next to the science books, not mixed up among them. (You could look it up. Or don't bother, i did it for you: )And here is what Wiki has to say about metaphysics: You want to talk about metaphysics, go for it.You want to talk about mysticism and inner wisdom, which you were really alluding to several times there, fine. (I think tho you'll find those topics are too delicate for a general forum like this. Most people have no understanding of them, or a very poor one. What did Jesus say? "Don't throw your pearls before swine.") You want to make of mess of those by bringing in empirical science, leave me out. It doesn't make you look very smart, either. BTW, long ago I walked out of the first class of a 300 level metaphysics course because the prof was not open at all to talking about mystical experience. He saw metaphysics as an empirical inquiry as well. So metaphysics may not be all that you think it is either. Have you read Ken Wilber? His journey started as a graduate student of Chemistry who got hung up on the assumptions basic to science that could not be proven. Goedel's incompleteness theorem, say. He began to look at the inner way, and has written an number of books on the subject - including the relationship between science and mysticism, and the different ways of knowing. You might find that interesting. Spectrum of consciousness, his very early work is a good place to start.

If it comforts you to think so, be my guest. I know I've been rude, but what you're doing really steams me up. It demeans scientific knowledge and inner knowledge both.

I do think you're being an idiot here, because you're trying to justify some sort of mishmash of the bible using science you don't seem to understand. You seem to be picking and choosing which part of the Noah's myth you're going to believe in actually happened with evolution you don't understand. I guess you've made up your own version of this myth that actually happened. You could recount it to us and we could then examine it from a scientific pov to see it that's feasible with our current understanding. But I suggest you just go for the inspirational part of the story, which seems to mean a lot to you, and leave off trying to justify it with scientific understanding. It just creates a mess that's easily refuted, and then where are you - stating that logic only takes you so far. Ok then, but then don't try to use logical deductions for your argument, you're trying to have it both ways.

Science says it's possible to house 2 million animals and all their food for 2 months on a wooden boat? Science says that the earth, within human presence (or any time) was covered in water above Mt Everest (funny how the bible didn't mention that mountain)? The science you tried to claim, that we are all descended from one person doesn't exist. And so on. But keep deluding yourself.

fine. Then don't let them also try to bring in science when it suits their argument. These people want it both ways. They want to believe in a higher truth, but then try to use science to back that up, but only when it doesn't conflict with their higher truth, otherwise they try to question the validity of science. Science is valid within it's own field of reference. The materialists make the mistake of trying to say that science can contain all human experience. People like Manny are walking towards fundamentalism, where they try to use science when it suits them, and just make stuff up when it doesn't.

Wow are you off.. How did the ark manage to contain 2 million animals (rough guess, two of everything, 1,000,000 land animal species) and food enough for what, at least two months? I thought you were a serious person, but you're just putting out bs here. This is what happens when you conflate your non-logical truth with science. You just make a mess. Yes, there are truths beyond what science can answer, but then don't bring in scientific findings to those. If you want to talk science, then stick to science. But since you don't seem well versed in that, why not just stick to your non-logical truths and leave science out of it?

Newfoundland-Canadian, Franco-Ontario-Canadian, Mennonite-Canadian, Inuit-Canadian, Cree-Canadian, Quebecois-Canadian. In fact if the PQ has their way, the Cree "Nation" has said the would secede and stay with Canada. If the FN"s are sovereign nations, I say we stop foreign aid tomorrow. There are countries that would be much more grateful for it than the FN's.

Tell that to the Indigenous Peoples

Actually, how do you know? It hasn't been tried. Yes we tried forced assimilation and putting them on reserves - that's not going to fly. But we could use a carrot and stick approach, offer assistance to any native that's willing to leave the reserves, while cutting funding for reserves. And one place we have to be very tough, IMO is this nonsense that dealings between natives and the govt of Canada are dealing between equals. I think the govt toyed with that because it was seen as a cheap sop to the natives, without any real meaning. But it goes to the heart of this country, or the question if it's a country at all, or a patchwork of sovereign "nations" who happen to occupy the space formerly called Canada.

When believers can say that God buried dinosaur bones in strata that appear to be millions of years old to test their faith, you know they can swallow anything.

That's a really good point, and maybe one many people just don't recognize anymore. I just saw a headline where the FN chiefs want to meet Harper as "equals." That's where this whole thing has gone off the rails, the idea that FNs are somehow outside of Canada.

Very well put. And I hope the AMA also investigates an MD who says he doesn't believe in embryology. To me it's way more shocking that an MD can be that crazy, we all know that politicians can. Anyway, he's well suited for US politics, since we've seen over than over that there are many dim bulbs in the US chandelier. The lights of the city on the hill seem to be flickering.

More binary thinking. They can be both, and most of us fly our freak flag in one way or another. Anyway, as far as the law is concerned, two adults should be allowed to marry and divorce, and the law should not concern itself with any "complications."

Yes, I misquoted and meant to reply to Betsy.

By definition science only deals with the natural. Things that might have seemed supernatural at one time might come to have a scientific explanation, but science can not deal with what is "super' to nature. Science is about nature. This is the mistake many people make, trying to conflate the two. Science is a very limited enterprise, but that is what gives it its power. Try to dilute it and you just get an ineffective mess.

Who cares. This person certainly seemed to want to have it both ways, and I don't see the problem. I guess it arises if s/he goes to a public bathroom. Or wants to work for a local rape counselling service. We had Rape Relief reject a transgender woman because she was once a man and they don't accept men. I wonder if they would accept this "man" since she was once a woman, or still is, depending on the day of the week. I don't care what people do, but I guess it could lead to some confusing situations. I don't see why the marriage is invalid. If I followed correctly, a former woman who identifies as a man married another man and had a baby. Since the judge says he might still be a woman, wouldn't this be a conventional male female marriage an totally valid?

Her name is Ethyl.

Don't know what this has to do with Indigenous Peoples - they're not going to save the earth any more than we are. The wan the same crap we have, they just use "we're the guardians of the earth" as an excuse to extort more money. How can they get more money from a country that greatly reduces economic activity - we'd all have to go back to living in tents. Most of us would die. If IP's are so set on going back to the old ways, let them, let them live a stone age existence. It won't support but a handful of them. But then they don't want that. They want what the evil white man has, just given to them on a platter instead of working for it. "Your rent check, sir." I mean the complaint is that they don't benefit enough from the economic development carried out by Second Nation's people. How do they expect to benefit from that development is they want to shut it down?

She's mad because she doesn't just get the adoring reception that Indigenous People's get from the white guilters and romantics. And a lot of the media. Somebody said that reporters turn into stenographers when they cover IP speeches. (Ie they challenge 2nd Nation politicians, but not First Nations.)

I think you're splitting hairs here. But if she looks white, it's likely because she is in part white, as so many "aboriginals" are. Many people claim aboriginal status because it pays ore feeds into their romanticism.

Sure works on the white romantics tho. They see the chiefs all dressed up in their feathers and funny hats and button blankets and they think "look at those happy, innocent people. I wish I could live like that."

I love it when Canada loses at hockey. It shuts us up for a while about it. Our reliance on hockey as a source of pride is embarrassing. How nice it is to not hear all the NHL crap as well, except now of course we have to read/hear stories about the negotiations presented as if they were real news.

The systemic discrimination crowd can outsqueak you any day of the week.

The earth doesn't need guardians it takes care of itself if we leave it alone. Native people's are no more guardians than others. The native people of Easter Island denuded it of trees, eventually causing their own demise. The reason the south Island of New Zealand is treeless in large areas is because the Maoris would set the forest on fire to flush out game - a common practice among many primitive people. The only reason Canadian natives didn't cause as much damage to the environment as the Europeans who came after is because there were a lot less natives and they didn't have the technology to really make a mess. The same technology they all want to make us of now. The noble savage, guardian of the earth idea is just another form of racism.

the pc answer is we define ourselves. She calls himself a man, bada bing, she's a man. This is a man with tit's - I believe he was nursing as well. But in the end, who cares? Two people got married, they now want a divorce. What's the hangup?