jefferiah

How do you define strong? Maybe some people do. But others consider it and evaluate its claims and decide on a basis of probability to believe it, at least in the absense of a better explanation. The fossil record does support the theory, it just does not conclusively prove the theory. Cite? If you substitute the phrase 'has not' for the word 'cannot', you would have a true statement. As it is, you have a mere conjecture dressed up as an assertion. Cannot is the appropriate word. Science is a vain attempt at perfect knowledge because it can only determine at best limited facts which are all divisible entities. Why is the fence red? Because a man painted it. Why did the man paint it? Because he didn't like the color originally. Why did he not like the color? Science cannot fathom the unfathomable because science is limited to discriminatory logic. In breaking things down and discriminating facts from observation there is always a certain amount of seperation from the whole truth. You cannot ever be objective or outside the system. You are trapped in the system. Neurons can transmit sensory material, but who is the receiver? Science can always delve deeper about what the lens is or how the image travels, but it cannot find the Perceiver. The thought is a spark, but who listens to the thought? Who understands the thought? There is no answer, yet it is apparent that something does. Evolution of life would say that life begins by accident and without real purpose or design. And yet the whole philosophy of evolution does a complete 180 and then supports the idea of purpose and in turn finds support from it. Evolution is aimed at preserving life and making it better. But for what purpose. Why would inanimate matter care whether or not it had the intelligence in order to survive in a certain form or organism. It cannot be destroyed anyway, right. Law of conservation of mass energy. Why do you blink when I move my hand suddenly in front of your eye? If you are nothing more than neurons what are you protecting? To what end was it a reasonable development to evolve the trait of clinging to a thing called life when you will die.

It's quite simple, Cybercoma. In the Bible it is said that for one man to lie with another man in the same way he lies with a woman is a sin. So according to many churches it is a sin. And if a certain churches official position on the subject is that homosexual acts are sins then that is their business. I think people like to make everything bigotry nowadays, and it can go too far. I don't understand how it is anybody's business really. If someone believes that homosexual acts are sins whose business is that. To believe something is a sin is not bigoted. Suppose you started a religion, or even just a social club, that forbade people to wash with Ivory soap. Washing with Ivory soap now becomes the equivalent of sin. It is against the rules. Anyone who wants to join is aware of this, so if they happen to have the "orientation" of an Ivory soap buyer, they will understand that if they want to join this is what is done. And if they don't like it, they don't have to join. Are you a homosexual trying to get a ministry? What is your beef?

And I find the troll accusation quite ridiculous.

Of course Betsy has made a few jabs, and her posts were not "perfect". I am not unaware of that. But I find it strange that you are jumping all over her for things she said when you do the same things yourself. You are fishing for offences. Overall I think she avoided being insulting quite well. And I think she presented her arguments very well. No one is forcing you to be religious. People are not busting down your doors, are they, in order to perform a forced conversion. Whatever your philosophy is, you won't get very far if you become distracted and ill at ease with people who believe in something you don't. I have no idea who this Dick Dewert is, but what's it to you. Especially if you don't feel favorably about the Church, why would you even care. If his wife and congregation accept his repentance (whether it be geniune or not) what does it have to do with you. So I think Betsy hit the nail square on the head when she said it had more to do with "religious" than "leaders".

People accept evolution on faith. The fossil record does not support the theory. No missing links accept for wishful thinking used in sketches on scant remains of animals. The original proofs of evolution have all been debunked. There are even evolutionists who will admit that school textbooks are outdated (still using the original pillars of evolution theory) and that evolution is a big leap of faith. Who is it that reads this post? You are made of elements. Yet there are no elements in the periodic table with the ability to read. Why should elements care about morality? When a boulder rolls off of a cliff ledge and begins hurtling toward a small piece of sandstone below, does it say to itself "That rock is my brother. I will not fall on it." For what purpose would elements (with no ability to think or feel anyway) organize themselves into complex beings which would care about morality and experience emotion when they could just be like the rock. And they will die anyway. No, there is something elusive to life that science cannot fathom. The molecule does not decide within its state of being unable to decide to develop intelligence. Nothing shall come of nothing. Intelligence is. It preceeds. Intelligence was, is, and always will be.

That's an intresting belief there. Since there is no proof to back it up, it must be a non rational belief. I only got a few seconds so I will make this quick....but a number of recent studies have provided strong evidence for a biological/evoloutonary origin to morality. Given that we can and do witness behavoir that humans would term moral in animals...and given that animals as far as I know do not practice religion...It might be fair to claim that morality exists independent of religion. Whether or not it exist inspite of it...I suppose is another question and would result down to a more subjective discussion concerning what is written in religous holy books, how it is interpreted, and how it relates to you... Strong evidence? Most recent genetic research you read in magazines is theoretical. There is no strong evidence. The fact that it gets published and makes a magazine does not make it established truth. Whether you believe in God or not or whatever you believe: an honest assessment of will show you that there is no strong evidence for anything when it comes to evolution science.

I think Betsy has been pretty dignified in her arguments. Newbie, it is quite apparent that "defrocked" was not a play on words. Where is the play? That's an attempt at a "save", I'd say. But anyhow. As for Cybercoma, it is your business if you wish to be an atheist, but Betsy is not hurting you. The original argument here was about this man being defrocked and it was not Betsy who exploded. She maintained the original topic until you sidetracked it with an all out attack on religion. That is your business to make that attack. I am not offended or anything, but nonetheless it is you and Newbie who seem to have the problem here and seem to be flying off the handle at something. Kudos to Betsy for well thought out arguments. As for accepting ex-cons as preachers, Newbie: you might be interested to know that it happens all the time. Two former members of the Manson family have ministries, as well as David Berkowitz. One of the great historical proponents of the faith, St. Paul, executed Christians before his conversion.

Come on now Jefferiah. Do you seriously believe that all five Conservative MPs who supported the motion did so for any reason other than to pander to francophones who might be lured into voting for them? One of the more intelligent comments on this situation came from Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre. He stated “They (Canadians) want to put the politicians into the penalty box and let Team Canada put the puck in the net." Poilievre was referring to all the MPs on the committee, including the Conservative MPs. Yes, I do believe that Norman. But let's just say for the sake of agrument that I am totally wrong. No matter what the reason is, the party you support, which by process of elimination is one of the parties which saw fit to express outrage over the issue, are getting what they want, so this should be a non-issue for you. You might as well go join Gilles Duceppe. You seem to think alot alike. Gilles is a Seperatist who cares not for Canada until it comes time to pick the hockey team's captain. And you are support a party which called Shane Doan unfit to be captain. Only when the conservatives vote to allow the investigation to go ahead (for whatever motive) do you see the investigation as unfit. It's almost as if you think the Tories initiated the whole issue here. If you think the Shane Doan affair is outrageous then you had might as well criticize your own party for saying he was unfit in the first place. Or else, you really think he is unfit. Which is it Norman? Or do you switch between the two when it suits you?

Now, Norman, if you do not like the Conservatives, then that leaves three likely possibilities as to what political party you do support: Liberals, NDP, or the Bloc. All of these parties expressed outrage over this most horrible of issues. First, it was the Bloc, and then the Grits and NDP jumped on the bandwagon. And then the Tories say "Fine, you can question Hockey Canada." How do I know this is why they supported the motion? Because it is quite apparent. They did not express any outrage over Shane Doan being captain. Rather, they were criticized for it, and the Tories, at first, defended themselves by saying, "Look, this is not our job here, to pick teams." And then there is the phone call from Stephen Harper to Shane Doan. You called this hypocritical. What a strange attack you make on the Tories. Now it appears you feel as if they are not being fair to Shane Doan and you are pretending to be offended for him. Why not let Shane Doan decide whether or not Harper's phone call was honest enough for him? What do you care? You are obviously a supporter of one of the parties that expressed outrage over the issue, since you are criticizing the only party which did not. So basically the Conservatives are giving your team (whatever team that is---Bloc, NDP, or Liberal) a chance to investigate for themselves, and you are damning them for being open and fair with your team.

It's damned if they do and damned if they don't. Just to play it safe, Harper has done both. He voted to support the Bloc motion and called Doan to tell him that he supports him. He can't have it both ways. Sure sounds like hypocricy to me. Norman, it seems quite apparent to just about everyone that voting for the motion is not the same as supporting the Bloc's claim that Shane Doan should not be captain. The whole country knows that Shane has been cleared before and will be cleared again. They did not support removing Shane as captain, they supported Hockey Canada being given a chance to present their reasons to the government. Suppose my neighbour accuses me of stealing his television, Norman. I deny the claim two or three times, but finally my neighbour says "Well, let me look through your house." To which I finally reply, "OK whatever, go ahead, suit yourself, take a look." Do you think I am saying this because I support his assertion that I have stolen his TV?

Since when has CPC not been willing to make idiots of themselves even when they didn't have the votes? Here's a recent example from December, 2006, where they were clearly willing to take what they viewed as a principled stand knowing that they'd surely lose: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/07/vote-samesex.html So why didn't CPC take a principled stand on the Shane Doan motion? For the same reasons that they can't think on their feet, or chew bubble gum while walking. This party of incompetents does best when they're touting carefully thought out policies developed a year ago like the motion to oppose same-sex marriage. But when they have to be spontaneous or react immediately to a crisis, they are a ship of spineless fools. Remember Norman that it was not the Tories who made complaints about Doan being selected to be the captain of Canada's hockey team. The Bloc complained about the current government not doing anything about it, to which there was a reply that it is not the government's job to pick who is captain of a hockey team. Then Layton made a complaint. And then Dion, while conceding that it was not the government's job to pick hockey player's said he found the governments silence on the issue shocking. All this implies that it was not a Tory agenda. Stephen Harper made a personal call to Shane Doan later to say that he has his support. So the Conservatives were simply letting the 4 year olds have their little inquest into Hockey Canada. Come on in, and look around boys, nothing to hide here, see for yourself what idiots you are. Oh by the way, Gilles, Doan scored a hattrick the other day. And I have to wonder why Gilles would be concerned anyway. Since he does not want to be a Canadian, why does he care who is captain of Canada's hockey team. He makes a big fuss over something as common as a complaint about a referee, and calls it racism. Meanwhile he lives in a province where you can be put in the can for using the English language in large font.

I think most people understand what went on, not to mention that the CPC don't have the votes to stop a committee from making idiots of themselves. At least we know now that Canada's most pressing problem for the oppposition is Shane Doan, thank goodness we can breath a sigh of relief that they don't have any more pressing issues to go on about and that Canada is running well. I saw on TSN Sport Desk this morning, that Shane Doan received a phone call from a Stephen Harper voicing his support for the captain and Team Canada.

The Tories did not raise the issue in the house, however. It was the other parties that did. And they criticized the Tory government for inaction on the issue. When the Bloc first brought it up the government's defense was that it was not a political issue, but they were still not satisfied. Dion conceded that it was not a government issue but said that he found the current government's silence on the issue to be shocking. I bet you Dion has lost a lot of sleep over it. So it's safe to assume that the Tories did not feel it was a necessary issue since it was never brought up by them. But once the motion was made, a vote in favour of it is like saying well "we'll let them have their little investigation". Even though I disagree with this course of action, personally, I don't think it was totally an unintelligent move on their part. In the end I think the press has made it clear who were the promoters of the motion, and everyone understands that this was brought up by the Bloc and then Layton and Dion mimicked outrage immediately after. Doan will be cleared. The Conservatives will allow the little babies to have their way and lose anyway. And the other parties look more like the idiots.

He wasn't. He was defending the authority of Parliament. Now who is trying to set up a strawman? Strawman? The Conservatives supported the bloc motion, and Michael Chong defended it. If they didn't want to waste time and money on this issue, they wouldn't have voted for it now would they? So please do explain why the Conservatives, and Michael Chong, supported the motion. If you want to avoid the question again, don't bother waiting for a response. I'm sure they supported it reluctantly, but they supported it for political reasons anyway. In other words, the Conservatives supported the motion because they're noble and high-minded whereas the Opposition supported exactly the same motion because they're a bunch of unprincipled scumbags. Here's an alternative hypothesis. The Conservatives, having previously shown that they lack brains and heart, have no shown that they have no balls. You are right that they had no balls on this issue. But are you suggesting that the other parties expressed outrage and crocodile tears over the "horrible" issue simply to prove a point about Conservative spinelessness? That maybe it was an elaborate plan and the Liberals and the Bloc and NDP are not really whiney over every miniscule issue. But I really dont think so. And you see the "damned if you do, damned if you dont" situation it creates. If the Conservatives ignore the issue, well they are thick headed bigots. And if they listen to the Bloc and the NDP and Dion they are spineless.

Well, supposing that what you said is true, Kuzadd: you've got a lot of nerve to say you are my friend when i was down you just stood there grinning you've got alot of nerve to say you've got a helping hand to land you just want to be on the side thats winning.........

Outrage over ridiculous little things is becoming commonplace in the House of Comics. The failure to mention the anniversary of the Charter the day after the Virginia Tech shootings was a so-called outrage. The backdrop used in a press conference which obstructed the view of Lester B. Pearson's glorious trophy was an outrage apparently. Calling someone a "dog" became an attack against all women. Etc, etc.

Argus is 100 percent right. But I think the Tories should have voted against the ridiculous motion. Had they not, though we would be hearing outrage for a month from the other parties about how they ignored this most important of issues.

Perhaps we should treat "terrorism" the same way we treat violent crime as well? No special laws for that either? Well of course we put stronger penalties on more violent crimes, but why for race, color or creed. That's ridiculous, and so is the comparison to terrorism. Terrorism is a generally a very violent crime with multiple civilian deaths. But as for "hate" crimes, what's the difference. The crime is the crime.

USA all the way, Man.

Shane said this in the course of a hockey game to a teammate. In a hockey game there is a lot worse stuff said than that. People get into real scraps in these games. A lot of stuff happens in the heat of the moment. A hockey player making a remark to a teammate about how unfair the refs are is not a big deal. I used to play soccer and when we played in other fields sometimes I can us all remember saying similar things about the refs there. That's sports. Go to the a discussion forum for fans of any pro team the day after that team has lost a game. You will see thousands of allegations about unfair reffing.

I'd be happy if we fixed the date of all our elections for the 30 April. I noticed that Harper has fixed the federal elections for the fall - the furtherest away from the date individuals have to file their income tax. August, given the fact that you didn't know who Shane Doan was, I can gather that maybe you dont know enough about hockey or sports in general to have figured out that people on every pro team and fans of every team complain about refs. Americans do complain about Canadian refs, and vice versa.

He shouldn't be the captain of team Canada because of those words? Doan didn't use an epithet in referring to the refs. He accused French-Canadian refs of bias in the only French Canadian city with a team in the NHL. What the f*ck is up with Denis Coderre and why can't he let this issue die? He tried to get Doan kicked off the Olympic team. Didn't happen. He tried to stop Doan from wearing the C this year. Didn't happen. Coderre made whatever point he was going to make during the Olympics. Going after Doan for the 2007 World Championships is childish and overkill. And who has never said something like that when watching a hockey game. Hockey is pretty emotional and people get angry during the games, especially players, and nasty words get exchanged (and these words were not particularly nasty). He just accused the refs of bias, whether true or not. In every game I watch you see players getting angry with refs, coaches getting angry with refs, etc. If it were a french player who had been made captain and he had said something at an Edmonton game about the the refs being hometowners or something, we wouldnt have this at all.

Of all the important national issues that could be brought up in parliament, the Bloc felt it necessary to raise a stink about the Captain of Team Canada? What does this have to do with the government? I think everyone is equally baffled about this. I read about it for the last few days like everyone else, but every article or mention of it in the news referred to the Shane Doan remarks with little detail. Tonight on Coach's Corner though, Don Cherry brought up the original Shane Doan NHL case. Apparently the horrible thing he said was not an insult to french people at all. It was a remark about the refs at a game in Montreal. He said to someone "four french refs" what do you expect. Not the french refs are bad, but I mean this was a Habs game in the Bell Centre...so he was making a remark (perhaps one he meant only in the heat of the moment) about the refs being partial Well, I am a Montreal fan, but I dont take offense to that. I dont know too many hockey fans who havent slammed the refs for being partial once in a while.

Just to give an example of how ridiculous the conference standings are: Vancouver finished in 3rd place in the Western Conference while Dallas finished 3 places below them in 6th. They are in a series together right now. Vancouver finished with 105 points. While Dallas finished with 107. Dallas is ahead of Vancouver in points but three places below them in the standings? And because of this Vancouver got home ice advantage. In the Eastern Conference Ottawa and Pittsburgh finished with 105 points a piece but were both ranked below Atlanta which had 97. To me this is just a little screwed up.

Calgary won again tonight, Saturday will be a huge game either way. Should be 3 points for a win and 1 for an O/T loss IMO. I disagree. Look at the NorthWest in the first half of the year. Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton, Colorado and Minesota were all a few points apart, but no where near Detroit or Nashville because the division was so good. It's important that this is reflected later on. I disagree about the overtime points. All games should be two point games. In the old days before the decisive shoot-outs the two points were split in the event of a tie after five minutes of over time. Now we have a clear winner and loser. What difference should it make if the game goes into overtime? 2 points to the winner in overtime and 0 for the loser. Makes no sense to give a losing team a point simply because they lost in overtime. For instance lets say Philly and Boston went to overtime with each other in the reg season this year. Philly wins and Boston loses. Meanwhile Washington loses to Buffalo by one goal in the third period. Is there some honor that Boston achieved by making it to overtime that merits them getting a point, while Washington is just a loser. Why this point just because of overtime? If they want to do conference standings those standings should be directly related to the amount of points a team has. Why should teams with less points occupy a higher place in the conference standings. Of course there is also the issue of the more games being played among teams within their own divisions. Hopefully next year we will see better scheduling where all teams have a chance to play one another.