B. Max

The validity of evolution does not depend on knowing how the first life began. So your argument falls flat right out of the gate. Even if an alien from the planet Zoltrex planted the first amino acid in the primordial ooze, that does not discount the fact that all life since has evolved from that point, through processes like mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Oh i think it does, even you have to keep bringing somebody into it to get it started. Which is what intelligent claims. Perhaps you could explain to the class the order of evolution.

Actually, more likely. A poor chicken farmer from the outskirts of Bangkok is less likely to travel to Edmonton to Ottawa than a middle-class Canadian (of european ancestry). Well, I guess if you are espousing a racial hatred website, and claim to be 'right wing' (and of the 'religious variety', no less) it could be said that we have documented fact that all 'right wingers' are religious wacko white supremacists....However, most people are above that. Way above. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is no racial hatred there only facts. Obviously facts are a foreign concept where one has to look up to see the sewer pipe.

B. Max is either flame posting or retarded. Normally, I do not say things like this, but I wouldn't waste too much more time attempting conversion to the logical side of life. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No i've been posing the questions that evolutionists can't answer. Questions that if they can't be answered totally discredit the theory of evolution. Of course the typical answer when leftist dogma, and this case what is at the root of the atheist religion is questioned, is you're retarded. Like i said before, such has never given us any reason to believe they didn't climb down out of the trees, and further begs the question did they climb down to soon.

True, but less likely. What we have is what we already know, and that is these documented diseases are already being brought in by unchecked, undocumented immigration and that is fact. Which is breaking the socialist health care system.

The earth is not round. The earth does not travel around the sun. These are arguments of equal calibre to your assertion that evolution is a fraud (a fraud, it should be pointed out, that is being perpetuated through generations, with thousands of scientists colluding to keep the truth, whatever that is, from us). I find it telling that you attack evolution, but offer no evidence of your own (I already demolished your "no transitional species" attack), nor presented any alternatives. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> http://www.rae.org/collapse.html No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century. No the reason for that is because there is no new evidence and all old theories have been discredited. http://www.rae.org/collapse.html

No. Links to organizations like the Heritage Front are revolting. Unflattering pictures of visible minorities, designed to show their apparent inferiority are revolting. But hey, if you want to continue to peddle such garbage, by all means: it only makes you look foolish. Given the declining quality of your posts, may I suggest latying off the booze while you post? You're quickly turning into the MLW equivilant of the drunk at the end of the bar, slurring out barely coherent rants about "those people". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The only thing declining is your ability to refute the facts.

It takes a special kind of bullheaded buffoon to stare straight into the piles and piles of evidence and the overwhelming scientific consensus on evolution, shut one's eyes, plug one's ears and chant "la la la, I'm not listening!" Meaning what? that somehow he prescence of human observers changed the results of the chemical processes? Or that they reached in and magically created organic molocules out of sludge? You have no idea what you're talking about. Evolution is a fact. Period. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Evolution is not fact. The fact so far is your attack of those who don't buy into the fraud.

Your barely making sense now. "Living" has costs associated with it. I thought you right-wingers were aware of that, given the oft-repeated mantra that "nothing is free". I am aware when confronted with a white supremicist web site to call it what it is. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No you simply wish to ignor the facts.

No shit, that website is revolting. If the left is accused of 'playing the race card', at least we welcome 'spades' in our deck. Those that reference sites like that haven't got a full deck. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I guess anything that flies in the face of leftwing ideology is revolting. Most especially documented facts.

Again: you are arguing from an ignorance of he evidence. Did you know that complex organic molocules have been created spontaneously in labaratory experiments? There are a number of scientific theories on how the early building blocks of life were formed. Due to the time span is question, though, that's not a question that canever be answered with 100 per cent certainty. However (and once again), science's inability to answer this question with 100 per cent certainty does not call into question the fact of evolution. The process of evolution has been exhaustively documented, demonstrated, and tested. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It has not, and that is why it is a theory, one full of holes and should not be taught as fact as it is being taught. Did you know that complex organic molocules have been created spontaneously in labaratory experiments? Good grief, a guiding hand. The next thing you know man will be calling himself god.

The costs of sprawl model growth are huge: decaying urban centres, continued overreliance on fossil fuels and the resulting pollution (and terrorism) etc. Are you aware that you're relying on white supremcist web sites for info? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There are no such costs. That is living. The alternative would be just an existance. I'm quite aware that when confronted with the facts that the left like to to play the race card.

Evolution can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. For instance, your link claims evolution is fraud because of a lack of transitional forms. Too bad there are dozens and dozens of such creatures: there have been more than 18 transitional hominid forms relating to humans alone. Again: the scientific community is united behind evolution. Evolution has never been seriously challenged because the evidence demonstrating it is overwhelming. Which were, in turn, derived from the stories and legends of a pre-literate nomadic people. I'm not going to get into speculating on the origin of the first amino acid and the later development of single celled life forms. Suffice it to say that science's inability to answer this question with 100 per cent certainty does not call into question the fact of evolution. In other words, your question is largely irrelevant to the debate and a typical tactic by creationists who cannot challenge the fundamental truth of evolution and instead, try to expolit the inevitable gaps in knowledge. It's worth pointing out, again, that your argument contradicts itself: if "many things depend on one an other" and one thing cannot "exist without the other", where did God come from? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We are not trying to answer the question of where god came from. We are trying to answer the questions that creationists love to avoid that totally render evolution a fraud.

Nearly 5 million jobs in 27 months; unemployment rate has dropped to 4.9%; GDP growth has been fantastic; govt taking in record tax revenues. Why won't Canada's Liberal Party cut taxes? No, I don't count dropping the EI rate from 1.98% to 1.95% a tax cut, nor do I call raising the inflation-indexed personal exemption $100 (resulting in a saving of $16 annually) a "tax cut" - like the liberal media dutifully called it. Btw, one has to wonder if the liberal media in the US would be so silent if Clinton had achieved numbers like this. I think we all know the answer. I wish we had a leader who says, "Doggone it. It's the people's money and they deserve to keep more of it." I'm paraphrasing, but I saw Bush say something similar on TV a couple of years back - in response to a question from the always hostile liberal press. Instead we get billions wasted on a gun registry, Kyoto junk science, national govt-run, unionized worker-staffed daycare centres, a billion dollars annually to a state-run TV station that churns out hard-left state propaganda on a daily basis, a refusal to legalize private healthcare which results in even more spending on the failed socialized healthcare system, and an expansion of unionized govt workers with bloated benefits which costs taxpayers more and more money. Sensible Canadians demand to be given more of our money back! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would suggest they don't take it in the first place. In fact the federal government should be stripped of all power to tax and have to have their budget approved by the provincial legislatures according to powers granted to it in the constitution.

Uhm..need I remind you that the majority of people who live in the burbs tend to commute to and from urban centres on a daily basis? In the event of a pandemic, they won't be the only one's commutting to the suburbs. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It won't be business as usual in a pandemic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No but the thing aboput pandemics is they spread fast. Any lag between the start of the pandemic and the realization that one is inprogress could be devestating. In any case, the real costs of sprawl (health, social and environmental) far outweigh any benefit derived from a pandemic scenario. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What possible benefit could there be from a pandemic, and what cost is their to growth. There will most likely be much warning of a pandemic because it won't be this country that it will start in, just as they have never started in this country in the past. It will be brought here through this countries sievigration policies. http://www.canadafirst.net/immi-kill/index.html

I don't know why I bother with this nonsense, really. I guess its just my left-wing belief in helping people, rathe rthan letting them wallow in their own ignorance. Anyway, evolution is a fact. The evidence that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history is massive and overwhelming. The only reason the word "theory" is used is because the only questions concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. The reason the word theory is used is because that is what it is, but it's so full of holes it really should be called a fraud. Gee, on the one hand we have modern science, on the other a collection of oft-translated tribal stories set down thousands of years after they occurred after being passed down through the generations of ancient desert nomads: which is more likely to contain glaring inaccuracies? That's a poor argument to support a thesitic origin, given the obvious rejoinder: if God created the first seed, who created God? Ah, Ben. One can't help but get the feeling that he's railing against sex because he couldn't get laid. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> http://duncanlong.com/science-fiction-fant...ies/evolut.html The reason the word theory is used is because that is what it is, but it's so full of holes it really should be called a fraud. The evolutionists believe they climbed down out of the trees or sprung up out of a mud puddle. Come to think of it, they have never given any reason for those of us who don't buy into the fraud to doubt them. The fact is modern science can not prove evolution so i don't even know why you would refer to it. On the other hand the bible was not written by people after the fact, but is was actually copied from much older ancient text and manuscrips. That's a poor argument to support a thesitic origin, given the obvious rejoinder: if God created the first seed, who created God? No it is another question the evolutionists can't answer as you have just demonstrated. Nor can they answer how, if things evolved over long periods of time, and since many things depend on one an other could one thing exist without the other.

Uhm..need I remind you that the majority of people who live in the burbs tend to commute to and from urban centres on a daily basis? In the event of a pandemic, they won't be the only one's commutting to the suburbs. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It won't be business as usual in a pandemic.

The cbc should be sold off. Period.

Do you discount archeology? The book I cited earlier has ample evidence to counter the exodus story, any secular existence of Abraham, Moses, or any of the Patriarchs. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, I discount history revisionists.

They most certainly should be taking the tax off gasoline and diesel. There are no feasible alternative modes of transportation.

People going off to college and suddenly transforming, becoming "liberal", shows that their parents did not raise them properly in the first place. If people do not have their own morals, then they will do whatever they want. As an athiest, personally I agree that the bible has some historical info in it. But it was written by people who, if they saw a comet in the sky, would probably run for their life for fear of their god smiting them down. Science explains lots of things and is constantly changing with new theories, while religion stays the same, even if the new science is 100% provable. I'm surprised that more religious people dont become like the Amish. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But it was written by people who, if they saw a comet in the sky, would probably run for their life for fear of their god smiting them down. Well we must be going backwards, for when people see a light in the sky today they think it is aliens from who knows where. Discounting the history revisionist, history should not change. There is no new science that i'm aware of that disproves anything written in the bible, or any science that proves elevolution.

I don't know that much about the herald but the EJ is a leftwing rag that used to be worse than it is now and was at one time loosing its subscription base to the sun. However speaking of facts. Here are some good ones. http://www.petro-canada.ca/eng/prodserv/fuels/8737.htm

Wow, that's some advancement. "Sex in the classroom" by Ben Shapiro – a mind-boggling first-hand account of sexual anarchy on the typical campus. As Shapiro summarizes: "Homosexuality is perfectly normal. Pedophilia is acceptable. Bestiality is fine." http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46152

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> They just whacked another 156 terrorists who won't be planting any bombs anywhere. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/09/10/1211143-ap.html

Well, file 13 your opinion, and give us the facts about what the US has done to harm arab nations. Stopping the islamic butchers from driving irael into the sea as part of their world wide conquest of one creating one islamic state after another is not a reason.

Maybe once the national debt is paid off, that would be something worth looking at. How odd it is that most threads B.Max participates in turn into sheer nonsense in short order. In regard to the idea of other provinces buying their poor a one-way ticket to Alberta, perhaps it is worth a look. Those people won't find Alberta's social programs more generous than those back home. However, they'll find little difficulty finding work. A win-win. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Those from other provinces who wanted to work have already for the most part come here and found it. If other provinces try sending us their free ride crowd we'll send them right back like we did before.