In other words, SirJoseph you don't know the rules in Ontario, and you don't know them in Alberta, so you're just indulging in your ignorant disdain of a province you know next to nothing about.
Wulfie, no I did not Google for what the position is in Ontario...
...And yes, I do know them in Alberta, from the news item on CBC I quoted in this thread.
No. You read one slanted article by a CBC reporter which doesn't quote the text of the bill at all. That does not constitute knowledge of the bill, only knowledge of one reporters view.
The fact of the matter is that SirJoseph and his ilk don't like to admit that Albertans are less extreme and closer to the center in their political views than most Liberals of his ilk and use propaganda pieces like this to bolster their view and justify looking down their noses.
Do you really deny with a straight face that Alberta is more conservative than Ontario or Quebec? Alberta is the home of Reform party and Alliance, which were very much parties of the right. Even during Mulroney era, the MPs and cabinet members form Alberta used to be blue Tories, those from Quebec red Tories, and those from Ontario a mix of the two...
...I don’t know how many examples you need to support my contention that Alberta indeed is much more conservative than Ontario or Quebec.
I never denied Alberta is more conservative than urban Ontario. Hell, you guys elected Bob Rae's socialists as your provincial gov't, which would never happen here (thankfully!!!). What I said (and you even quoted me) is that
most Albertans are closer to the political center than your brand of Liberal. You bring up the religious right whenever you talk about Alberta without knowing what the hell you are talking about. There isn't a religious right here: there is a strong quasi-nationalism (which in some case almost crosses into seperatist sentiment) that was fostered by the arrogance, disregard and abuse of federal gov'ts under Trudeau and Chretien (and to a lesser extent Mulroney and Martin). The slogan of the Reform party was " the West wants in": it wasn't religiously motivated but more to try and send a message that Westerners wanted to participate in gov't without having to sell their out their political beliefs and submitting to the Trudeau's and the Chretien's who didn't give a rat's ass about what we thought or wanted.
I can even go so far as to refer back to that little political spectrum survey where my results were just resting on the left side of the center line, and other "conservatives" on this forum were in the same position or even more left of me. You never posted your results that I remember but your espoused values should place you even farther left. We can talk about how flawed some of the questions were, etc. but it is at least a form of cursory proof of where my political values lay.
And so what if Stockwell Day is a fundy? I don't believe whate he believes (I don't even consider myself a Christian) and no one out here says I have to. Its called independant thought, which is a trait that is prized out here. Do you not disagree with some members of Liberaldom or are you all required to submit to the Hive mind?
Wulfie, you are only partly right. You are right that burden of proof rests on anyone who makes a claim. However, claiming that something does not exist is not a claim. Claiming that something exists is a claim.
Wrong again. If you claim someone's belief is false or erroneous it is incumbent on you to prove your position. If you can't then you need to shut the hell up and let them alone. If they want to push the belief on you then the same holds for them. Your aetheism is just as much a claim of belief as something like Stockwell Day's christianity is... and neither belief has any credibility without proof, which neither of you can provide to me.
Back to the main tangent of evolutionary theory vs creationism, Coldstream, the reason for what you are calling the uniformity of natural laws is dictated limitations imposed by the environment. Evolutionary theory also explains some of the similarities in terms of common ancestry with other species. In the end evolution is a theory and does have some physical evidence to back up some of its assertions. Its not totally proven, thus it is a theory. Conversely creationism has no physical evidence to support it as theory and relies on faith. I would also argue that evolution doesn't postulate that there is no creator, but rather that literal acceptance of religious dogma (i.e. the Bible) is erroneous... and its not alone in that regard. Literal acceptance of the Bible invalidates a lot of science including entire fields like palaentology and anthropology because the time lines don't add up.
