02.25.2015 10:58 PM

Do the Ontario PCs believe The Flintstones was a documentary?

Inquiring dinosaurs want to know!

30 Comments

  1. doconnor says:

    I was thinking that in the US a politian who didn’t believe in evolution wouldn’t be news worthy, while an politian who was an atheist would be. In Canada it is another way around. (At least I assume so. I’ve never heard it mentioned in the news if any politian is an atheist.)

  2. Patrice Boivin says:

    That MPP must have failed or skipped all his science classes (chemistry, physics, geography, history) from grade 10-12

    How did he ever earn his high school graduation certificate?’

    Or maybe now you don’t need to pass courses to finish high school

    • Patrice Boivin says:

      can’t edit my post but should read:
      (chemistry, physics, biology, and maybe geography, history if you think those ought to be treated as sciences)

  3. wsam says:

    Is making fun of someone for not believing in evolution making fun of someone for their religious beliefs?

    I agree creationists should be mocked a regular intervals. They are absurd.

    But where is the line?

    Can we make fun of someone for believing a superhero living in the sky watches and judges them?

    Or that a book written over a couple centuries more than 1700 years ago is the living word and testament of said superhero?

    • Kevin T. says:

      He’s not really a superhero, he’s more like a superhero’s dad.

    • Stephanie Powers says:

      I get so bored of atheists. They are sooooo much smarter and open-minded than the rest of us!

      Can atheists disprove that God exists? I admittedly cannot prove that He exists, but nor can atheists disprove that He exists. Hence atheists are no more right than I am; the onus is not any more so on me to prove His existence, than it is on them to prove He doesn’t exist.

      I, for one do not believe the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. So you can’t say all “Christians” believe man and dinosaurs co-existed. And yet not accepting a literal interpretation of the Old Testament doesn’t mean I have to discount or ignore it’s teachings.

      I’d like to see that smart alec take his mockery to the local mosque. It’s so brave and chic to make fun of Christians. These same cowards run for the hills when it come times time to apply their mockery equally to Islam.

      • doconnor says:

        If someone says something exists, the onus is on them to provide evidence. There are an infinite number of things you could come up with that you can’t disprove. There is no reason to believe any of them.

        • Stephanie Powers says:

          No, wrong. Did you make that rule up? Your non-belief, without being able to prove His non-existence is as much an article of faith as my belief is. You don’t see that?

          That goes the same for any number of things; if I believed that Hobbits existed in the ancient kingdom of Atlantis you are free to think I am ridiculous in my belief, that it is scientifically preposterous, but you’ve then used your faith in scientific principles to evaluate my belief, without being actually able to use that science to disprove it. So you in turn have exercised faith without physical proof.

          Go take a philosophy class or two.

          • doconnor says:

            My belief in science isn’t based on faith. Science is essentially understanding something by examining. That is just logical.

            Also science has successful improved our understand of the universe for hundreds of years. That is strong evidence that science works.

            Logic and evidence isn’t faith. It is science.

            I learned a lot of this by taking two philosophy courses in university.

          • Pierre D. says:

            Stephanie Powers, you need to provide evidence of your God.
            I can provide evidence of evolutionary processes/natural selection and have been able to for years, if not decades/centuries.

            Please head to a lab and provide testable and verifiable evidence of a higher being and report. Thanks!

            Back to this MP, big reason why I have not voted conservative since at least the Mulroney era. Regressive, anti-fact beliefs have no business in politics and education.

  4. Ian Howard says:

    Next will be a white paper on right to work legislation or a proposal to cut 100,000 government jobs.

    The party has clearly determined it is not fit to govern and is working as hard as they did under to Hudak to insure winning an election is impossible.

  5. Matt says:

    I realize you’re having some fun with this, but you need to be careful associating the opinions of an idiot or two witin a party with being the opinion of the party as a whole.

    After all, fed Liberal star candidate Andrew Leslie is of the opinion israel committed war crimes by “intentionally and indiscriminately” target women and children with their rocket attacks. Does that mean it’s the position of the LPC?

    Not an apples to apples comparison to someone calling evolution a “theory” he doesn’t believe in I grant you, but still.

  6. Freddie says:

    Unmmmm….Israel did.

    • Matt says:

      Ummmmm, no they didn’t.

      And Leslie has a history of accusing countries of war crimes. He accused Croatia of intentionally bombing civilians despite not witnessing it and having no evidence. The UN investigated and found the targets bombed were in fact military targets.

      Worse still, Leslie tried to contact two members of the Canadian forces to “do him a favour” and “find something to back up his claim”

  7. Michael says:

    This is what happens when your bench is so weak, that Monte McNaughton thinks we can lead the party.

    It may have been Rick Nichols who blurted out the comment in the Legislature, but all of this can be laid at the feet of McNaughton. It was his lead off question that led to the exchange.

    If you don’t want to vote for the Liberals, how can you possibly vote for a party where McNaughton is one of the rising stars and presumably cabinet material?

  8. davie says:

    I just had a look at a quickie overview of this revised curric. It’s in Huff post. It looks pretty good, step by step over the years, age appropriate.

    (I admit, the word ‘quickie’ is not mentioned in the overview. Shows how old and narrow I am.)

  9. Iris Mclean says:

    You know the Cons are in trouble when two of their three leadership hopefuls are hard-core social conservatives.

  10. Roger Rabbit says:

    Most Canadians, even church goers, don’t believe in biblical evolution because the scientific proof is overwhelming in favour of evolution. Now it’s shifted to ID — Intelligent Design, and that God exists and is the intelligent designer of the world including evolution.

    I don’t think it’s a debate between atheistic evolution and creationism because the former depends on scientific approximation while the latter is simply emotional beliefs that transcends logic. It’s not a fight between good and bad, it’s a political fight for the hearts and minds of voters based on ‘them’ and ‘us’.

  11. Kaiser Helmets 'n Motorbikes says:

    No offence, but that line is getting old.

    In fact, it is so old that millennium voters, a whole generation of adults, grew up AFTER Barney was off TV (they don’t watch TV anymore anyway), and they certainly don’t remember the “Passion of the Justin Christ” wars of the 1980s and early 1990s.

    No one who matters is seriously challenging the educational policy changes. You are beating a straw man, and it shows. Keep this up and it will be time for Warren to retire, and if that happens, what blog would rest of us use to vent and complain about all day?

  12. Joe says:

    So would or should Section 13 of the HRC prohibit people making fun and political hay of other people’s religious beliefs?

Leave a Reply to Stephanie Powers Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.