There was not a single shred of scientific evidence in what you posted. Only arguments about others claims that were not backed up by any scientific data. Is that the best you can do? It's laughable.
Making the claim that some species evolved from others, because they are similar is not science. It is supposition. Nothing more.
While it is a fact that fossils exist, they do not support the theory of evolution, since there is another explanation for them. Try again.
I didn't ask for a freakin website. I asked for facts. Show me one. Just one.
In reality, there are absolutely no scientific facts to support the theory of evolution. Try to prove me wrong.
You have proven nothing. We both have statistics backing up what we say. But ask yourself this. If you were planning on killing someone, would you kill them in a state with, or without, the death penalty?
And I knew I should have banned you the first time you opened your mouth.
Wrong. Murder is SOMETIMES a crime of PASSION. I don't know the statistics, but many murders are planned in advance. These are the ones who will stop and think. Is this really worth it? And, once again, look at the number of murders committed by someone who has already murdered someone else. Do you even know how many? Do you even care?
It would also help if we televised all executions. People need to see the consequences for murder.
All I'm saying is that rational people pay attention to the consequences of their actions. Granted, most of them think they will never be caught, let alone executed. I never claimed that executions eliminated murders, but they DO have an effect. The data supports this.
Like I said before. Liberals have put so many restrictions on the death penalty, that it is not as effective as it used to be. If we had speedy trials and executions, it would definitely prevent murders, if for no other reason than those murderers are dead and can no longer kill. Do you have any idea how many murders are committed by repeat offenders? Then we send then to prison to learn how to be better criminals. Justice has lost it's teeth, and it's all because of bleeding heart liberal scumbags, who would rather murder babies before they have a chance to be born.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason the murder rate drops is because people who might be considering doing it might think twice after hearing about new executions? The fact remains. Whenever someone is executed, there are an average of 74 fewer murders.
Not a damn thing. But the numbers are valid for the years in question. Do you doubt that a new study would show the same results?
If you can read this and still believe that the death penalty does not prevent murders, then you are denser then uranium.
Statistics show that every time someone is executed, 76 fewer people are murdered.
Why should I do that? You'll simply ignore it. Besides, it's easy enough to GOOGLE. You do know how to use GOOGLE, right?
Sure there is. We have first hand accounts of the people who witnessed it.
I hear ya, and I totally agree. Too bad our elected officials lack common sense. And even the few who do are bought and paid for. We have the best government money can buy.
And how do you know that God is a delusion? Can you prove it? The answer is no.
You're right, I can't, and that's why I don't make the claim there is no god, I simply do not believe because of a lack of evidence.
You mention a lack of evidence. There is plenty of evidence. You simply refuse to believe, but it's not for a lack of evidence.
Jesus claimed to be God, in the flesh. There is plenty of historical evidence to support this.
There may be evidence to support a man from that time called Jesus, and even of his claims, but there is no evidence to support the claims being true.
Over 500 people witnessed seeing him after His Resurrection.
How can you explain Christianity without a Christ?
How do you explain Islam without Mohammed? How do you explain Scientology without Xenu?
No one is claiming that Mohammed was a fictional character. He was, however, a pedophile and a murderer.
They stuck to this claim in spite of being imprisoned, tortured and even killed.
Willingness to suffer for something has no bearing on whether something is true. People from all religions have suffered for their beliefs.
Do you know anyone who would suffer such torment for a lie? I don't.
They certainly would if they believed the lie. Remember Heaven's Gate? What about the martyrs of Islam?
It is one thing to die for something you believe in. It is quite different when one dies for something they have witnessed themselves. Jesus rose from the dead. That is the message they died for. They died for something they knew to be true. If they did not believe that it was true, they would have renounced Christ in order to save themselves.
Agreed. But I still have a problem with artificially imposed age limits. Not everyone is equal in development. As long as someone can demonstrate that they know what they are getting into, especially with their parents guidance and support, I don't see why a 16 year old cannot marry. I do draw the line at 16, though. I've met some very mature 16 yo. Can't say the same about 15 yo.
One day, you will learn the truth. Hopefully, it won't be too late. And how do you know that God is a delusion? Can you prove it? The answer is no. You can't. Jesus claimed to be God, in the flesh. There is plenty of historical evidence to support this. In fact, How can you explain Christianity without a Christ? The 12 Apostles claimed to have seen a risen Christ. They stuck to this claim in spite of being imprisoned, tortured and even killed. Do you know anyone who would suffer such torment for a lie? I don't.
If you believe that a Christian can become an atheist, then you have no conception of what a Christian is. There is no such thing as a former Christian. Becoming a Christian involves a fundamental change in a person that transcends the physical. It is a transformation that makes one a child of God. You may have called yourself a Christian, but you can call yourself anything you like. You're still you. And you were never a Christian.
The question is where do we draw the line? Some areas allow marriage at the age of 16. In some cultures, they marry even younger. I've always thought that 18 was too old. In colonial times, marriage at the age of 15 or 16 was common. What has changed between then and now, that someone can go to prison for having sex with someone the day before their 18th birthday? I think it should be based on a persons maturity, and ability to take care of themselves and raise a family. Also, if one is physically and mentally mature, they should be able to do what they want. Age has little to do with that. It's life experience that determines that.
So, I guess that means you are against protecting children from sexual predators. Is that what you are saying? And why are you trying to protect those who prey on children? Are you a child molester? Should I call the FBI?
