ethics conflict with Natural Selection for they tell us not to kill, not to steal, and not to do things that may benefit us individually.

The fittest is not always an individual; e.g. humans who are able to coordinate with other humans are more successful in hunting.

If a human steals from another and is shunned from the group, their chances for survival/procreation are diminished.

1. Do you have any concrete examples? In other words, something that actually happened? Evidence.

Honor killings, forced marriage to rape perpetrators, etc. happen somewhat often - do you not get out much?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1081214/Somali-girl-pleaded-mercy-Islamists-stoned-death-raped.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StoningofDu'aKhalilAswad

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/08/ 18/the-afghan-women-jailed-for-being-victims-of-rape.html

Spousal rape is still legal in many countries.

"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." - Deuteronomy 22:28-29

1. Give an example of a society that would match your statement.

Basically any country that is a democracy where each vote is counted equally.

there would be no dilemma if morality were relative

Incorrect - there is still dilemma in not knowing which course of action will have the more desired outcome over time.

The existence of moral dilemmas proves that either a God with objective moral values does not exist or that God judges us based on a morality that we can not access.

A simple moral question such as "Is murder justified?"

Even the ones that appear simple really aren't. Is the death penalty murder?, how about mercy killing?, killing Hitler?

If Osama bin Laden is in a bunker with 10 innocent pregnant women and you can't send in special forces, can you morally bomb the bunker? does the equation change if it is 1 pregnant woman, or 1 million? Would everyone come to the same conclusions as you?

The old testament allows eye for an eye, the new testament does not, which one is objectively right?

It says that in less than 1700 years God went from "Let us make man in our image" to "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

It says that a 600 year old man built a 32,000 sq ft, 4 story high wooden boat

In Gen 6:19-20, it says that Noah should bring 2 of every animal on the ark, but only 4 verses later in Gen 7:2, it says that Noah should bring 7 pairs of all the clean animals and 2 of all the unclean animals

It says that, for a second time, all of mankind is the product of incest amongst one family

It says that all land animals were killed except those on the ark which came to rest on Mount Ararat; yet somehow land animals came to exist on islands and continents that those animals could not reach on their own.

It says that, according to the Usher dating, this all happened just 4362 years ago, even though there is no evidence of a worldwide flood and there is evidence of contemporaneous civilizations that were unaffected.

But thankfully, it also says that god creates rainbows so he will remember not to kill us all again...

-- From Genesis 6:5 - Genesis 9:19: (though people should definitely read the verses right before and right after for even more weirdness...)

Wow - you get an A for tenacity even though you still get an F for reading comprehension.

People have repeatedly told you that you are wrong. We have linked you to the actual bill text from the Library of Congress website and others (like opencongress.org, senate.gov, gpo.gov, etc.) and to places like snopes that specifically debunk you.

You have consistently posted links to bills that never passed and misread the bills that you link to.

The wording is different from the last bill

You still haven't posted any wording that would require RFID implants.

How are they going to make it mandatory

Through the IRS - by having people include information on their taxes and assessing a penalty if they did not have coverage.

The affordable Care Act is nearly completely implemented http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/full.html

So, by what date are you required to get your chip?

I'll meet you back here on that date and tell you we told you so...

Ah - the good old false equivalence.

You paste a large blob of opinion (which no longer exists) from a wikipedia page and somehow that is the same as a wikisource page where you can click and see the original document.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America.djvu/10

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America.djvu/19

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America.djvu/20

Wikipedia is a possible starting point - not an ending point.

It is useful when someone posts a fact with a verifiable link to a credible source;

when you read paragraphs of nothing but opinion - caveat lector.

Yes, the war was largely about protecting the institution of slavery - see my posts on the other side for the reasons the Confederate states gave for secession

The Confederate constitution outlawed the slave trade

It did not outlaw slavery

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

- "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

- "1. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any state of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property: and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

- "the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states."

Your argument only goes to the grammatical deficiency of the debate creator who also created the positions: "Yes its racest" and "No its heratege"so it's taking a bit of the easy way out.

Would you like to address the question as to whether people who fly the confederate flag today and are so enamored with that particular part of American heritage derive any of their admiration from the racial stratification of the civil war era?

The same place you will almost definitely go when you die - the ground.