I cannot offer you anything that will spare you from death, which is what you want. Death is inevitable. This is as hard a fact as there will ever be. Death is inevitable. That is the truth whether you like it or not. Death is the fate of everyone, that is not some arcane pontification in some old book, that is an everyday reality. It is undeniable. To deal with this discomforting fact you've grasped onto some ancient mythology, the dominant one of your culture as many others have to ease your anxieties. Which is well enough, if it makes you feel better, believe whatever you wish. But you have doubts, I can tell, which is why you are so insecure about it. If other people believe the same you would feel more confident about what you believe, but the trouble is that many people --intelligent people even -- don't believe. These people exacerbate your anxieties so you lash out at them.

Deuteronomy 32:22

For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Sounds to me like Hell is clear in the Torah.

In Hebrew the verse says SHEOL, not Hell. Sometimes the KJV translates Sheol as 'grave' and sometimes as 'Hell'. The Jews believed that EVERYONE goes to Sheol at death even the righteous, thus it cannot be considered synonymous with the Christian Hell, despite what deceptive translations might have you believe.

Why do you bother talking to me?

That's a good question.

It was that blatant gender discrimination that I wished to dispute. Too often I've seen the fact of a wage gap asserted as itself being evidence of systemic gender discrimination, especially vocal among those in the universities (with the infamous 77 cents figure which is a bit deceptive for the reasons I've already outlined). Of course dating preferences, career choices, and individual choices have their own alliance of causal factors, but they are different factors and call for a different sort of assessment. If there are those on the left who echo my sentiments, I have not heard them, but I welcome them nonetheless.

It supports the claim that there is a gap, and it disputes the oft-implied cause of the gap: systemic gender discrimination.

Interesting how there is no Hell anywhere in all of the Torah, no mention of it whatsoever. The Jews had no concept of hell whatsoever until they came into contact with the Greeks. In fact almost all of the early works just called it Hades. The term 'Hell' etymologically stems from the Germanic-Norse pagan underworld HEL, notice it has only one 'L'. In Norse Tradition Hel was not only the realm of departed souls, it was also the name of the Goddess who ruled over it. This Hel predated the Christian Hell by a few centuries. This borrowing of ideas and language is what social scientists call Cultural Diffusion.

The concept of Hell is distinctly pagan in origin.

You don't get the message......I'm not interested in your insistence that you are as god or better than God.

You are losing your grip on reality, you have this penchant for imagining me saying things and then criticizing the things you imagined me saying.

I tried to be nice to you, that worked for about a minute

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "worked", but if you want to convince someone of some proposition try providing supporting facts and arguments. Being nice while appreciated is not going to convince anyone of anything, and as you've learned nor is being an intolerable cunt. Glad to see that being nice is just a ploy for you to get what you want.

you have been nothing but a jerk as if being a jerk

Yes, generally, I am not kind to those who are not kind to me. I don't know why you think you can insult my family and still expect me to be nice to you. Didn't anyone ever tell you to not poke the Tiger?

Why do I even bother? You are incapable of staying on topic.

This is just becoming sad and pathetic.. Your behavior is becoming more and more childlike as time goes on.

This is just becoming sad and pathetic..

Ah yes...salvation! The invisible, unmeasurable, unobservable, cure for the invisible, unmeasurable, unobservable, disease. How dare I not believe the superstitions of old men from antiquity on face value? God must be outraged!

So the transitional species weren't ways of life..? Fucking brilliant. Your ability to spout incomprehensible nonsense is unparalleled.

Out of curiosity how many nonbelievers on this website have you been able to "save" ?

What is your problem?

I don't have a problem. I'm on a debate website, debating.

Just because you can't justify your life

I have no need nor desire to 'justify my life', least of all to you. I think what gets under your skin is that I don't agonize over my rejection of Christianity. It is just one of hundreds of religions. I have encountered no especially convincing reason to think it is any more true than the innumerable other religions that you dismiss outright without so much as a second thought. This seems to bother you. The only reason I have even given it as much consideration as I have is because it is the dominant religion of my culture, and for literally no other reason. I am in fact quite happy and content with my current philosophical and theological predilections.

For now I'll call you Bob. It keeps my mind fresh to remember I'm leaving you behind due to your incorrigibility.

And yet, your activity here shows anything but. You continue to spam all of my posts with sometimes as many as 4 -6 replies to the same post. Does that sound like leaving me behind?

You made me laugh, so I'm giving you a point.

What it boils down to is this, a heterosexual woman seeking a mate will strongly prefer males in lucrative careers. However heterosexual males on the other hand, while they may still consider income of a female mate, it is not nearly as large of a factor for them. One study found:

"“For men there is no amount of income that the woman in the bottom ten percent in terms of appearance can earn to make men prefer her over women in the top 10 percent. That is, looks really matter to men relative to income. For women though, if the man in the bottom ten percent in terms of looks earns more than $248,500, they will prefer him over the more attractive guy earning $60,000.” http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/do-women-really-value-income-over-looks- in-a-mate

.

.

.

This effect is amplified in nations with skewed Male-to-female sex ratios. In China for instance, a survey from a popular Chinese dating website found that 72% Chinese women preferred a mate that had nearly double their own salary. In fact the gender wage gap is worse in China than it is in the United States. This creates a tremendous social incentive for men to aggressively snatch up all the high paying careers they can, and indeed that's exactly what happens. It is very unlikely the gender wage gap will go away without imposing draconian "Equality of outcome" policies, or re-engineering the social fabric of society. The gender wage gap is the result of the differing mate-selection strategies employed by the sexes, there is no fact in my OP that can't be explained by this reality.

I don't know why you insist on calling me Bob. It has been pretty well established, that despite your warrantless accusation I am not smilingbob. Smilingbob and I don't even hold the same opinions. The only thing we even appear to agree on is that creationism is bullocks.

so dispute the facts presented.

Don't plagiarize your sources and I will. As you've seen numerous times already, when I present an argument you are unable and unwilling to address it, and you've admitted yourself that you don't want me to respond and have no intention of giving any sort of rebuttal when I do, so this is merely empty remonstration.

Crying "bias" is not putting up an argument

I'm not "crying" about bias, I'm "crying" about plagiarism, in so far as pointing something out equals crying.

I could easily reword it all and claim it as my own

If you were to explain the concept in your own words, then it would in fact be yours. The reason you don't do this is because you don't understand the subject matter well enough to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Why bother?

Integrity?

and try to assassinate my character

You do a well enough job of that yourself.

You insult the source I copy and pasted as "biased"

No, I was merely postulating why you wouldn't cite your source. After all, if you can copy and paste multiple paragraphs then you can copy and paste a url.

yet you totally fail to dispute even the tiniest of the points I presented

I had no intention of doing that. My intention was to chide you for plagiarism and I did exactly that, did I not? To express in fine detail how all of the facets of your plagiarized piece epitomizes a fundamental misunderstanding of geology would not be difficult at all, albeit a bit more time consuming than what I've said here.

Hiring professionals to build a home costs more than buying one. How does that lessen the financial need for a mortgage?

they are not "transitional species", they are bones of individual animals.

As opposed to?

The Torah (Old Testament) was written in Hebrew with a few chapters -- Daniel and Ezra -- written in Aramaic. The new testament was written in Greek. I know for Roman Catholics almost everything is done in Latin, not as much anymore..

For Muslims Arabic is a bona fide holy language. That is, if the Quran isn't Arabic then it's not really the Quran, though that may perhaps be the more traditionalist view. In fact many translations will have the original Arabaic, juxtaposed to the translation. This view of the Holy Language may not necessarily extend to other religions. Christians by and large don't recognize any holy language in any similar manner except maybe roman Catholics or Greek Orthodox, perhaps. Whether orthodox Jews view Hebrew in a similar way, I cannot say.

Before I was born my father had sold the house that he and my mother were living in, he bought some property and he and my Grandfather started construction on a house on the land. Both of them had Construction experience, but no experience with house-building specifically. My grandparents at the time were foster parents for the state and my grandfather had enlisted the help of some of the foster boys to help build the house. It took a few years and they finally completed construction. The house was 'different' from other houses, it had plumping, electrical, and other things a house would normally have, but you could tell whoever built it had no experience house-building. It was worse quality than the house they sold so that they could build it. There were a number of serious mistakes that were made during its construction. I have no doubt had my father had built a few more houses he would have gotten much better at it. Years later when someone bought the property they had the house demolished.

Keep in mind this was with 7 people or so, two of whom had construction experience, and a couple years construction time. I can only imagine how it would have turned out with one person with no construction experience.

I dont even know where it came from

Sure you don't. It came from Answersingenesis.

If you are so stupid that you think I'm tyring to pass that off as my own composition

What you're doing is called plagiarism. This is done intentionally because you know your source is incredibly biased.

All you do is act like a jerk insulting me

I must have missed the part where I called your mother, sister and wife a whore.

You still haven't answered the question. Was that adaptation the result of a genetic change? A yes or no will suffice.

You want me to respond to your argument, fine, I'll responded but then I'm going to need you to start responding to mine. Otherwise you surrender all right to complain. Sound good?

Was that adaptation the result of a genetic change? A yes or no will suffice.

Had I said anything about the earliest days of the American education system that might be a pertinent point to raise, However I did not, nor have you addressed what I've actually said. Should this be regarded as a concession of the points that I raised?

If I recall correctly the Antifederalists cited the absence of Christianity in the Constitution as the reason for their opposition to it's ratification.

That's still 50+ years of allowing The Pledge of Allegiance

That's neither here nor there. By this logic it should have never been changed in the first place. The pledge had always been 'allowed' it hadn't been revised to include the phrase "Under God" until 1954. To rephrase your question to more accurately reflect history it should read: Why did it take until the 20th century before adding references to Christianity in the Pledge and on currency? And the answer to that question is simple enough, that's when the Cold War happened.

I often found it interesting why did it take up to the 21st century before removing all references pertaining to Christianity?

The original pledge didn't contain the phrase "under God". That wasn't added until 1954.

Can you explain the difference between something imaginary and something that "doesn't exist outside of our heads"?

You and I have something in common Saintnow, it is incredibly easily to tell when either of us has copied and pasted something from another website. For you it is when you inexplicably begin using vocabulary and grammar that is well beyond your ability, and for me it's when you see quotation marks and a source. Perhaps you should give credit to Heather from Answersingenesis for writing that piece that you've passed off as your own.

No, I just understand the concept of sunk cost. Poor people rent, and is one of the contributing factors for why many of them will stay poor. The advantages of buying are numerous, as any financial expert will tell you. That some people overexert their finances and take on debt that they cannot handle is no argument that all debt is bad, or that all mortgages are bad. Do your homework first, understand what you are getting yourself into, and for Godssake don't take on debt that exceeds 25% of your income.

Money paid as rent is a sunk cost, never to be recovered. Money paid as a mortgage is an investment in the equity of a house, which is retained by the person paying the mortgage. The advantages of buying over renting are numerous, and for those who cannot afford to buy a house outright, a mortgage might be the only feasible option to buy.

Was that adaptation the result of a genetic change? A yes or no will suffice.

What exactly do you think you are accomplishing here? You're certainly not here to engage in thoughtful discussion or spirited debate. You're certainly not persuading anyone to accept your lord, if anything your belligerent obnoxious self-righteous behavior has scared more people away from your religion. You are doing more harm than good. You've epitomized the 'Christian who couldn't be any less christlike' trope if he tried. The only thing you seem to have succeeded in doing is making an ass of yourself. Fortunately I have Christian Friends, family, and relatives that I have love and respect for, so I know they're not all like you. You are doing more to hurt Christianity than I ever could.

You didn't address my argument at all

That's a funny complaint coming from you. You never respond to my arguments. Instead you seem to obsess over the fact that I'm not a Christian, and bleat on about hell. Something tells me that you live a very sheltered life where you don't come into contact with non-Christians very often. You want me to respond to your argument, fine, I'll responded but then I'm going to need you to start responding to mine. Otherwise you surrender all right to complain. Sound good?

It is you who doesn't know what I am talking about.

I don't think anyone does, yourself included.

I understand the science and how it is used to illustrate belief in evolution.

No, you don't. This has been demonstrated multiple times, not the least of which was you saying so yourself.

.

.

Saintnow: "There have been no sworn testimonials of anybody claiming to actually have seen monkeys morphing into people"

Saintnow: "Nobody really knows what evolution is or how it works..."

If man evolved from apes why are apes still around ?

Is this a serious question?

This is what you said: "if somthing is made up, then it's "All in your head" since Homosexuality is a product of differences in brain structures, it is contained within the head, and doesn't exist outside of the head."

I don't care what you say

Then why do you keep responding?

Outlaw doesn't grasp the concept of debate.

his chaotic emotionalism is understandable as he wrestles with his shame.

I would say the same of you.

He's a dead man now. Now the CIA is watching all the porn he had stashed away on his thumb drives.

Listen, idiot, it was Old Testament Law given to Israel. We live under American law

I understand that, which is the reason I put forth the hypothetical situation. If you were living under levitical law would you or would you not kill a gay person as commanded in Leviticus?

Since you decline to speak against women being cheap to give their bodies away

I'm not declining anything. I will state clearly and concisely that I have no moral objection to faithful sex by consenting adults inside or outside of marriage. My stance on sex is simple: If you are having sex be prepared for the consequences, and if you are not prepared for the consequences then you shouldn't be having it. It's as simple as that.

Despite the fact that we are both non-theists with a more sophisticated vocabulary than you, we are not the same person.

Bob is a moral relativist whereas I am a Consequentialist

Bob subscribes to the 'Christ Myth' view

Bob is an idiot 9/11 Truther.

I've been on this site for 6 years, bob has been here for less than a year.

Now that we have that out of the way.. your aversion to contrary views is already noted. One wonders why you joined a debate forum in the first place as you seem to have no intention to debate anything.

10,000 people over the course of 200 years. That's 50 people a year.

The objection raised by Jupiter was that the Bible contains a command to kill homosexuals, and it does, and your response was that Christians must obey the Law. Yet when I ask you if it wasn't against the law would you kill gays, and you still say no. This tells me that intuitively you understand that it is morally wrong to kill gay people and that your conscience couldn't bear the act. So why then would there be such a morally reprehensible commandment?

Why don't you get down on the Muslims as their law commands the killing of butt buddies

I have.

However this hardly addresses the criticism that is being levied here. That those people also do it isn't a defense.

If it was legal to kill gay people, like it is under Islamic law, I'm sure others would kill them but I would not, no.

Then how does your statement address what Jupiter said? Your only objection was that current law doesn't allow it, and yet you are now saying even if it was allowed you still wouldn't.

Then by things logic everything is "all in our heads", and thus your initial claim ceases to be a meaningful statement.

Because historically assassins have generally been younger.

It should also be pointed out, any male living to the age of 35 was considered old.

Well, no, infant mortality skewed life expectancy. High infant mortality pulled down the average, but that doesn't mean there weren't elderly. If you survived past age 5, you could expect to live to age 63.

So if it was legal to kill gay people, would you?

He makes a similar sort of argument in another debate I am in. Here's the highlight of that debate:

Jace: Language is subjective, so it is a relatively simple matter for someone to regard conception as abortion..

Bohemian: And if I regard my couch as a rocket-ship then that makes me an astronaut.

Alzheimer's has a physical cause, to render it entirely to the realm of belief is untenable.

If a premise is irrational then its conclusions do not follow from reason

Which is a less precise way of saying that an irrational belief is not rational..

which means that nothing can be definitively extrapolated from the position as you are endeavoring to do

I'm not 'endeavoring' to extrapolate anything from an irrational premise. I'm extrapolating from a rational one. A child that is never conceived cannot be aborted.

If one opposes abortion for irrational reasons then a rational argument as to why they should also support contraception is simply inapplicable

Whether some argument is persuasive to irrational people says precisely nothing of whether that argument follows logically. To argue otherwise is patently silly, and I question the sincerity of anyone making such a claim. If it were true it would nullify all of logic as one could render an infinite number of irrational objections to literally any argument, including the one you are making right now.

it assumes a standard of reason which never existed

Aye, if you don't believe in the laws of logic, then they must not exist.

Language is subjective, so it is a relatively simple matter for someone to regard conception as abortion..

And if I regard my couch as a rocket-ship then that makes me an astronaut.

That's probably very true. Having my academic background in sociology, I might have answered the question a bit differently. To take an Evolutionary Sociological approach, another answer might be that males are more reproductively expendable. Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

There are two competing tribes, 50 males and 50 females each. One tribe has a male warrior society in which all the warriors are male, and the other has a female warrior society in which all the warriors are female. Assuming for the sake of illustration that the male warriors and females are equally competent warriors, and the two side clash in a bloody battle. Both sides suffer massive casualties. All but one male warrior and all but one female warrior die in the conflict. Which tribe is going to have an easier time replacing it's dead via reproduction, the tribe with a one surviving male but plentiful females, or the tribe with one surviving female but plentiful males? Probably the former, right? What social impact might that have on the respective cultures of these two tribes?

It is interesting to see how our differing answers reflects our differing educational backgrounds from different academic disciplines.

There are a lot of factors, one of the key factors I think would have to be the proliferation of Insular Ultraconservative Wahhabism which precipitated under great political strife during the waning influence of Arabic States. This occurred in a way that strongly paralleled the rise of Nazism in Germany during the early 20th Century.

The Trinitarian Doctrine Holds that God is an entity of three parts - The father in Heaven, the Son on Earth, and the Holy spirit. Thus Trinitarians believe that Jesus is both the son of God and God himself.

Islam is a monotheistic Religion in the Abrahamic tradition, and is considered one of the three major abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

The Holy book of Islam is the Quran (Koran is the anglicized spelling), and was written in Arabic. Arabic is considered a holy language in a similar manner that Latin is to Roman Catholics and Hebrew is to Jews. A Quran is only considered a Quran when it is written in Arabic, and therefore English Translation are not the True Quran, merely translations. The importance of Arabic is illustrated in the fact that despite popular belief Allah is not the name of the God of Islam but rather is simply the word "God" as spelled in Arabic. Even when speaking in other languages the Arabic spelling, Allah, is preferred when speaking of God due to it's association with holiness.

The founder of Islam is Muhammad, regarded as a holy prophet, and while Islam recognizes all of the other Abrahamic prophets -- Abraham through Jesus (Jesus is considered a prophet, but not God or the son of God) -- Muhammad is revered as the Last prophet with the most complete word of God. Any who come after Muhammad are considered false prophets. Muhammad is credited with writing the Quran, because Muhammed was illiterate it is considered a miracle to have written the Quran (though more likely a scribe of Muhammad actually wrote it). Muhammed is often criticized for having had a 9 y/o wife (technically his betrothed).

Also revered is the Hadith which is a collection of sayings of Muhammad. Muhammed's life is taken to be an example of how one should live, and his saying are reflected upon just as were the sayings of Jesus to Christians. The difference between the hadiths and the Quran can be summarized thusly: The Hadiths were written about Muhammad, but the Quran was written by Muhammad (allegedly; See above). In that respect the Hadiths are similiar to the Gospels.

In Islam, Jews and Christians are called "People of the Book" recognized as older Abrahamic branches, and generally more highly regarded than pagans or atheists. As Christianity was born of a schism in Judaism, something similiar but different happened with Islam being born mostly out of Judaism. The primary difference is that Jesus was born a Jew and raised in a Jewish Society, whereas Muhammad was not -- I might say that Muhammed despite being raised in a polythiestic/pagan society identified more with the Abrahamic religions which he had no doubt encounter during his life. The Quran was drawn up almost directly from the Torah with some Christian influences. These stories about Adam and Eve, Jonah and the whale, Noah and the flood, and other well known Bible stories can also be found in the Quran. If Muhammad hadn't recognized the source of these stories I might say that they were plagiarized from the Old Testament/Torah. The Quran also assimilated some of the local Bedouin folklore into that theology.

That is about as good of a summary as I can give at the moment. Hopefully you found this informative. If anyone knowledgeable of Islam would like to make any corrections, I am open to them.

He's being intentionally dense.

There was a Staff Sergeant in my Company that was gay. This was before the repeal of DADT. He had served in Guantanamo as a Paralegal (27D) for the JAG office there, before being transferred to my unit.

So that would be a 'No' then. Gotcha.

*

This is every conversation I've had with him summarized

SaintNow: 5% of 100 is 50

Literally anyone else: No, it's 5 not 50

Saintnow: What proof do you have that you have the right to exist outside of hell? You think you are better than God.

He even began to hijack other topics with the same thing. It's almost as if the fellow has snapped.

Are you Thousandin1 in that debate?

Are you going to address your intentional misquotations or are you going to keep playing this game.

The Red Herring is where ?

The red herring is in every post in this thread, where you avoid discussing that sleazy slimy business you did with your quotations. Manipulating a quotation to make it appear as if someone said something that they did not, to suit your own needs, demonstrates a lack of integrity. That's what I commented on. That's why I am in this thread/debate. That's what you are avoiding talking about. The longer you play this game the more spineless you make yourself out to be.

This is a red herring. My post was in regard to your dishonest quotation manipulation.

I'm not certain how efficiency rating is calculated, though it appears that points are tied into the calculus in someway, though perhaps not 'total points'.

Um...no, on multiple counts.

Cultures that practiced human sacrifice didn't "praise killing the innocent", they certainly didn't go about indiscriminately killing innocent people nor did they condone such behavior, ritually killing an innocent person as a sacrifice to the divine was acceptable only under a very narrow set of circumstances. Consider what it means for something or someone to be a "sacrifice" in this context. It was viewed as a necessity to ensure the survival of the rest of the society. To portray this as "praise killing the innocent" is a reckless mischaracterization.

You said you were downvoting progressives, and then downvoted me, ergo I'm a progressive now. I apparently didn't know that about myself. I'm am thrilled to have someone tell me what my political beliefs are, how would I know otherwise?

I don't find down-voting upsetting, rather mildly annoying, if you get some personal thrill in being mildly annoying good for you, we should celebrate!

No, it's rational for other reasons that I will explain in just a moment. Perhaps I should have worded differently, Yes, however your post seemed to say that the existence of irrational objections somehow implied that the proposition doesn't follow logically. The existence of irrational objections means precisely nothing in terms of the cogency of some statement.

The statement follows because one cannot abort a child that was never conceived. It also holds true empirically, abortion rates and access to contraceptives are statistically inversely related.

See my response to Slapshot

*

-Cue tantrum

Apparently I'm a progressive now.. hmm..

*

It's a reference to the Blackstone formulation, a fundamental principle of the modern legal system, and is the basis of the legal presumption of innocence.

Are you sure about that? Do people not fail suicide attempts? Do none of those failed attempts involve gunshot wounds?

How many of these were from suicide attempts?

You can pull a trigger 13.3 times a second?!

You might notice the name and picture of the person you are replying to is different, as I have said no such words.

Though I find your changing of Cartman's quote to be pretty pathetic. You even changed it back, so there is no possibility that you didn't notice it. Clearly you did, and just didn't care. It would benefit you to show more integrity in future posts.

I don't care what people think about Brexit, state your opinion as you may, but if you are going to quote someone changing their words to suit yourself is pretty slimy and dishonest.

P.S. If you want your point back, ask, and I'll upvote you, I just wanted to prove the point (no pun intended).

The act of downvoting does not lower your efficiency rating. It lowers the rating of the person being downvoted.

It lowers both.

If you don't believe me, click the points next to your name , and it will bring up an itemized page with all of your points. It will show all points gained and lost and list the reason next to it. Some will be 'Added Argument +1' and some will be 'Downvoted Argument -1' and if you click one it will show you which post was downvoted. If you click through them you see that some are your posts that were downvoted by other people and some will be other people's posts that you down-voted. Look through them and you can find posts that you downvoted and will see that you also lose points for downvoting other people and you know that you were the one to downvote it because the downvote button will be grayed out. Your efficiency rating is based on your points, ergo downvoting excessively can hurt your own efficiency rating, of course being downvoted excessively also hurts your efficiency rating.

.

.

In fact, I just downvoted your comment to prove it, and guess what appeared on the top of my page?

'Downvoted argument -1' and my points went from 3760 to 3759.

It's pretty easy to spot the down-voters. Down voting hurts the efficiency rating of the person giving the down-vote, so when you see someone with an abysmal efficiency rating 60% or belong you can be relatively certain this person is a habitual down-voter. I've said before that I will never down-vote someone for an opinion no matter how stupid or inane that opinion is, I've only ever down-voted for bad forum behavior.

Why does that follow? There are plenty of people who (irrationally IMO)...

Why does it follow? If the only objections are admittedly irrational, then it cannot be tenably said that it does not follow regardless of how many people hold 'said irrational objection.

Abstaining from sex does not work, and there is quite a bit of statistical evidence to support that fact.

I would like to see where you have debated anything. To harangue those with whom you emphatically disagree is not debate.

Only you would come to a debate site and complain that contrary beliefs are "shoved down your throat". This epitomizes perfectly your failure to grasp the concept of debate.

You're just a royal jerk

So says the man who asks if my wife, mother and sister are whores. Not once have I ever spewed any indignities towards your family. My tolerance of your petulant attitude is wearing very thin. I don't care much for your bruised ego.

Why would one come to a debate site and refuse to debate.

THE REASON NOBODY REALLY KNOW WHAT EVOLUTION IS OR HOW IT WORKS IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING

And yet you said

SaintNow: "I never had any trouble understanding it [Evolution], the concept is very simple"

BECAUSE YOU CAN NEVER SEE IT HAPPENING

What I find bizarrely peculiar is how frequently Young Earth Creationists suddenly become such staunch empiricists when it comes to Evolution (e.g.,"You can never see it happening") and yet believe in a plethora of unobservable phenomena like end-times prophecies, angels, spirits, hell, all without batting an eye. It's absolutely remarkable.

Pompous jerks like you say I do not understand evolution or I would believe in it

I never said that. In fact I distinctly remember saying that there are people who do believe it who still don't understand it.

It's childishly simple

When your level of comprehension of Evolution is "monkeys morphing into people", I can see why you'd think that.

You seem to have grown quite accustomed to preaching hellfire from your street corner every-time you lack a substantive response to an argument. I'm not certain you are capable of anything else.

Perhaps it is easier to ignore you

I've no doubt that it is. I wouldn't want to burden you with marshaling facts, and constructing an informed opinion. That's hard work.