Search results

Yeah. Now read what I wrote again and notice that I in no way said that I was confused, but that you contribute nothing but confusion. Big difference. You contribute nothing but confusion. Your every response is designed to present words that look like ours in the worst possible way. Nope...

I am onboard with this — unlike Brain, who refuses to acknowledge your points — but I think you and I have a semantic impasse. For example, you say: "We (as humans) don't have the proper authority to take an innocent life in the interest of not letting the guilty go free, just as we do not have...

Now you're implying that I said executing an innocent man is a good thing. As is typical, you are adding nothing but confusion to the discussion. Give us an example of "absolute proof." Give us an example of when it could not be attained. Gen 4:22. You have no respect for scripture and...

Then it shouldn't take much to explain. And what would that be? Is it attainable? In what scenario would it be unattainable? Is this your idea of "obvious"? It's confusing why you would believe that this is a serious challenge to what I said. The idea that executions should be carried out...

But you won't explain why. You just declare and expect that your opinion be accepted blindly.

Gen. 4:22

Did I claim such? I didn't. But you won't explain why. Telling.

See my subsequent post. Either/or questions are inherently fallacious? News to us. I don't know. Did someone say that was impossible? Nope. What?

Yeah. We need to be experts in right and wrong. But liberals think that endless rules and regulations are the answer.

Not necessarily. I also do not like either. But if we had to choose — ie, if it were me making the rules — a system that ran the risk of executing an innocent man because it had capital punishment would be better than risking a murderer on the loose without capital punishment — I'd go for the...

It's better to risk executing an innocent man than to risk letting a guilty man go free.

No racism in England. Got it. :|

And yet every time photographic evidence is presented, it is quickly explained by everyday phenomena.

Evolution is the theory that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. Darwinists want the definition to be "change," because that means they don't have to debate their ideas.

Evolution is the theory that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. It falls at the first hurdle: Entropy.

It definitely wouldn't be the vaccines.

You still think Trump is "far right"? He's a pro-homo, pro-abortion socialist. Guaranteed to be on your side when it comes to evolution as well.

Evidence:

Who is Trump?

Explained. You just keep ignoring the facts.