Datasets:

0x-YuAN

/

NLP_explainable

like 0

"It can go both ways . We all doubt . It is what you do with it that matters ."

"True ."

AGREE

"It can go both ways . We all doubt . It is what you do with it that matters ."

"True ."

"It can go both ways . We all doubt . It is what you do with it that matters ."

"True ."

AGREE

"It can go both ways . We all doubt . It is what you do with it that matters ."

"True"

"It can go both ways . We all doubt . It is what you do with it that matters ."

"True ."

AGREE

"can go both ways . We all doubt . It is what you do with it that matters"

"True"

"once again , you seem to support the killing of certain people ... based on what ?"

"based on the idea that people are dispensible , particularly if they obstruct your well-being . a woman would abort her baby because being a mother contradicts her idea of well-being . in the same way we send soldiers to kill the enemy if they are deemed contrary to the well-being of our country can you be against abortion and pro-war ?"

AGREE

"support the killing of certain people"

"can you be against abortion and"

"once again , you seem to support the killing of certain people ... based on what ?"

"based on the idea that people are dispensible , particularly if they obstruct your well-being . a woman would abort her baby because being a mother contradicts her idea of well-being . in the same way we send soldiers to kill the enemy if they are deemed contrary to the well-being of our country can you be against abortion and pro-war ?"

AGREE

"seem to support the killing of certain people"

"based on the idea that people are dispensible , particularly if they obstruct your well-being"

"once again , you seem to support the killing of certain people ... based on what ?"

"based on the idea that people are dispensible , particularly if they obstruct your well-being . a woman would abort her baby because being a mother contradicts her idea of well-being . in the same way we send soldiers to kill the enemy if they are deemed contrary to the well-being of our country can you be against abortion and pro-war ?"

AGREE

"you seem to support the killing of certain people ... based on what ?"

"based on the idea that people are dispensible"

"I personly would not condone an abortion , however i would n't condem a person who wanted one : its there choice . you ca n't pass your ideas of when life began ect on to another person but its highly debatable and each person has a right to decide for themselves . you can not prove life begans at conception , and the burden of proof for taking away one 's rights relys on proof . points 1 ) child birth is dangerious , deadly and painful . many women have died during child labor . due to our bi-pedalism the female hip is much smaller than it should be making it most of the time impossible to give birth ( thus a c-section ) how can you force someone to carry around a child they do not want for 9 months ? 2 ) rape 3 ) if you try to stop it , you wo n't . you will just put it back on the street ( much like drugs ) doctors will be preforming back alley abortions . 4 ) if your mother doesnt ' want you who will ? people say oh adoption is in such high demand . true : however its not because of a lack of children its because of buerocratic XXXXXXXX . the gov . does n't want to be responsible for child abuse so they over screen adoption parents and make it diffucult to get a child . the cost is astronomical . 5 ) overpopulation is a problem . note : religion should not influence your decision in law making . only in personal moral decisions ."

"This is a pretty touchy issue , and I agree with the different points of view .. most of them make sense ... while I do n't personally agree with abortion , I do n't feel that I have the right to tell someone else what they should do . The way I see it , is that it 's their body , their life , they are the ones who will be affected by their decision . I do n't have to like the choices someone else makes , and I do n't have to agree with it , but while I have that right , I also believe that people should have the right to make those decisions . Are these anti-abortion people going to step in and pay for the cost of having the baby , raising it , etc .. ? ? ? Maybe some of those are the issues people consider when having an abortion . Maybe the woman was raped . I see the point when someone said that the baby should not be punished for that , and I agree with that , but the rape was committed against the woman 's will ... she did n't ask for that to happen , and if a pregnancy results from that , that is also against her will , so why should she feel that she has to have the child ? What does she tell the child when it decides to ask who its father is ? ? The child could still be born and given up for adoption , and that is a good idea , but maybe the woman will relive the rape throughout the pregnancy by being reminded of it on a daily basis .... all I feel is until it happens to you , and YOU are forced to make these kinds of choices , you should n't judge anyone else for the choices that they make ."

AGREE

"not condone an abortion , however i would n't condem a person who wanted one : its there choice ."

"I agree with the different points of view .. most of them make sense ... while I do n't personally agree with abortion"

"I personly would not condone an abortion , however i would n't condem a person who wanted one : its there choice . you ca n't pass your ideas of when life began ect on to another person but its highly debatable and each person has a right to decide for themselves . you can not prove life begans at conception , and the burden of proof for taking away one 's rights relys on proof . points 1 ) child birth is dangerious , deadly and painful . many women have died during child labor . due to our bi-pedalism the female hip is much smaller than it should be making it most of the time impossible to give birth ( thus a c-section ) how can you force someone to carry around a child they do not want for 9 months ? 2 ) rape 3 ) if you try to stop it , you wo n't . you will just put it back on the street ( much like drugs ) doctors will be preforming back alley abortions . 4 ) if your mother doesnt ' want you who will ? people say oh adoption is in such high demand . true : however its not because of a lack of children its because of buerocratic XXXXXXXX . the gov . does n't want to be responsible for child abuse so they over screen adoption parents and make it diffucult to get a child . the cost is astronomical . 5 ) overpopulation is a problem . note : religion should not influence your decision in law making . only in personal moral decisions ."

"This is a pretty touchy issue , and I agree with the different points of view .. most of them make sense ... while I do n't personally agree with abortion , I do n't feel that I have the right to tell someone else what they should do . The way I see it , is that it 's their body , their life , they are the ones who will be affected by their decision . I do n't have to like the choices someone else makes , and I do n't have to agree with it , but while I have that right , I also believe that people should have the right to make those decisions . Are these anti-abortion people going to step in and pay for the cost of having the baby , raising it , etc .. ? ? ? Maybe some of those are the issues people consider when having an abortion . Maybe the woman was raped . I see the point when someone said that the baby should not be punished for that , and I agree with that , but the rape was committed against the woman 's will ... she did n't ask for that to happen , and if a pregnancy results from that , that is also against her will , so why should she feel that she has to have the child ? What does she tell the child when it decides to ask who its father is ? ? The child could still be born and given up for adoption , and that is a good idea , but maybe the woman will relive the rape throughout the pregnancy by being reminded of it on a daily basis .... all I feel is until it happens to you , and YOU are forced to make these kinds of choices , you should n't judge anyone else for the choices that they make ."

AGREE

"would not condone abortion i"

"their body their life its"

"I personly would not condone an abortion , however i would n't condem a person who wanted one : its there choice . you ca n't pass your ideas of when life began ect on to another person but its highly debatable and each person has a right to decide for themselves . you can not prove life begans at conception , and the burden of proof for taking away one 's rights relys on proof . points 1 ) child birth is dangerious , deadly and painful . many women have died during child labor . due to our bi-pedalism the female hip is much smaller than it should be making it most of the time impossible to give birth ( thus a c-section ) how can you force someone to carry around a child they do not want for 9 months ? 2 ) rape 3 ) if you try to stop it , you wo n't . you will just put it back on the street ( much like drugs ) doctors will be preforming back alley abortions . 4 ) if your mother doesnt ' want you who will ? people say oh adoption is in such high demand . true : however its not because of a lack of children its because of buerocratic XXXXXXXX . the gov . does n't want to be responsible for child abuse so they over screen adoption parents and make it diffucult to get a child . the cost is astronomical . 5 ) overpopulation is a problem . note : religion should not influence your decision in law making . only in personal moral decisions ."

"This is a pretty touchy issue , and I agree with the different points of view .. most of them make sense ... while I do n't personally agree with abortion , I do n't feel that I have the right to tell someone else what they should do . The way I see it , is that it 's their body , their life , they are the ones who will be affected by their decision . I do n't have to like the choices someone else makes , and I do n't have to agree with it , but while I have that right , I also believe that people should have the right to make those decisions . Are these anti-abortion people going to step in and pay for the cost of having the baby , raising it , etc .. ? ? ? Maybe some of those are the issues people consider when having an abortion . Maybe the woman was raped . I see the point when someone said that the baby should not be punished for that , and I agree with that , but the rape was committed against the woman 's will ... she did n't ask for that to happen , and if a pregnancy results from that , that is also against her will , so why should she feel that she has to have the child ? What does she tell the child when it decides to ask who its father is ? ? The child could still be born and given up for adoption , and that is a good idea , but maybe the woman will relive the rape throughout the pregnancy by being reminded of it on a daily basis .... all I feel is until it happens to you , and YOU are forced to make these kinds of choices , you should n't judge anyone else for the choices that they make ."

AGREE

"personly would not condone an abortion , however i would n't condem a person who wanted one : its there choice . you ca n't pass your ideas of when life began ect on to another person but its highly debatable and each person has a right to decide for themselves . you can not prove life begans at conception , and the burden of proof for taking away one 's rights relys on proof ."

"This is a pretty touchy issue , and I agree with the different points of view .. most of them make sense ... while I do n't personally agree with abortion , I do n't feel that I have the right to tell someone else what they should do ."

"First , there is no `` us `` on your part regarding this . I am talking to you . Others here that argue your same positions have been much less beligerent , so as far as I 'm concerned your attitude sets you apart . Second , I was n't trying to give you justification , nor am I obligated to . You should be giving justification for wanting to redefine marriage as an institution which you have n't done . But I do n't owe you any justification . Take your silly games up with Mana'ia ; they wo n't work with me . You 're right , as well as having the institution of marriage on the line . But you are the one who seems to think this is a game , based on your posts . ( with your comments like `` you 've won `` ; `` he 's lost `` , and other silly things , as if this is a basketball game or something . ) It seems you 'd do well to take your own advice . If you want people to constantly have to `` justify `` something to you , then you should make your own compelling arguments first ; throw something out there yourself rather than expect everyone else to do it for you . No one owes you anything here . As for me , I 'm not interested in your little games ."

"Ah , I see . Your reasons are secret reasons . On a debate forum , about gay rights , you oppose it based on .... well you wo n't say ! Nice debate . Who 's really playing the game here ? I have already listed on a number of posts why it 's not constitutional . Since you missed it ( It 's only the first post in the thread ) For gay coupes right to be married ( Or the same legal status ) 1 . Human rights with regards to legal classifcation and the benefits therein are desired by comitted consenting adults of the same gender . 2 . It 's a contract between two consenting adults . 3 . A contract that does not violate anyone 's legal rights or cause any significant ill effects to the public welfare . It 's unconstitutional to allow one group of people access to marriage rights ( hetero couples only ) , and not allow it to female/female and male/male couples when they are obviously lobbying for it in significant numbers . It 's now a public issue on a significant scale . Of course , maybe if you had a REASON for objecting to gays being treated equally with regards to the rights of marriage , we would understand not only why you are reluctant to back your claim , but why your reason is also not constitutional . You can call it games , I call it justifying my position while pointing out how opponents of gay rights , such as yourself , really ca n't make any reasonable justification for their desire to restrict human rights , other than saying `` well I want to `` ... or in your case ... `` shhh ... it 's a secret `` . You know what WE call it on the debate forum when one side refuses to present or rebut arguments ? Losing the debate . I realize winning and losing .. i.e . being right and being wrong are not concepts found in religion , where anything goes ... but out here in the real world actions have consequences , and words ... yes , imagine that , have specific meanings . You verbally support a movement that restricts human rights , yet wo n't give us reasons for your position . I find that appalling . Yet you are content with labeling me as `` playing games `` . How ironic . -Mach"

DISAGREE

"do n't owe you any justification . Take your silly games up with Mana'ia ; they wo n't work with me ."

"Your reasons are secret reasons . On a debate forum , about gay rights"

"First , there is no `` us `` on your part regarding this . I am talking to you . Others here that argue your same positions have been much less beligerent , so as far as I 'm concerned your attitude sets you apart . Second , I was n't trying to give you justification , nor am I obligated to . You should be giving justification for wanting to redefine marriage as an institution which you have n't done . But I do n't owe you any justification . Take your silly games up with Mana'ia ; they wo n't work with me . You 're right , as well as having the institution of marriage on the line . But you are the one who seems to think this is a game , based on your posts . ( with your comments like `` you 've won `` ; `` he 's lost `` , and other silly things , as if this is a basketball game or something . ) It seems you 'd do well to take your own advice . If you want people to constantly have to `` justify `` something to you , then you should make your own compelling arguments first ; throw something out there yourself rather than expect everyone else to do it for you . No one owes you anything here . As for me , I 'm not interested in your little games ."

"Ah , I see . Your reasons are secret reasons . On a debate forum , about gay rights , you oppose it based on .... well you wo n't say ! Nice debate . Who 's really playing the game here ? I have already listed on a number of posts why it 's not constitutional . Since you missed it ( It 's only the first post in the thread ) For gay coupes right to be married ( Or the same legal status ) 1 . Human rights with regards to legal classifcation and the benefits therein are desired by comitted consenting adults of the same gender . 2 . It 's a contract between two consenting adults . 3 . A contract that does not violate anyone 's legal rights or cause any significant ill effects to the public welfare . It 's unconstitutional to allow one group of people access to marriage rights ( hetero couples only ) , and not allow it to female/female and male/male couples when they are obviously lobbying for it in significant numbers . It 's now a public issue on a significant scale . Of course , maybe if you had a REASON for objecting to gays being treated equally with regards to the rights of marriage , we would understand not only why you are reluctant to back your claim , but why your reason is also not constitutional . You can call it games , I call it justifying my position while pointing out how opponents of gay rights , such as yourself , really ca n't make any reasonable justification for their desire to restrict human rights , other than saying `` well I want to `` ... or in your case ... `` shhh ... it 's a secret `` . You know what WE call it on the debate forum when one side refuses to present or rebut arguments ? Losing the debate . I realize winning and losing .. i.e . being right and being wrong are not concepts found in religion , where anything goes ... but out here in the real world actions have consequences , and words ... yes , imagine that , have specific meanings . You verbally support a movement that restricts human rights , yet wo n't give us reasons for your position . I find that appalling . Yet you are content with labeling me as `` playing games `` . How ironic . -Mach"

DISAGREE

"You should be giving justification for wanting to redefine marriage as an institution which you have n't done . But I do n't owe you any justification . No one owes you anything here . As for me , I 'm not interested in your little games ."

"Your reasons are secret reasons . On a debate forum , about gay rights , you oppose it based on .... well you wo n't say ! Nice debate . Who 's really playing the game here ? I have already listed on a number of posts why it 's not constitutional ."

"First , there is no `` us `` on your part regarding this . I am talking to you . Others here that argue your same positions have been much less beligerent , so as far as I 'm concerned your attitude sets you apart . Second , I was n't trying to give you justification , nor am I obligated to . You should be giving justification for wanting to redefine marriage as an institution which you have n't done . But I do n't owe you any justification . Take your silly games up with Mana'ia ; they wo n't work with me . You 're right , as well as having the institution of marriage on the line . But you are the one who seems to think this is a game , based on your posts . ( with your comments like `` you 've won `` ; `` he 's lost `` , and other silly things , as if this is a basketball game or something . ) It seems you 'd do well to take your own advice . If you want people to constantly have to `` justify `` something to you , then you should make your own compelling arguments first ; throw something out there yourself rather than expect everyone else to do it for you . No one owes you anything here . As for me , I 'm not interested in your little games ."

"Ah , I see . Your reasons are secret reasons . On a debate forum , about gay rights , you oppose it based on .... well you wo n't say ! Nice debate . Who 's really playing the game here ? I have already listed on a number of posts why it 's not constitutional . Since you missed it ( It 's only the first post in the thread ) For gay coupes right to be married ( Or the same legal status ) 1 . Human rights with regards to legal classifcation and the benefits therein are desired by comitted consenting adults of the same gender . 2 . It 's a contract between two consenting adults . 3 . A contract that does not violate anyone 's legal rights or cause any significant ill effects to the public welfare . It 's unconstitutional to allow one group of people access to marriage rights ( hetero couples only ) , and not allow it to female/female and male/male couples when they are obviously lobbying for it in significant numbers . It 's now a public issue on a significant scale . Of course , maybe if you had a REASON for objecting to gays being treated equally with regards to the rights of marriage , we would understand not only why you are reluctant to back your claim , but why your reason is also not constitutional . You can call it games , I call it justifying my position while pointing out how opponents of gay rights , such as yourself , really ca n't make any reasonable justification for their desire to restrict human rights , other than saying `` well I want to `` ... or in your case ... `` shhh ... it 's a secret `` . You know what WE call it on the debate forum when one side refuses to present or rebut arguments ? Losing the debate . I realize winning and losing .. i.e . being right and being wrong are not concepts found in religion , where anything goes ... but out here in the real world actions have consequences , and words ... yes , imagine that , have specific meanings . You verbally support a movement that restricts human rights , yet wo n't give us reasons for your position . I find that appalling . Yet you are content with labeling me as `` playing games `` . How ironic . -Mach"

DISAGREE

"No one owes you anything here . As for me , I 'm not interested in your little games"

"Your reasons are secret reasons . On a debate forum , about gay rights , you oppose it based on .... well you wo n't say ! ``"

"First , there is no `` us `` on your part regarding this . I am talking to you . Others here that argue your same positions have been much less beligerent , so as far as I 'm concerned your attitude sets you apart . Second , I was n't trying to give you justification , nor am I obligated to . You should be giving justification for wanting to redefine marriage as an institution which you have n't done . But I do n't owe you any justification . Take your silly games up with Mana'ia ; they wo n't work with me . You 're right , as well as having the institution of marriage on the line . But you are the one who seems to think this is a game , based on your posts . ( with your comments like `` you 've won `` ; `` he 's lost `` , and other silly things , as if this is a basketball game or something . ) It seems you 'd do well to take your own advice . If you want people to constantly have to `` justify `` something to you , then you should make your own compelling arguments first ; throw something out there yourself rather than expect everyone else to do it for you . No one owes you anything here . As for me , I 'm not interested in your little games ."

"Ah , I see . Your reasons are secret reasons . On a debate forum , about gay rights , you oppose it based on .... well you wo n't say ! Nice debate . Who 's really playing the game here ? I have already listed on a number of posts why it 's not constitutional . Since you missed it ( It 's only the first post in the thread ) For gay coupes right to be married ( Or the same legal status ) 1 . Human rights with regards to legal classifcation and the benefits therein are desired by comitted consenting adults of the same gender . 2 . It 's a contract between two consenting adults . 3 . A contract that does not violate anyone 's legal rights or cause any significant ill effects to the public welfare . It 's unconstitutional to allow one group of people access to marriage rights ( hetero couples only ) , and not allow it to female/female and male/male couples when they are obviously lobbying for it in significant numbers . It 's now a public issue on a significant scale . Of course , maybe if you had a REASON for objecting to gays being treated equally with regards to the rights of marriage , we would understand not only why you are reluctant to back your claim , but why your reason is also not constitutional . You can call it games , I call it justifying my position while pointing out how opponents of gay rights , such as yourself , really ca n't make any reasonable justification for their desire to restrict human rights , other than saying `` well I want to `` ... or in your case ... `` shhh ... it 's a secret `` . You know what WE call it on the debate forum when one side refuses to present or rebut arguments ? Losing the debate . I realize winning and losing .. i.e . being right and being wrong are not concepts found in religion , where anything goes ... but out here in the real world actions have consequences , and words ... yes , imagine that , have specific meanings . You verbally support a movement that restricts human rights , yet wo n't give us reasons for your position . I find that appalling . Yet you are content with labeling me as `` playing games `` . How ironic . -Mach"

DISAGREE

"no one owes you anything"

"find that appalling"

"alright how did evolution start ?"

"See above"

DISAGREE

"how evolution start"

"above"

"alright how did evolution start ?"

"See above"

DISAGREE

"alright how did evolution start ?"

"See above"

"alright how did evolution start ?"

"See above"

DISAGREE

"alright how did evolution start ?"

"See above"

"alright how did evolution start ?"

"See above"

DISAGREE

"alright how did evolution start ?"

"See above"

"Do you not even get statutory sick pay ?"

"You have to be off for more than 4 days and after that I would get the princely sum of £79.15 per week .. hardly worth having . Unlike teachers I can not stay at home and get paid when it snows too ."

DISAGREE

"you not get sick pay"

"have to be off for more than 4 days"

"Do you not even get statutory sick pay ?"

"You have to be off for more than 4 days and after that I would get the princely sum of £79.15 per week .. hardly worth having . Unlike teachers I can not stay at home and get paid when it snows too ."

DISAGREE

"Do you not even get statutory sick pay ?"

"You have to be off for more than 4 days and after that I would get the princely sum of £79.15 per week .. hardly worth having"

"Too bad . That does n't automatically give you the excuse to support discredited beliefs . and it gives you no protection when others tell you to shut up and change your argument to address the facts . Abortion was never in the Constitution . However the Second Amendment and gun ownership is , was , and always has been . Roe v. Wade was judicial activism , Heller was just the courts doing their job after 30 long years of trying to avoid the subject . The two cases are n't comparable in the least . Stop using them ."

"In other words , you think a Supreme Court decision should only shut down the debate if it 's a decision you agree with . Roe v. Wade and Heller do share some striking similarities . For example , Scalia stated in Heller : `` Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill , or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings , or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. `` However , the text of the Constitution has as much to say about such restrictions as it does about abortion . I 've heard that Scalia has been criticized for making such a statement because there is no clear historical precedent dating back 200 years of banning felons from owning firearms . So neither the text of the Second Amendment nor tradition justifies such restrictions . It is an example of judicial lawmaking ."

DISAGREE

"the two cases comparable"

"should shut down the debate in our opinion"

"Too bad . That does n't automatically give you the excuse to support discredited beliefs . and it gives you no protection when others tell you to shut up and change your argument to address the facts . Abortion was never in the Constitution . However the Second Amendment and gun ownership is , was , and always has been . Roe v. Wade was judicial activism , Heller was just the courts doing their job after 30 long years of trying to avoid the subject . The two cases are n't comparable in the least . Stop using them ."

"In other words , you think a Supreme Court decision should only shut down the debate if it 's a decision you agree with . Roe v. Wade and Heller do share some striking similarities . For example , Scalia stated in Heller : `` Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill , or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings , or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. `` However , the text of the Constitution has as much to say about such restrictions as it does about abortion . I 've heard that Scalia has been criticized for making such a statement because there is no clear historical precedent dating back 200 years of banning felons from owning firearms . So neither the text of the Second Amendment nor tradition justifies such restrictions . It is an example of judicial lawmaking ."

DISAGREE

"Too bad . That does n't automatically give you the excuse to support discredited beliefs . Abortion was never in the Constitution . However the Second Amendment and gun ownership is , was , and always has been ."

"you think a Supreme Court decision should only shut down the debate if it 's a decision you agree with . `` However , the text of the Constitution has as much to say about such restrictions as it does about abortion ."

"Too bad . That does n't automatically give you the excuse to support discredited beliefs . and it gives you no protection when others tell you to shut up and change your argument to address the facts . Abortion was never in the Constitution . However the Second Amendment and gun ownership is , was , and always has been . Roe v. Wade was judicial activism , Heller was just the courts doing their job after 30 long years of trying to avoid the subject . The two cases are n't comparable in the least . Stop using them ."

"In other words , you think a Supreme Court decision should only shut down the debate if it 's a decision you agree with . Roe v. Wade and Heller do share some striking similarities . For example , Scalia stated in Heller : `` Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill , or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings , or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. `` However , the text of the Constitution has as much to say about such restrictions as it does about abortion . I 've heard that Scalia has been criticized for making such a statement because there is no clear historical precedent dating back 200 years of banning felons from owning firearms . So neither the text of the Second Amendment nor tradition justifies such restrictions . It is an example of judicial lawmaking ."

DISAGREE

"does n't automatically give you the excuse to support discredited beliefs"

"Court decision should only shut down the debate if it 's a decision you agree with . Roe v. Wade and Heller do share some striking similarities ."

"I know of no one that is pro life believes the mother should die so the baby can live ."

"Apparently you thought I was claiming that pro-lifers thought that the baby 's life was more valuable than the mother 's life . So I clarified :"

DISAGREE

"I know of no one that is pro life believes the mother should die so the baby can live ."

"Apparently you thought I was claiming that pro-lifers thought that the baby 's life was more valuable than the mother 's life ."

"I know of no one that is pro life believes the mother should die so the baby can live ."

"Apparently you thought I was claiming that pro-lifers thought that the baby 's life was more valuable than the mother 's life . So I clarified :"

DISAGREE

"mother should die so the baby can live"

"I clarified"

"I know of no one that is pro life believes the mother should die so the baby can live ."

"Apparently you thought I was claiming that pro-lifers thought that the baby 's life was more valuable than the mother 's life . So I clarified :"

DISAGREE

"life believes the mother"

"valuable than the mother 's life"

"I know of no one that is pro life believes the mother should die so the baby can live ."

"Apparently you thought I was claiming that pro-lifers thought that the baby 's life was more valuable than the mother 's life . So I clarified :"

DISAGREE

"life believes the mother should die so the baby can live ."

"the baby 's life was more valuable than the mother 's life ."

"I know of no one that is pro life believes the mother should die so the baby can live ."

"Apparently you thought I was claiming that pro-lifers thought that the baby 's life was more valuable than the mother 's life . So I clarified :"

DISAGREE

"pro life believes the mother should die so the baby can live ."

"pro-lifers thought that the baby 's life was more valuable than the mother 's life ."

"I know of no one that is pro life believes the mother should die so the baby can live ."

"Apparently you thought I was claiming that pro-lifers thought that the baby 's life was more valuable than the mother 's life . So I clarified :"

DISAGREE

"one that is pro life believes the mother should die so the baby can live ."

"the baby 's life was more valuable than the mother 's life . So I clarified :"

"Okay , in defense of my school ( KU ) is n't creation ( Intelligent Design-which I have to question that title since it has been mostly Bush pushing for it ) a religion thing ? Science is supposed to tell how something happens ( happened ) . The creation story in the ( Christian/Jewish/Islamic ) Bible does not tell how . It tells more of a why or what . It was never intended to be about how God did anything . I specify the creation story here ( which these three are the exact same beginning because they are the exact same God ) because when people say ID , they are referring mostly to the creation in Genesis . All you get is a poetry reading almost of what happened . ( And then God did such and such . ) There is a difference between What happened and How it happened . There is nothing scientific about it at all . There is nothing wrong with teaching it in a religions class or some kind of social studies class ."

"Just to point out , the class that ID is being taught in is a comparative religion class ."

AGREE

"There is nothing wrong with teaching it in a religions class"

"the class that ID is being taught in is a comparative religion class"

"Okay , in defense of my school ( KU ) is n't creation ( Intelligent Design-which I have to question that title since it has been mostly Bush pushing for it ) a religion thing ? Science is supposed to tell how something happens ( happened ) . The creation story in the ( Christian/Jewish/Islamic ) Bible does not tell how . It tells more of a why or what . It was never intended to be about how God did anything . I specify the creation story here ( which these three are the exact same beginning because they are the exact same God ) because when people say ID , they are referring mostly to the creation in Genesis . All you get is a poetry reading almost of what happened . ( And then God did such and such . ) There is a difference between What happened and How it happened . There is nothing scientific about it at all . There is nothing wrong with teaching it in a religions class or some kind of social studies class ."

"Just to point out , the class that ID is being taught in is a comparative religion class ."

AGREE

"specify the creation story here ( which these three are the exact same beginning because they are the exact same God ) because when"

"the class that ID is being taught in is a comparative religion class ."

"Okay , in defense of my school ( KU ) is n't creation ( Intelligent Design-which I have to question that title since it has been mostly Bush pushing for it ) a religion thing ? Science is supposed to tell how something happens ( happened ) . The creation story in the ( Christian/Jewish/Islamic ) Bible does not tell how . It tells more of a why or what . It was never intended to be about how God did anything . I specify the creation story here ( which these three are the exact same beginning because they are the exact same God ) because when people say ID , they are referring mostly to the creation in Genesis . All you get is a poetry reading almost of what happened . ( And then God did such and such . ) There is a difference between What happened and How it happened . There is nothing scientific about it at all . There is nothing wrong with teaching it in a religions class or some kind of social studies class ."

"Just to point out , the class that ID is being taught in is a comparative religion class ."

AGREE

"The creation story in the ( Christian/Jewish/Islamic ) Bible does not tell how . It tells more of a why or what"

"Just to point out , the class that ID is being taught in is a comparative religion class ."

"Okay , in defense of my school ( KU ) is n't creation ( Intelligent Design-which I have to question that title since it has been mostly Bush pushing for it ) a religion thing ? Science is supposed to tell how something happens ( happened ) . The creation story in the ( Christian/Jewish/Islamic ) Bible does not tell how . It tells more of a why or what . It was never intended to be about how God did anything . I specify the creation story here ( which these three are the exact same beginning because they are the exact same God ) because when people say ID , they are referring mostly to the creation in Genesis . All you get is a poetry reading almost of what happened . ( And then God did such and such . ) There is a difference between What happened and How it happened . There is nothing scientific about it at all . There is nothing wrong with teaching it in a religions class or some kind of social studies class ."

"Just to point out , the class that ID is being taught in is a comparative religion class ."

AGREE

"wrong with teaching it in a religions class or some kind of social studies class ."

"the class that ID is being taught in is a comparative religion"

"Okay , in defense of my school ( KU ) is n't creation ( Intelligent Design-which I have to question that title since it has been mostly Bush pushing for it ) a religion thing ? Science is supposed to tell how something happens ( happened ) . The creation story in the ( Christian/Jewish/Islamic ) Bible does not tell how . It tells more of a why or what . It was never intended to be about how God did anything . I specify the creation story here ( which these three are the exact same beginning because they are the exact same God ) because when people say ID , they are referring mostly to the creation in Genesis . All you get is a poetry reading almost of what happened . ( And then God did such and such . ) There is a difference between What happened and How it happened . There is nothing scientific about it at all . There is nothing wrong with teaching it in a religions class or some kind of social studies class ."

"Just to point out , the class that ID is being taught in is a comparative religion class ."

AGREE

"All you get is a poetry reading almost of what happened ."

"Just to point out , the class that ID is being taught in is a comparative religion class ."

"Okay , in defense of my school ( KU ) is n't creation ( Intelligent Design-which I have to question that title since it has been mostly Bush pushing for it ) a religion thing ? Science is supposed to tell how something happens ( happened ) . The creation story in the ( Christian/Jewish/Islamic ) Bible does not tell how . It tells more of a why or what . It was never intended to be about how God did anything . I specify the creation story here ( which these three are the exact same beginning because they are the exact same God ) because when people say ID , they are referring mostly to the creation in Genesis . All you get is a poetry reading almost of what happened . ( And then God did such and such . ) There is a difference between What happened and How it happened . There is nothing scientific about it at all . There is nothing wrong with teaching it in a religions class or some kind of social studies class ."

"Just to point out , the class that ID is being taught in is a comparative religion class ."

AGREE

"Science is supposed to tell how something happens"

"being taught in is a comparative religion class"

"While indeed marriage was once a religious ceremony , it is fairly clear that ceremony has been taken away from the religion and added as an American tradition , so to speak . I know of someone who once proposed that we get rid of marriage altogther and give everyone civil unions except for thos acknowledged by the church . As feasible as that may be , marriage is too rooted in our American culture . For that reason it is best to truly offer rights to everyone as our constitution so rightly protects ."

"That was put nicely . No argument here . Maybe marriage should be taken out and give everyone civil unions . And if you wanted to be considered married it can be your religious ceremony"

AGREE

"marriage was once a religious ceremony"

"Maybe marriage should be taken out and give everyone civil unions"

"While indeed marriage was once a religious ceremony , it is fairly clear that ceremony has been taken away from the religion and added as an American tradition , so to speak . I know of someone who once proposed that we get rid of marriage altogther and give everyone civil unions except for thos acknowledged by the church . As feasible as that may be , marriage is too rooted in our American culture . For that reason it is best to truly offer rights to everyone as our constitution so rightly protects ."

"That was put nicely . No argument here . Maybe marriage should be taken out and give everyone civil unions . And if you wanted to be considered married it can be your religious ceremony"

AGREE

"I know of someone who once proposed that we get rid of marriage altogther and give everyone civil unions"

"No argument here . Maybe marriage should be taken out and give everyone civil unions ."

"While indeed marriage was once a religious ceremony , it is fairly clear that ceremony has been taken away from the religion and added as an American tradition , so to speak . I know of someone who once proposed that we get rid of marriage altogther and give everyone civil unions except for thos acknowledged by the church . As feasible as that may be , marriage is too rooted in our American culture . For that reason it is best to truly offer rights to everyone as our constitution so rightly protects ."

"That was put nicely . No argument here . Maybe marriage should be taken out and give everyone civil unions . And if you wanted to be considered married it can be your religious ceremony"

AGREE

"indeed marriage was once a religious ceremony , it is fairly clear that ceremony has been taken away from the religion"

"Maybe marriage should be taken out and give everyone civil unions"

"While indeed marriage was once a religious ceremony , it is fairly clear that ceremony has been taken away from the religion and added as an American tradition , so to speak . I know of someone who once proposed that we get rid of marriage altogther and give everyone civil unions except for thos acknowledged by the church . As feasible as that may be , marriage is too rooted in our American culture . For that reason it is best to truly offer rights to everyone as our constitution so rightly protects ."

"That was put nicely . No argument here . Maybe marriage should be taken out and give everyone civil unions . And if you wanted to be considered married it can be your religious ceremony"

AGREE

"indeed marriage was once a religious ceremony marriage is too rooted in our American culture ."

"marriage should be taken out and give everyone civil unions ."

"While indeed marriage was once a religious ceremony , it is fairly clear that ceremony has been taken away from the religion and added as an American tradition , so to speak . I know of someone who once proposed that we get rid of marriage altogther and give everyone civil unions except for thos acknowledged by the church . As feasible as that may be , marriage is too rooted in our American culture . For that reason it is best to truly offer rights to everyone as our constitution so rightly protects ."

"That was put nicely . No argument here . Maybe marriage should be taken out and give everyone civil unions . And if you wanted to be considered married it can be your religious ceremony"

AGREE

"it is best to truly offer rights to everyone as our constitution so rightly protects"

"That was put nicely"

"Just wanted some peoples opinions"

"I think it 's true . Why would someone make that up and pass it off as a real event ? I think the continents probably started separating some time after that , which is how God separated the people ."

AGREE

"Just wanted some peoples opinions"

"I think it 's true . Why would someone make that up and pass it off as a real event ?"

"Just wanted some peoples opinions"

"I think it 's true . Why would someone make that up and pass it off as a real event ? I think the continents probably started separating some time after that , which is how God separated the people ."

AGREE

"some peoples opinions"

"continents probably started separating some time after that , which is how God separated the people ."

"Just wanted some peoples opinions"

"I think it 's true . Why would someone make that up and pass it off as a real event ? I think the continents probably started separating some time after that , which is how God separated the people ."

AGREE

"Just wanted some peoples opinions"

"I think it 's true"

"Just wanted some peoples opinions"

"I think it 's true . Why would someone make that up and pass it off as a real event ? I think the continents probably started separating some time after that , which is how God separated the people ."

AGREE

"peoples opinions"

"God separated the people"

"Just wanted some peoples opinions"

"I think it 's true . Why would someone make that up and pass it off as a real event ? I think the continents probably started separating some time after that , which is how God separated the people ."

AGREE

"Just wanted some peoples opinions"

"I think it 's true ."

"`` They believe that mechanistic evolution is just too improbable. `` Ah ... do they now . You see , Berkinski et al seem to have a limited comprehension as to what causes life to change in space and time . Where they see improbability I see inevitability- life , in whatever form we care to discuss , is vying to survive against a whole battery of challenges . Some of those challenges confront it on a short term basis- the need for food , suitable environmental conditions in which to survive and so on . Others may be an issue over a longer period of time- the need to find a mate and reproduce , can it survive annual changes in local climates . Ultimately , life has to be able to adapt to the longest term changes- like a major shift in underlying climatic conditions or local topography . And so on- we can consider a whole host of changes that confronts life at various times over different timescales . What is clear from such consideration is the never ending need for life to able to adapt- the Earth is a dynamic and forever changing place ( even the very ground beneath you now is transient in nature ) and environments have changed dramatically over the course of this planets history . If life were still and static it would never have come to be in the first place . If it can not adapt to a new challenges quickly enough- well just think of all the examples we have of life that is extinct . So I really can not see why Berkinski and his peers find natural evolution , or whatever you care to call it improbable- the driving forces are there to see if you are inclined to learn about them . What I really find improbable is the notion of an omnipotent supernatural enitity outside of the physical universe somehow being able to comprehend and interact with the life in ours- and even to have the desire to do so !"

"I believe you 've missed the point . He 's not against evolution ; change of species over time into other species . He in fact , from what I can gather , does indeed believe in evolution He 's arguing that it did n't come about through materialistic processes ."

DISAGREE

"why Berkinski find natural evolution call it improbable"

"He 's not against evolution"

"`` They believe that mechanistic evolution is just too improbable. `` Ah ... do they now . You see , Berkinski et al seem to have a limited comprehension as to what causes life to change in space and time . Where they see improbability I see inevitability- life , in whatever form we care to discuss , is vying to survive against a whole battery of challenges . Some of those challenges confront it on a short term basis- the need for food , suitable environmental conditions in which to survive and so on . Others may be an issue over a longer period of time- the need to find a mate and reproduce , can it survive annual changes in local climates . Ultimately , life has to be able to adapt to the longest term changes- like a major shift in underlying climatic conditions or local topography . And so on- we can consider a whole host of changes that confronts life at various times over different timescales . What is clear from such consideration is the never ending need for life to able to adapt- the Earth is a dynamic and forever changing place ( even the very ground beneath you now is transient in nature ) and environments have changed dramatically over the course of this planets history . If life were still and static it would never have come to be in the first place . If it can not adapt to a new challenges quickly enough- well just think of all the examples we have of life that is extinct . So I really can not see why Berkinski and his peers find natural evolution , or whatever you care to call it improbable- the driving forces are there to see if you are inclined to learn about them . What I really find improbable is the notion of an omnipotent supernatural enitity outside of the physical universe somehow being able to comprehend and interact with the life in ours- and even to have the desire to do so !"

"I believe you 've missed the point . He 's not against evolution ; change of species over time into other species . He in fact , from what I can gather , does indeed believe in evolution He 's arguing that it did n't come about through materialistic processes ."

DISAGREE

"mechanistic evolution is just too the Earth is a dynamic and forever changing place ( even the very ground beneath you now is transient in nature ) and environments have changed dramatically over the course of this planets history . If life were still and static it would never have come to improbable"

"not against evolution ; change of species over time into other species ."

"`` They believe that mechanistic evolution is just too improbable. `` Ah ... do they now . You see , Berkinski et al seem to have a limited comprehension as to what causes life to change in space and time . Where they see improbability I see inevitability- life , in whatever form we care to discuss , is vying to survive against a whole battery of challenges . Some of those challenges confront it on a short term basis- the need for food , suitable environmental conditions in which to survive and so on . Others may be an issue over a longer period of time- the need to find a mate and reproduce , can it survive annual changes in local climates . Ultimately , life has to be able to adapt to the longest term changes- like a major shift in underlying climatic conditions or local topography . And so on- we can consider a whole host of changes that confronts life at various times over different timescales . What is clear from such consideration is the never ending need for life to able to adapt- the Earth is a dynamic and forever changing place ( even the very ground beneath you now is transient in nature ) and environments have changed dramatically over the course of this planets history . If life were still and static it would never have come to be in the first place . If it can not adapt to a new challenges quickly enough- well just think of all the examples we have of life that is extinct . So I really can not see why Berkinski and his peers find natural evolution , or whatever you care to call it improbable- the driving forces are there to see if you are inclined to learn about them . What I really find improbable is the notion of an omnipotent supernatural enitity outside of the physical universe somehow being able to comprehend and interact with the life in ours- and even to have the desire to do so !"

"I believe you 've missed the point . He 's not against evolution ; change of species over time into other species . He in fact , from what I can gather , does indeed believe in evolution He 's arguing that it did n't come about through materialistic processes ."

DISAGREE

"They believe that mechanistic evolution is just too . improbable"

"arguing that it did n't come about through materialistic processes ."

"If only that were the case . It 's pretty easy to 'shoot down ' an anti , since they rarely have any kind of evidence to support their emotional claims that guns are bad . I was engaged via private message on another forum by a user ( who regularly boasted of his recreational drug use ) who insisted guns were bad . When challenged with stats from the British Home Office ( the person in question was a Briton ) he replied something along the lines of 'Well , I do n't care any more ' . Which I considered odd , as it was he who initiated the debate . Given that , and other comments during our brief correspondence , I concluded that he could not reconcile the stats with his stance ( the fact that rape , homicide , violent assault and theft all increased while rates of firearm ownership decreased , and the police themselves were dis-armed ) and simply refused to admit his position may have been poorly informed ."

"http : //www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf It does n't look like the UK has been doing too bad . Crime has actually been decreasing ."

DISAGREE

"down ' , who insisted guns were bad . I concluded that he could not reconcile the stats with his stance ( the fact that rape , homicide , violent assault and theft all increased while rates of firearm ownership decreased , and the police themselves were dis-armed )"

"Crime has actually been decreasing ."

"If only that were the case . It 's pretty easy to 'shoot down ' an anti , since they rarely have any kind of evidence to support their emotional claims that guns are bad . I was engaged via private message on another forum by a user ( who regularly boasted of his recreational drug use ) who insisted guns were bad . When challenged with stats from the British Home Office ( the person in question was a Briton ) he replied something along the lines of 'Well , I do n't care any more ' . Which I considered odd , as it was he who initiated the debate . Given that , and other comments during our brief correspondence , I concluded that he could not reconcile the stats with his stance ( the fact that rape , homicide , violent assault and theft all increased while rates of firearm ownership decreased , and the police themselves were dis-armed ) and simply refused to admit his position may have been poorly informed ."

"http : //www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf It does n't look like the UK has been doing too bad . Crime has actually been decreasing ."

DISAGREE

"that guns are bad"

"Crime has actually been decreasing ."

"If only that were the case . It 's pretty easy to 'shoot down ' an anti , since they rarely have any kind of evidence to support their emotional claims that guns are bad . I was engaged via private message on another forum by a user ( who regularly boasted of his recreational drug use ) who insisted guns were bad . When challenged with stats from the British Home Office ( the person in question was a Briton ) he replied something along the lines of 'Well , I do n't care any more ' . Which I considered odd , as it was he who initiated the debate . Given that , and other comments during our brief correspondence , I concluded that he could not reconcile the stats with his stance ( the fact that rape , homicide , violent assault and theft all increased while rates of firearm ownership decreased , and the police themselves were dis-armed ) and simply refused to admit his position may have been poorly informed ."

"http : //www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf It does n't look like the UK has been doing too bad . Crime has actually been decreasing ."

DISAGREE

"who insisted guns were bad ."

"Crime has actually been decreasing ."

"If only that were the case . It 's pretty easy to 'shoot down ' an anti , since they rarely have any kind of evidence to support their emotional claims that guns are bad . I was engaged via private message on another forum by a user ( who regularly boasted of his recreational drug use ) who insisted guns were bad . When challenged with stats from the British Home Office ( the person in question was a Briton ) he replied something along the lines of 'Well , I do n't care any more ' . Which I considered odd , as it was he who initiated the debate . Given that , and other comments during our brief correspondence , I concluded that he could not reconcile the stats with his stance ( the fact that rape , homicide , violent assault and theft all increased while rates of firearm ownership decreased , and the police themselves were dis-armed ) and simply refused to admit his position may have been poorly informed ."

"http : //www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf It does n't look like the UK has been doing too bad . Crime has actually been decreasing ."

DISAGREE

"Which I considered odd , as it was he who initiated the debate ."

"It does n't look like the UK has been doing too bad . Crime has actually been decreasing ."

"If only that were the case . It 's pretty easy to 'shoot down ' an anti , since they rarely have any kind of evidence to support their emotional claims that guns are bad . I was engaged via private message on another forum by a user ( who regularly boasted of his recreational drug use ) who insisted guns were bad . When challenged with stats from the British Home Office ( the person in question was a Briton ) he replied something along the lines of 'Well , I do n't care any more ' . Which I considered odd , as it was he who initiated the debate . Given that , and other comments during our brief correspondence , I concluded that he could not reconcile the stats with his stance ( the fact that rape , homicide , violent assault and theft all increased while rates of firearm ownership decreased , and the police themselves were dis-armed ) and simply refused to admit his position may have been poorly informed ."

"http : //www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf It does n't look like the UK has been doing too bad . Crime has actually been decreasing ."

DISAGREE

"rape , homicide , violent assault and theft all increased while rates of firearm ownership decreased , and the police themselves were dis-armed"

"Crime has actually been decreasing"

"If only that were the case . It 's pretty easy to 'shoot down ' an anti , since they rarely have any kind of evidence to support their emotional claims that guns are bad . I was engaged via private message on another forum by a user ( who regularly boasted of his recreational drug use ) who insisted guns were bad . When challenged with stats from the British Home Office ( the person in question was a Briton ) he replied something along the lines of 'Well , I do n't care any more ' . Which I considered odd , as it was he who initiated the debate . Given that , and other comments during our brief correspondence , I concluded that he could not reconcile the stats with his stance ( the fact that rape , homicide , violent assault and theft all increased while rates of firearm ownership decreased , and the police themselves were dis-armed ) and simply refused to admit his position may have been poorly informed ."

"http : //www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf It does n't look like the UK has been doing too bad . Crime has actually been decreasing ."

DISAGREE

"kind of evidence to support their emotional claims"

"Crime has actually been decreasing"

"Here 's the relevant point of exposing how evolutionists dealt with defining the Coelacanth . Before evolutionists knew that living examples of this fish existed , they never even hesitated in taking the observable physical features it exhibited and thought nothing of creating a completely inaccurate and totally fictional biography of that fish 's evolutionary journey . They not only claimed that it crawled on the Sea bottom which proved it was an intermediary fish , but they made assumptions based on the fact that it birthed its young live rather than being an egg layer ."

"What is your evidence they did n't do this ? Remember , today 's Coelacanth is different ."

DISAGREE

"They not only claimed that it crawled on the Sea bottom which proved it was an intermediary fish"

"What is your evidence they did n't do this ? Remember , today 's Coelacanth is different ."

"Here 's the relevant point of exposing how evolutionists dealt with defining the Coelacanth . Before evolutionists knew that living examples of this fish existed , they never even hesitated in taking the observable physical features it exhibited and thought nothing of creating a completely inaccurate and totally fictional biography of that fish 's evolutionary journey . They not only claimed that it crawled on the Sea bottom which proved it was an intermediary fish , but they made assumptions based on the fact that it birthed its young live rather than being an egg layer ."

"What is your evidence they did n't do this ? Remember , today 's Coelacanth is different ."

DISAGREE

"Here 's the relevant point of exposing how evolutionists dealt with defining the Coelacanth ."

"What is your evidence they did n't do this ? Remember , today 's Coelacanth is different ."

"Here 's the relevant point of exposing how evolutionists dealt with defining the Coelacanth . Before evolutionists knew that living examples of this fish existed , they never even hesitated in taking the observable physical features it exhibited and thought nothing of creating a completely inaccurate and totally fictional biography of that fish 's evolutionary journey . They not only claimed that it crawled on the Sea bottom which proved it was an intermediary fish , but they made assumptions based on the fact that it birthed its young live rather than being an egg layer ."

"What is your evidence they did n't do this ? Remember , today 's Coelacanth is different ."

DISAGREE

"they made assumptions based on the fact that it birthed its young live rather than being an egg layer ."

"What is your evidence they did n't do this ? Remember , today 's Coelacanth is different ."

"Here 's the relevant point of exposing how evolutionists dealt with defining the Coelacanth . Before evolutionists knew that living examples of this fish existed , they never even hesitated in taking the observable physical features it exhibited and thought nothing of creating a completely inaccurate and totally fictional biography of that fish 's evolutionary journey . They not only claimed that it crawled on the Sea bottom which proved it was an intermediary fish , but they made assumptions based on the fact that it birthed its young live rather than being an egg layer ."

"What is your evidence they did n't do this ? Remember , today 's Coelacanth is different ."

DISAGREE

"dealt with defining the Coelacanth"

"Coelacanth is different"

"Here 's the relevant point of exposing how evolutionists dealt with defining the Coelacanth . Before evolutionists knew that living examples of this fish existed , they never even hesitated in taking the observable physical features it exhibited and thought nothing of creating a completely inaccurate and totally fictional biography of that fish 's evolutionary journey . They not only claimed that it crawled on the Sea bottom which proved it was an intermediary fish , but they made assumptions based on the fact that it birthed its young live rather than being an egg layer ."

"What is your evidence they did n't do this ? Remember , today 's Coelacanth is different ."

DISAGREE

"relevant point of exposing how evolutionists dealt with defining the Coelacanth"

"today 's Coelacanth is different ."

"If private firearms were to be made illegal across the board , I suggest to you the civil unrest you speak of would be epidemic in our nation . The US , as it has stood constitutionally for 215 years , though wobbly at times , would cease to have existed , as envisioned by the founders of our country , and having been sacrificed for by so many brave men and women . That is my opinion , and of course , may not be shared by many ."

"You mean that the confiscation of the guns would cause civil unrest ? That ` s an interesting thought ."

DISAGREE

"suggest to you the civil unrest you speak of would be epidemic in our nation ."

"mean that the confiscation of the guns would cause civil unrest ?"

"If private firearms were to be made illegal across the board , I suggest to you the civil unrest you speak of would be epidemic in our nation . The US , as it has stood constitutionally for 215 years , though wobbly at times , would cease to have existed , as envisioned by the founders of our country , and having been sacrificed for by so many brave men and women . That is my opinion , and of course , may not be shared by many ."

"You mean that the confiscation of the guns would cause civil unrest ? That ` s an interesting thought ."

DISAGREE

"If private firearms were to be made illegal across the board , I suggest to you the civil unrest you speak of would be epidemic in our nation"

"You mean that the confiscation of the guns would cause civil unrest ? That s an interesting thought ."

"Why do you expect me to provide evidence when you never do ?"

"Then you freely admit that you lied when you said this , and I quote : People like Arch are setting it as opposed to science and in that position it will be doomed to fail . AND Arch is doing nothing but distorting the very thing he holds so dear , I mean , how is accurately quoting passages from the bible distorting it in any way ? You do nothing but post drivel which makes no factual statements at all . And you call that debating ?"

DISAGREE

"Why do you expect me to provide evidence when you never do ?"

"You do nothing but post drivel which makes no factual statements at all . And you call that debating ?"

"Why ? What has caused you to believe such things ?"

"wow , I never thought a qoute would be so stupid as to compare it to a house . Fine then what if I compare your head to a house that is housing ur brain . But it would be perfectly legal to rip it out and steamroll it on the street for allto see . ( by ur rules of course this would be a perfectly acceptable thing to do )"

DISAGREE

"Why ?"

"wow , I never thought a qoute would be so stupid"

"Why ? What has caused you to believe such things ?"

"wow , I never thought a qoute would be so stupid as to compare it to a house . Fine then what if I compare your head to a house that is housing ur brain . But it would be perfectly legal to rip it out and steamroll it on the street for allto see . ( by ur rules of course this would be a perfectly acceptable thing to do )"

DISAGREE

"Why ? What has caused you to believe such things ?"

"I never thought a qoute would be so stupid as to compare it to a house . Fine then what if I compare your head to a house that is housing ur brain"

"So taking peoples rights away is an american value ? I think I will push for legislation to make cancer surgery illegal . After all cancer cells are human life too and with modern medical tech they could become a human being also ."

"In a way , taking rights away is an American value since we have prescribed methods for doing it . For instance , we have legislatures which posess authority to remove a large number of what you likely consider to be rights . Here are just a small number that come to mind : 1 ) Right to murder 2 ) Right to own slaves 3 ) Right to rape 4 ) Right to abusing children 5 ) Right to vote 6 ) Right to smoke ( if you 're under 18 ) 7 ) Right to drink ( 18th Amendment ) 8 ) Right to engage in certain activities in public 9 ) Right to drive as fast as one wants 10 ) Right to dump dangerous chemicals in the nearest river The list goes on really . The fact is that you do n't object to taking rights away in principle , you only object to taking away those rights that you wish to retain . That is quite inconsistent . Where do you get the idea that one has a right to perform an abortion anyway ?"

DISAGREE

"So taking peoples rights away is an american value ?"

"Where do you get the idea that one has a right to perform an abortion anyway ?"

"So taking peoples rights away is an american value ? I think I will push for legislation to make cancer surgery illegal . After all cancer cells are human life too and with modern medical tech they could become a human being also ."

"In a way , taking rights away is an American value since we have prescribed methods for doing it . For instance , we have legislatures which posess authority to remove a large number of what you likely consider to be rights . Here are just a small number that come to mind : 1 ) Right to murder 2 ) Right to own slaves 3 ) Right to rape 4 ) Right to abusing children 5 ) Right to vote 6 ) Right to smoke ( if you 're under 18 ) 7 ) Right to drink ( 18th Amendment ) 8 ) Right to engage in certain activities in public 9 ) Right to drive as fast as one wants 10 ) Right to dump dangerous chemicals in the nearest river The list goes on really . The fact is that you do n't object to taking rights away in principle , you only object to taking away those rights that you wish to retain . That is quite inconsistent . Where do you get the idea that one has a right to perform an abortion anyway ?"

DISAGREE

"So taking peoples rights away is an american value ? I think I will push for legislation to make cancer surgery illegal"

"In a way , taking rights away is an American value since we have prescribed methods for doing it . For instance , we have legislatures"

"So taking peoples rights away is an american value ? I think I will push for legislation to make cancer surgery illegal . After all cancer cells are human life too and with modern medical tech they could become a human being also ."

"In a way , taking rights away is an American value since we have prescribed methods for doing it . For instance , we have legislatures which posess authority to remove a large number of what you likely consider to be rights . Here are just a small number that come to mind : 1 ) Right to murder 2 ) Right to own slaves 3 ) Right to rape 4 ) Right to abusing children 5 ) Right to vote 6 ) Right to smoke ( if you 're under 18 ) 7 ) Right to drink ( 18th Amendment ) 8 ) Right to engage in certain activities in public 9 ) Right to drive as fast as one wants 10 ) Right to dump dangerous chemicals in the nearest river The list goes on really . The fact is that you do n't object to taking rights away in principle , you only object to taking away those rights that you wish to retain . That is quite inconsistent . Where do you get the idea that one has a right to perform an abortion anyway ?"

DISAGREE

"taking peoples rights away is an american value ?"

"taking rights away is an American value do n't object to taking rights away in principle , you only object to taking away those rights that you wish to retain That is quite inconsistent ."

"The women of Islam need to become feminists . That 's all that 's needed ."

"Do you want them all dead ?"

DISAGREE

"That 's all that 's needed ."

"Do you want them all dead ?"

"The women of Islam need to become feminists . That 's all that 's needed ."

"Do you want them all dead ?"

DISAGREE

"The women of Islam need to become feminists"

"Do you want them all dead ?"

"The women of Islam need to become feminists . That 's all that 's needed ."

"Do you want them all dead ?"

DISAGREE

"need to become feminists"

"Do you want them"

"The coelacanth , according to fossil records , and according to evolutionists , allegedly went extinct millions and millions of years ago . Until they were found alive . left an abundant fossil record from the Devonian to the end of the Cretaceous period , at which point they apparently suffered a nearly complete extinction . Coelacanth - Wikipedia , the free encyclopedia As if this should be any surprise . The theory of evolution mindset once again contradicts observable science ."

"There is just one thing however . The coelacanths found are different from those in the fossil record . Further , ALL evidence pointed to them being extinct , until we found other evidence , and we changed it . And , to top it off , the article says NEARLY extinct , not COMPLETELY . Although , this article was of course written after the coelocanths were re-discovered . Of course , this has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution , which explains the mechanisms responsible for the change of allele frequencies in populations over time ."

DISAGREE

"The coelacanth , according to fossil records , and according to evolutionists , allegedly went extinct millions and millions of years ago"

"There is just one thing however . The coelacanths found are different from those in the fossil record . Further , ALL evidence pointed to them being extinct"

"The coelacanth , according to fossil records , and according to evolutionists , allegedly went extinct millions and millions of years ago . Until they were found alive . left an abundant fossil record from the Devonian to the end of the Cretaceous period , at which point they apparently suffered a nearly complete extinction . Coelacanth - Wikipedia , the free encyclopedia As if this should be any surprise . The theory of evolution mindset once again contradicts observable science ."

"There is just one thing however . The coelacanths found are different from those in the fossil record . Further , ALL evidence pointed to them being extinct , until we found other evidence , and we changed it . And , to top it off , the article says NEARLY extinct , not COMPLETELY . Although , this article was of course written after the coelocanths were re-discovered . Of course , this has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution , which explains the mechanisms responsible for the change of allele frequencies in populations over time ."

DISAGREE

"The theory of evolution mindset once again contradicts observable science ."

"theory of evolution , which explains the mechanisms responsible for the change of allele frequencies in populations over time ."

"The coelacanth , according to fossil records , and according to evolutionists , allegedly went extinct millions and millions of years ago . Until they were found alive . left an abundant fossil record from the Devonian to the end of the Cretaceous period , at which point they apparently suffered a nearly complete extinction . Coelacanth - Wikipedia , the free encyclopedia As if this should be any surprise . The theory of evolution mindset once again contradicts observable science ."

"There is just one thing however . The coelacanths found are different from those in the fossil record . Further , ALL evidence pointed to them being extinct , until we found other evidence , and we changed it . And , to top it off , the article says NEARLY extinct , not COMPLETELY . Although , this article was of course written after the coelocanths were re-discovered . Of course , this has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution , which explains the mechanisms responsible for the change of allele frequencies in populations over time ."

DISAGREE

"The coelacanth , according to fossil records , and according to evolutionists , allegedly went extinct millions and millions of years ago ."

"The coelacanths found are different from those in the fossil record ."

"The coelacanth , according to fossil records , and according to evolutionists , allegedly went extinct millions and millions of years ago . Until they were found alive . left an abundant fossil record from the Devonian to the end of the Cretaceous period , at which point they apparently suffered a nearly complete extinction . Coelacanth - Wikipedia , the free encyclopedia As if this should be any surprise . The theory of evolution mindset once again contradicts observable science ."

"There is just one thing however . The coelacanths found are different from those in the fossil record . Further , ALL evidence pointed to them being extinct , until we found other evidence , and we changed it . And , to top it off , the article says NEARLY extinct , not COMPLETELY . Although , this article was of course written after the coelocanths were re-discovered . Of course , this has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution , which explains the mechanisms responsible for the change of allele frequencies in populations over time ."

DISAGREE

"The theory of evolution mindset once again contradicts observable science ."

"this has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution ,"

"I know that the Apostles witnessed God 's miracles ."

"Montalban -- Can you define for me the concept of 'knowledge ' in the sense that you use it ? Would n't 'believe ' be a more accurate word to replace 'know ' in the above statement ? Otherwise , how is it that you can personally 'know ' something that other intelligent and faithful Christians recognize as belief -- not knowledge ?"

DISAGREE

"I know that the Apostles witnessed God 's miracles ."

"Can you define for me the concept of 'knowledge ' in the sense that you use it ? Would n't 'believe ' be a more accurate word to replace 'know '"

"I know that the Apostles witnessed God 's miracles ."

"Montalban -- Can you define for me the concept of 'knowledge ' in the sense that you use it ? Would n't 'believe ' be a more accurate word to replace 'know ' in the above statement ? Otherwise , how is it that you can personally 'know ' something that other intelligent and faithful Christians recognize as belief -- not knowledge ?"

DISAGREE

"know that"

"replace 'know '"

"First off , the scientific method goes : 1 ) Form Hypothesis 2 ) Test hypothesis 3 ) Form conclusion ( or theory ) * correct me if I wrote the scientific method wrong *"

"You guys know me . Always happy to correct anyone . As electrolyte pointed out , ( 1 ) the first step in the scientific method is the observation . A scientist observes something that raises a question . ( 2 ) Then comes the hypothesis , that is an attempt to explain the observation . The hypothesis can be an educated guess or even wild speculation based on previous knowledge or intuition , or it may be based in previous science and an understanding of scientific principles . ( 3 ) One then makes a prediction that is a necessary consequence of the hypothesis . That science is predictive is one of its salient characteristics . In the case of the scientific method , the prediction is said to have the power to falsify the hypothesis . In other words , if the prediction can be shown to be false , then the hypothesis must also be false . If the prediction is true , then the hypothesis is supported . So now we have the observation , the hypothesis that explains the observation , and a prediction that is a consequence of the hypothesis . The next step ( 4 ) is to design an experiment to test the prediction , and then ( 5 ) to perform the test . If the prediction fails the test , then it may be abandoned . However , as electrolyte pointed out , the process may be circular , because if the prediction is falsified , additional observation from the test may be used to adjust the hypothesis at ( 2 ) , and a new prediction is made at ( 3 ) , and so on . In creation science , the process stops at ( 2 ) , except that the hypothesis is based on dogma and scripture , not reality ."

AGREE

"* correct me if I wrote the scientific method wrong *"

"Always happy to correct anyone . In creation science , the process stops at ( 2 ) , except that the hypothesis is based on dogma and scripture , not reality"

"First off , the scientific method goes : 1 ) Form Hypothesis 2 ) Test hypothesis 3 ) Form conclusion ( or theory ) * correct me if I wrote the scientific method wrong *"

"You guys know me . Always happy to correct anyone . As electrolyte pointed out , ( 1 ) the first step in the scientific method is the observation . A scientist observes something that raises a question . ( 2 ) Then comes the hypothesis , that is an attempt to explain the observation . The hypothesis can be an educated guess or even wild speculation based on previous knowledge or intuition , or it may be based in previous science and an understanding of scientific principles . ( 3 ) One then makes a prediction that is a necessary consequence of the hypothesis . That science is predictive is one of its salient characteristics . In the case of the scientific method , the prediction is said to have the power to falsify the hypothesis . In other words , if the prediction can be shown to be false , then the hypothesis must also be false . If the prediction is true , then the hypothesis is supported . So now we have the observation , the hypothesis that explains the observation , and a prediction that is a consequence of the hypothesis . The next step ( 4 ) is to design an experiment to test the prediction , and then ( 5 ) to perform the test . If the prediction fails the test , then it may be abandoned . However , as electrolyte pointed out , the process may be circular , because if the prediction is falsified , additional observation from the test may be used to adjust the hypothesis at ( 2 ) , and a new prediction is made at ( 3 ) , and so on . In creation science , the process stops at ( 2 ) , except that the hypothesis is based on dogma and scripture , not reality ."

AGREE

"the scientific method goes : 1 ) Form Hypothesis 2 ) Test hypothesis 3 ) Form conclusion ( or theory )"

"In creation science , the process stops at ( 2 ) , except that the hypothesis is based on dogma and scripture , not reality ."

"First off , the scientific method goes : 1 ) Form Hypothesis 2 ) Test hypothesis 3 ) Form conclusion ( or theory ) * correct me if I wrote the scientific method wrong *"

"You guys know me . Always happy to correct anyone . As electrolyte pointed out , ( 1 ) the first step in the scientific method is the observation . A scientist observes something that raises a question . ( 2 ) Then comes the hypothesis , that is an attempt to explain the observation . The hypothesis can be an educated guess or even wild speculation based on previous knowledge or intuition , or it may be based in previous science and an understanding of scientific principles . ( 3 ) One then makes a prediction that is a necessary consequence of the hypothesis . That science is predictive is one of its salient characteristics . In the case of the scientific method , the prediction is said to have the power to falsify the hypothesis . In other words , if the prediction can be shown to be false , then the hypothesis must also be false . If the prediction is true , then the hypothesis is supported . So now we have the observation , the hypothesis that explains the observation , and a prediction that is a consequence of the hypothesis . The next step ( 4 ) is to design an experiment to test the prediction , and then ( 5 ) to perform the test . If the prediction fails the test , then it may be abandoned . However , as electrolyte pointed out , the process may be circular , because if the prediction is falsified , additional observation from the test may be used to adjust the hypothesis at ( 2 ) , and a new prediction is made at ( 3 ) , and so on . In creation science , the process stops at ( 2 ) , except that the hypothesis is based on dogma and scripture , not reality ."

AGREE

"correct me if I wrote the scientific method wrong"

"Always happy to correct anyone"

"Pro choicers claim they are for the rights of women . If that is true why do n't pro-choicer want the pregnant women who seek abortion to be informed . I read yesterday , how the pro-choice people are trying to block legislation that would help women make better CHOICES about their pregnancy . If I find the link , I 'll post it , but the legislation was anyone who seeks an abortion , must have access to a sonogram before the abortion . That having an abortion `` may `` cause post-abortion stress syndrome , which for some it does ! It 's sad , pro-choicer , do n't want women to be `` informed `` to the best of their ability . Sonogram can be helpful tool to the WOMAN in helping her make a better CHOICE , and are n't pro-choicers all about CHOICE . So why block this legislation ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? I do n't understand why pro-choicers have so much hate ."

"First off , not all pro-choice advocates support this position . Second , How does a sonogram help to make an informed choice ? What does a sonogram actually inform a pregnant woman about ... that she is pregnant ? I would think that if she was going to get a sonogram , that she would know that she is already pregnant . Seems like simple logic to me . By saying it would help them make a better choice , do n't you really mean to say that it might influence them to not have an abortion , which is actually your choice for them ? You seem to be counting on the puppy store effect . You can drive by the puppy store every day without giving a thought to buying a puppy . But if you actually stop and look at one , you might just feel sorry for the pathetic little puppy couped up in the little cage , and decide to buy it just to `` rescue `` it from it 's plight . It goes something like this : `` awww ... look at the cute little puppy , we ca n't leave it here , we just have to take it home `` . 4 months later , that same cute little puppy is sitting in an SPCA shelter waiting to either be adopted or destroyed . All because it 's do-gooder owner made the decision to buy it based on emotion rather than informed choice ."

DISAGREE

"Sonogram can be helpful tool to the WOMAN in helping her make a better CHOICE , and are n't pro-choicers all about CHOICE ."

"How does a sonogram help to make an informed choice ? What does a sonogram actually inform a pregnant woman about"

"Pro choicers claim they are for the rights of women . If that is true why do n't pro-choicer want the pregnant women who seek abortion to be informed . I read yesterday , how the pro-choice people are trying to block legislation that would help women make better CHOICES about their pregnancy . If I find the link , I 'll post it , but the legislation was anyone who seeks an abortion , must have access to a sonogram before the abortion . That having an abortion `` may `` cause post-abortion stress syndrome , which for some it does ! It 's sad , pro-choicer , do n't want women to be `` informed `` to the best of their ability . Sonogram can be helpful tool to the WOMAN in helping her make a better CHOICE , and are n't pro-choicers all about CHOICE . So why block this legislation ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? I do n't understand why pro-choicers have so much hate ."

"First off , not all pro-choice advocates support this position . Second , How does a sonogram help to make an informed choice ? What does a sonogram actually inform a pregnant woman about ... that she is pregnant ? I would think that if she was going to get a sonogram , that she would know that she is already pregnant . Seems like simple logic to me . By saying it would help them make a better choice , do n't you really mean to say that it might influence them to not have an abortion , which is actually your choice for them ? You seem to be counting on the puppy store effect . You can drive by the puppy store every day without giving a thought to buying a puppy . But if you actually stop and look at one , you might just feel sorry for the pathetic little puppy couped up in the little cage , and decide to buy it just to `` rescue `` it from it 's plight . It goes something like this : `` awww ... look at the cute little puppy , we ca n't leave it here , we just have to take it home `` . 4 months later , that same cute little puppy is sitting in an SPCA shelter waiting to either be adopted or destroyed . All because it 's do-gooder owner made the decision to buy it based on emotion rather than informed choice ."

DISAGREE

"pro-choice people are trying to block legislation that would help women make better CHOICES about their pregnancy"

"not all pro-choice advocates support this position"

"Pro choicers claim they are for the rights of women . If that is true why do n't pro-choicer want the pregnant women who seek abortion to be informed . I read yesterday , how the pro-choice people are trying to block legislation that would help women make better CHOICES about their pregnancy . If I find the link , I 'll post it , but the legislation was anyone who seeks an abortion , must have access to a sonogram before the abortion . That having an abortion `` may `` cause post-abortion stress syndrome , which for some it does ! It 's sad , pro-choicer , do n't want women to be `` informed `` to the best of their ability . Sonogram can be helpful tool to the WOMAN in helping her make a better CHOICE , and are n't pro-choicers all about CHOICE . So why block this legislation ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? I do n't understand why pro-choicers have so much hate ."

"First off , not all pro-choice advocates support this position . Second , How does a sonogram help to make an informed choice ? What does a sonogram actually inform a pregnant woman about ... that she is pregnant ? I would think that if she was going to get a sonogram , that she would know that she is already pregnant . Seems like simple logic to me . By saying it would help them make a better choice , do n't you really mean to say that it might influence them to not have an abortion , which is actually your choice for them ? You seem to be counting on the puppy store effect . You can drive by the puppy store every day without giving a thought to buying a puppy . But if you actually stop and look at one , you might just feel sorry for the pathetic little puppy couped up in the little cage , and decide to buy it just to `` rescue `` it from it 's plight . It goes something like this : `` awww ... look at the cute little puppy , we ca n't leave it here , we just have to take it home `` . 4 months later , that same cute little puppy is sitting in an SPCA shelter waiting to either be adopted or destroyed . All because it 's do-gooder owner made the decision to buy it based on emotion rather than informed choice ."

DISAGREE

"Pro choicers claim they are for the rights of women ."

"First off , not all pro-choice advocates support this position ."

"Pro choicers claim they are for the rights of women . If that is true why do n't pro-choicer want the pregnant women who seek abortion to be informed . I read yesterday , how the pro-choice people are trying to block legislation that would help women make better CHOICES about their pregnancy . If I find the link , I 'll post it , but the legislation was anyone who seeks an abortion , must have access to a sonogram before the abortion . That having an abortion `` may `` cause post-abortion stress syndrome , which for some it does ! It 's sad , pro-choicer , do n't want women to be `` informed `` to the best of their ability . Sonogram can be helpful tool to the WOMAN in helping her make a better CHOICE , and are n't pro-choicers all about CHOICE . So why block this legislation ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? I do n't understand why pro-choicers have so much hate ."

"First off , not all pro-choice advocates support this position . Second , How does a sonogram help to make an informed choice ? What does a sonogram actually inform a pregnant woman about ... that she is pregnant ? I would think that if she was going to get a sonogram , that she would know that she is already pregnant . Seems like simple logic to me . By saying it would help them make a better choice , do n't you really mean to say that it might influence them to not have an abortion , which is actually your choice for them ? You seem to be counting on the puppy store effect . You can drive by the puppy store every day without giving a thought to buying a puppy . But if you actually stop and look at one , you might just feel sorry for the pathetic little puppy couped up in the little cage , and decide to buy it just to `` rescue `` it from it 's plight . It goes something like this : `` awww ... look at the cute little puppy , we ca n't leave it here , we just have to take it home `` . 4 months later , that same cute little puppy is sitting in an SPCA shelter waiting to either be adopted or destroyed . All because it 's do-gooder owner made the decision to buy it based on emotion rather than informed choice ."

DISAGREE

"Pro choicers claim they are for the rights of women . If that is true why do n't pro-choicer want the pregnant women who seek abortion to be informed ."

"First off , not all pro-choice advocates support this position . Second , How does a sonogram help to make an informed choice ? I would think that if she was going to get a sonogram , that she would know that she is already pregnant . Seems like simple logic to me . By saying it would help them make a better choice , do n't you really mean to say that it might influence them to not have an abortion"

"Mongoloid ? Is this 1937 ?"

"I shuddered at same but did n't want to say anything lest I be dubbed PC ."

AGREE

"Mongoloid ? Is this 1937 ?"

"I shuddered at same but did n't want to say anything lest I be dubbed PC"

"i didnt mention good anywhere in my post this is totally false . the laws of logic being absolute does nothing to support a case for god . in fact , everything the bible tells us about god 's nature indicates that god is illogical , unpredictable , unreliable and irreplicable . this is totally the opposite of logic"

"Your making a bunch of arbitrary statments ."

DISAGREE

"everything the bible tells us about god 's nature indicates that god is illogical"

"Your making a bunch of arbitrary statments"

"i didnt mention good anywhere in my post this is totally false . the laws of logic being absolute does nothing to support a case for god . in fact , everything the bible tells us about god 's nature indicates that god is illogical , unpredictable , unreliable and irreplicable . this is totally the opposite of logic"

"Your making a bunch of arbitrary statments ."

DISAGREE

"i didnt mention good anywhere in my post this is totally false . the laws of logic being absolute does nothing to support a case for god ."

"Your making a bunch of arbitrary statments ."

"i didnt mention good anywhere in my post this is totally false . the laws of logic being absolute does nothing to support a case for god . in fact , everything the bible tells us about god 's nature indicates that god is illogical , unpredictable , unreliable and irreplicable . this is totally the opposite of logic"

"Your making a bunch of arbitrary statments ."

DISAGREE

"everything the bible tells us about god 's nature indicates that god is illogical , unpredictable , unreliable and irreplicable . this is totally the opposite of logic"

"Your making a bunch of arbitrary statments ."

"i didnt mention good anywhere in my post this is totally false . the laws of logic being absolute does nothing to support a case for god . in fact , everything the bible tells us about god 's nature indicates that god is illogical , unpredictable , unreliable and irreplicable . this is totally the opposite of logic"

"Your making a bunch of arbitrary statments ."

DISAGREE

"everything the bible tells us about god 's nature indicates that god is illogical , unpredictable , unreliable and irreplicable . this is totally the opposite of logic"

"Your making a bunch of arbitrary statments ."

"i didnt mention good anywhere in my post this is totally false . the laws of logic being absolute does nothing to support a case for god . in fact , everything the bible tells us about god 's nature indicates that god is illogical , unpredictable , unreliable and irreplicable . this is totally the opposite of logic"

"Your making a bunch of arbitrary statments ."

DISAGREE

"i didnt mention good anywhere in my post this is totally false . the laws of logic being absolute does nothing to support a case for god ."

"Your making a bunch of arbitrary statments ."

"Biology is centered around the theory of evolution . Without it , biology is hardly biology ."

"So biology did n't exist before the theory of evolution was formulated ?"

DISAGREE

"Biology is centered around the theory of evolution . Without it , biology is hardly biology ."

"So biology did n't exist before the theory of evolution was formulated ?"

"Biology is centered around the theory of evolution . Without it , biology is hardly biology ."

"So biology did n't exist before the theory of evolution was formulated ?"

DISAGREE

"Biology is centered around the theory of evolution"

"biology did n't exist before the theory of evolution"

"Biology is centered around the theory of evolution . Without it , biology is hardly biology ."

"So biology did n't exist before the theory of evolution was formulated ?"

DISAGREE

"Biology is centered around the theory of evolution ."

"So biology did n't exist before the theory of evolution was formulated ?"

"The Queen does n't allow them to get sick ."

"And you are on intimate terms with the Queen , eh ? By the way , what is it exactly that that little thingy above signifies ? I hope I have used the right emotive whatchamacallit ."

DISAGREE

"The Queen does n't allow them to get sick ."

"And you are on intimate terms with the Queen , eh ?"

"The Queen does n't allow them to get sick ."

"And you are on intimate terms with the Queen , eh ? By the way , what is it exactly that that little thingy above signifies ? I hope I have used the right emotive whatchamacallit ."

DISAGREE

"Queen does n't allow them to get sick"

"what is it exactly that little thingy above signifies"

"The Queen does n't allow them to get sick ."

"And you are on intimate terms with the Queen , eh ? By the way , what is it exactly that that little thingy above signifies ? I hope I have used the right emotive whatchamacallit ."

DISAGREE

"The Queen does n't allow them to get sick ."

"And you are on intimate terms with the Queen , eh ?"

"The Queen does n't allow them to get sick ."

"And you are on intimate terms with the Queen , eh ? By the way , what is it exactly that that little thingy above signifies ? I hope I have used the right emotive whatchamacallit ."

DISAGREE

"The Queen does n't allow them to get sick ."

"And you are on intimate terms with the Queen , eh ?"

"The Queen does n't allow them to get sick ."

"And you are on intimate terms with the Queen , eh ? By the way , what is it exactly that that little thingy above signifies ? I hope I have used the right emotive whatchamacallit ."

DISAGREE

"The Queen does n't allow them to get sick ."

"And you are on intimate terms with the Queen , eh ?"

"A woman owns her head , just as she owns the rest of her body . If you accept women as legitimate self-owners and not a slave caste , both the legality of abortion and the illegality of steamrolling their heads follows ."

"But would n't the baby inside own their body as well ?"

DISAGREE

"A woman owns her head , just as she owns the rest of her body ."

"But would n't the baby inside own their body as well ?"

"A woman owns her head , just as she owns the rest of her body . If you accept women as legitimate self-owners and not a slave caste , both the legality of abortion and the illegality of steamrolling their heads follows ."

"But would n't the baby inside own their body as well ?"

DISAGREE

"A woman owns her head , If you accept women as legitimate self-owners and not a slave caste"

"But would n't the baby inside own their body as well ?"

"A woman owns her head , just as she owns the rest of her body . If you accept women as legitimate self-owners and not a slave caste , both the legality of abortion and the illegality of steamrolling their heads follows ."

"But would n't the baby inside own their body as well ?"

DISAGREE

"just as she owns the rest of her body"

"would n't the baby inside own their body"

"A woman owns her head , just as she owns the rest of her body . If you accept women as legitimate self-owners and not a slave caste , both the legality of abortion and the illegality of steamrolling their heads follows ."

"But would n't the baby inside own their body as well ?"

DISAGREE

"A woman owns her head , just as she owns the rest of her body ."

"would n't the baby inside own their body as well ?"