Rated insightful for someone who can't spell dinosaurs? What is slashdot coming to I ask? Assuming evolution is true, what would have been the preempting factor that turned some dinosaurs into creatures with wings? Seems a bit far-fetched to me.
By the way, you didn't actually answer whether the *chicken* egg came before the chicken. Let's assume again evolution is true, you only "proved" that some type of egg came before one instance of a chicken. You didn't prove that an actual chicken egg came first though. What would have happened is that a dinosaur laid an egg that hatched a chicken which then laid an actual chicken egg that hacked another chicken. Of course, with evolution not actually being a good premise to rely on it means that the chicken came first.
By the way, what are noncompos and for argument's sake, what dinosaur turned into a chicken?
How can you expect Americans to have aristocracies if you stand in the way of holding back or penalizing the poor!?
Everyone except the poorest people in the U.S. get penalized more than the poorest people by paying more taxes. Obviously the more you earn the more you are taxed and therefore the more you are penalized. So in fact, the poor are the least penalized when it comes to taxes and since taxes are usually a large topic area when discussing aristocracies it seems your statement is simply false.
Abortion = murder, murder = crime, hence abortion = crime. Seems to make sense to me. If we, as a species, protect those outside of the womb we should be giving equal protection to those still inside.
Except the facts show that Republicans, by a significant majority, want the country ruled by religious laws. Here's just a sample of their positions on issues ruled by what they think their bible says, rather than the Constitution:
The country already is ruled by religious law to some extent: thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal. Murder and burglary are against the law. Why aren't you all riled up about that? Constitution doesn't say anything about murder or stealing but yet we have laws for them.
By the way, we know what the Bible says so including in your post "what they think their Bible says" is a transparent attempt at discrediting them. Nice try but it didn't work. Those Republican officials' views are shared by a vast majority of the country's citizens. It just goes to show you that despite what the minority don't believe in, the majority of the population still enjoy and prefer having religion as a large part of their lives. And the side benefit is that those who disagree are welcome to do so as long as the laws of the land are still obeyed by all.
All the happenings in the Bible can be explained very simply if you think of it as a bunch of Fantasy written by people who wanted to create a religion. There is even clear evidence that the Bible is fabricated. Even its followed accept that the New Testament was created from seperate [sic] books, edited with some parts and books left out completely. So we know that it is edited. No truly religious person would dare to edit the word of god, so what made the person who edited the new testament decide to think he could do this?
Care to provide said evidence that the Bible is fabricated? By the way, history text books are edited often (at the behest of many people's agendas) to remove events that make certain groups of people look bad to the rest of the world and for many other reasons. Would you doubt everything you learned about history after knowing that Boards of Education decide what to have in the history text books? There are other history books to read as well but, *sarcasm* can you really trust anyone who writes a book *sarcasm* Just come out and say you have a negative bias against religion and we'll move on.
It is amusing to see a program on trying to explain the story around Moses, when nothing in the historical record mentions this at all. Explain the parting of the red seas, but not why an exodus of slaves was not mentioned in Egyptian records.
Therefore it must not have happened? Lots of things happened throughout history that were never recorded. But in this case because a particular event happened to be recorded in what is considered a religious document and no where else you have trouble believing it? You have a closed mind.
Have you ever worked an unsuccessful code on a 6 year old? Have you ever gone out to a call and found a person who'd literally had their head crushed? Have you ever seen someone who was shot 12 times with shotguns, or a person who was stabbed 56 times? Until you have, I suggest you STFU.
If you were to send out pictures to civilians about a crime scene you are effectively contaminating the scene because you could be releasing evidence to the public (and therefore potential suspects) that typically you would want to remain private information. How do you justify taking pictures due to "stress" when you would be contaminating a crime scene and therefore not doing your job properly?
In 2006, an eighteen-year-old woman was decapitated in a traffic accident. Two of the police officers who reported to the scene emailed photos of the woman's body to their friends and family one Halloween."
Sounds like they have a problem with immature police officers as well. Hopefully the officers got reprimanded for doing that.
"If you can, help others. If you can't, at least don't hurt others." -- the Dalai Lama