No it doesn't. All it means is you haven't found any evidence. Have you traveled the universe? How can you make such an arrogant statement.

I never said that we WILL NOT FIND evidence. (Note: FUTURE tense.)
I said that there IS no evidence. (Note: Present tense.)

And for the record, it's "arrogance" to claim to "know" something without being able to offer ANY evidence of that knowledge.
THAT is arrogance.

To ADMIT that we have no evidence is not arrogance. It's a fact.
You think it's not a fact? Prove me wrong.

There is no evidence that you know of. I met a man once who told me he had the spirit of Jesus in his heart. You and I cannot say he doesn't. You have not traveled the universe so you cannot say there is no evidence. You can completely honestly say there is no evidence you know of. Do you see the difference?

Is there any evidence that YOU know of?
That YOU can show?

If nobody can show any evidence, then it seems fairly obvious that nobody has any evidence to show.
That's simple and obvious and intuitive.
I can't believe you're belaboring that point.


Man. Over and over again you keep STRAWMAN ARGUING my point.
I am saying that he BELIEVES he has the spirit of Jesus in his heart.

And what I find COMPLETELY FASCINATING about this example is that you just said you MET A MAN who said that.
Does that mean that YOU do NOT have the spirit of Jesus in your heart?

Is the man who claims to have the spirit of Jesus in his heart a liar? Hevusa would call him a liar. What do you call him?

Asked and answered.
He BELIEVES he has the spirit of Jesus, but has no proof of his claims.
IMO, I don't call people "liars" based on that scenario.

If he claimed to have proof or evidence of it, and then could not offer any, that would be an indicator.

Why do you keep repeatedly asking me questions which have already been addressed?

Do yourself a favor. Take out a pen and a paper. Write down on the paper "Foundit66 is not calling people "liar" because they say they know something about God".
Take out some tape and tape it to the monitor.

Maybe that will help you remember...

Getting back on the subject of abortion, I am anti-abortion because I feel this act is murder, life is not a mistake. Abortion and physician assisted suicide cheapen human life. Doctors are sworn to protect life, not end it... even a life. In the womb, the baby reacts to environmental stimuli and shares many of the physiological features that define human life. Furthermore, most mothers who had an abortion suffer a great deal of mental and/or physical anguish due to their "choice". Abortion is a "choice" that very few people can feel good about. Teach children to respect sex and the responsibility that accompanies it. It makes better sense to prevent teen and unplanned pregnancies by not taking part in actions that cause pregnancy.

In the abortion debate, the vast majority of people fall somewhere in the middle of a continuum that DOES EXIST. And a lot of times, people in the debate refuse to admit the existence of this continuum.

Like in this statement of yours with regards to baby's reacting to environmental stimuli. That isn't always the case. There is a point in time whereby the embryo does not react to stimuli in the womb, nor does it have the capacity to do so.

Do you object to abortion before there is reaction to environmental stimuli?
Do you object to the day after pill?
Do you know when the cut-off time-line is for the baby reacting, and not reacting to stimuli in the womb?


I get REALLY sick and tired of people who have no clue HOW women who have had an abortion react to having an abortion.
Was there actually a study done to confirm your claim?
Or does it just sound good on a message board, and you have no evidence of your claim?


Actually, it makes more sense to realize that the two issues are INDEPENDENT of themselves in the sense that doing one does not preclude the other.
We can DO BOTH. We can have legalized abortion, AND educate our children on the risks of sex.

And for the record Jaaaman, it makes NO sense to educate them SOLELY with the message that they shouldn't have sex. There have been a variety of studies on the issue, and REPEATEDLY they show that a FULL education of the SPECTRUM of options results in less teen-age pregnancy than the "Just don't do it" message.

There have been many studies to prove that claim foundit. There are many women that have been traumatized by the act of their abortion. Take a look a Mrs. Roe for example. She is one of them now leading the fight against abortion.
Abstinence in relationships is the only way for sure not to get pregnant. This anything goes attitude the world has today about premarital sex is leading many teens and young adults to get pregnant ill advised that then leads them to have abortions.

Can you offer one of those studies for review?


That is true.
But that doesn't address what I said.
Plan A) Teach kids SOLELY about abstinence, and SOLELY encourage abstinence.
Plan B) Teach kids about ALL their options, and encourage them to make the best choice for themselves.

Plan B has repeatedly been shown to result in FEWER teen-age pregnancies.


"anything goes attitude"? I would be very against teaching "anything goes" in a school.
Teaching all the options for sexual education IS NOT "teaching anything goes".

And it is a fact that teaching abstinence only results in MORE teen-age pregnancies than telling teen-agers of all their options.