more harm to america from trump's anti-american election lies

[pjmret]

Like the buffoon Dawkins said, Aliens may have created life on earth but if they did they were godless aliens and it is a proven fact that God was not involved.

Really? Is it a proven fact that there is no God? How did the morons prove there is no God?

I didn't say anything like that *****

 

[Boris Norris]

Either similarity of DNA has nothing to do with relatedness or humans claiming similarities prove relatedness are claiming a family tree connection to mush melons.

That's correct and your ignorance of DNA is no excuse to make light of it.

What did the Bible say about DNA

 

[mark francis]

That's correct and your ignorance of DNA is no excuse to make light of it.

What did the Bible say about DNA

The Bible says God created life on earth, not natural selection/DNA mumbo-jumbo nonsense in sea water.

 

[Boris Norris]

The Bible says God created life on earth, not natural selection/DNA mumbo-jumbo nonsense in sea water.

Yeah well the Bible has been proven wrong years ago.
Immaculate conception and virgin births???
Don't make me vomit dickhead.

 

[mark francis]

Yeah well the Bible has been proven wrong years ago.
Immaculate conception and virgin births???
Don't make me vomit dickhead.

No, the Bible has not been disproven, but liars keep getting disproven.

Is Archaeology Proving the Bible?

Archaeology has been pointing to the accuracy of the Hebrew scriptures for 170 years. But this latest find is arguably the most astounding of all.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

The election was FAIR and TRUMP lost.
More than SEVEN MILLION people preferred Bidden.

 

[mark francis]

The election was FAIR and TRUMP lost.
More than SEVEN MILLION people preferred Bidden.

That is certainly the unsupported self-preservation narrative of democrats in spite of the unrefuted evidence against them.

 

[pjmret]

That is certainly the unsupported self-preservation narrative of democrats in spite of the unrefuted evidence against them.

unsupported? nope its supported by all the court cases you idiots lost claiming fraud. lol

you idiots think something is "evidence" if you claim it is. lol. no, until you prove its credible, its whining, not evidence. hahahahahahahahhahahahah

 

[mark francis]

unsupported? nope its supported by all the court cases you idiots lost claiming fraud. lol

you idiots think something is "evidence" if you claim it is. lol. no, until you prove its credible, its whining, not evidence. hahahahahahahahhahahahah

No court in America ruled that the massive evidence of 2020 democrat voting fraud was invalid.

 

[pjmret]

No court in America ruled that the massive evidence of 2020 democrat voting fraud was invalid.

courts dont work that way, legal mor on. lol.
as i've told you many times and you are too stupid to understand.

but yes, the court rulings do SUPPORT the idea that your claims of fraud are stupid. duh.

its amazing that you mor ons lost every court case but continue to whine. well, not amazing, you are mor ons after all

 

[mark francis]

courts dont work that way, legal mor on. lol.
as i've told you many times and you are too stupid to understand.

but yes, the court rulings do SUPPORT the idea that your claims of fraud are stupid. duh.

its amazing that you mor ons lost every court case but continue to whine. well, not amazing, you are mor ons after all

You seem to think that since courts refused to take up voting fraud cases that supposedly proves the voting fraud evidence invalid. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

[pjmret]

You seem to think that since courts refused to take up voting fraud cases that supposedly proves the voting fraud evidence invalid. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

courts didn't refuse to take them up, legal lying mor on. lol.
you seem to think that constantly lying does anything but make you look stupid. lol.

 

[mark francis]

courts didn't refuse to take them up, legal lying mor on. lol.
you seem to think that constantly lying does anything but make you look stupid. lol.

Not many, if any, voting fraud cases were actually tried in a court before a jury.

 

[pjmret]

Not many, if any, voting fraud cases were actually tried in a court before a jury.

none were tried before a jury, because those cases dont go to juries. the judge himself is the "jury". duh

god you just insist on being incredibly stupid here, for whatever reason. lol

 

[mark francis]

none were tried before a jury, because those cases dont go to juries. the judge himself is the "jury". duh

god you just insist on being incredibly stupid here, for whatever reason. lol

If no judge investigated all the available evidence or ruled against the limited evidence he examined his ruling cannot be accepted as either far-reaching or irrefutable.