I'd like evidence, not opinions, PLEASE.
119529
Ain’t is a word that ain’t had it easy. It first appeared in English in 1778, evolving from an earlier form an’t, which arose almost a century earlier as a contraction of are not and am not. In fact, ain’t seems to have arisen at the tail end of an era that saw the introduction of a number of our most common contractions, including don’t and won’t. Ain’t and some of these other contractions came under criticism in the 1700s for being inelegant and low-class, even though they had actually been used by upper-class speakers. But while don’t and won’t eventually became perfectly acceptable at all levels of speech and writing, ain’t was to receive a barrage of criticism in the 19th century for having no set sequence of words from which it can be contracted and for being “a vulgarism,” that is, a term used by the lower classes. At the same time ain’t’s uses were multiplying to include is not, has not, and have not. It may be that these extended uses helped provoke the negative reaction. Whatever the case, the criticism of ain’t by usage commentators and teachers has not subsided, and the use of ain’t has come to be regarded as a mark of ignorance. Use it at your peril.     1 \n  But despite all the attempts to ban it, ain’t continues to appear in the speech of ordinary folks. Even educated and upper-class speakers see that ain’t has no substitute in fixed expressions like Say it ain’t so, You ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie, and You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.     2 \nain’t I?  The stigmatization of ain’t leaves us with no happy alternative for use in first-person questions. The widely used aren’t I?, though illogical, was found acceptable for use in speech by a majority of the Usage Panel in an early survey, but in writing there is no alternative to saying am I not? \n\n\nCan't find the etymological chronology root of the contraction, isn't (of: is not).\n\nSorry...
349762
you make some wild claims there,,,, evidence? post the source
574643
Hey may be guilty, but there's tons of probably doubt. There's no way I'd vote to convict on what little evidence they presented at trial.
596781
You'll never hear it.   I'm afraid they shy away from evidence.  If you notice they tend to gang up on one particular question and spew venom at the president but are very weak on evidence. The best they do is quote the latest from CNN
390440
God points.  Get some more evidence.  If the judge can be convinced that she is a liar it will hurt her case and help yours. So far you are not convincing. What is her evidence?
53177
I have found a site relating to the topic I can't say that I can vouch for how reputable the information is.  But here is the link you make your own educated decision.  Obviously anyone can fudge numbers to make there own point.
458091
neither exist... show me some proof.
615180
People don't want to know. You are correct! There is even more. That's why I try only to answer. Only if I think they are sincere, or if they are saying an untruth that I'm afraid others might believe.
228683
what proof are you looking for? can you specify more details about the actual question?
489741
I dont want to even think about answering that. But thanks for the points.()
452459
I disbelieve on the grounds of lack of evidence so short of proof being forthcoming I couldn't say I believed God existed. Convictions or subjective opinions don't come into it-it's purely down to a lack of valid evidence.
255132
Why are you trying to impose the belief on me that there is something wrong with the statement the other person made?  It is natural to share opinions.  You just need to accept some and let others go.
233860
There's no way to prove or disprove something like that.
608060
One thing I've learned on yahoo answers is the person who posts the question really only wants opinions that support their own. They aren't interested in intelligent debate.
563144
The request for evidence depends in the assertion being made by someone else.\n\nI wouldn't bother asking for evidence for a god like that of Spinoza or Don S (only god can in this case), I do not expect to get any evidence for such beings. If someone believes god can be only known through faith, I wouldn't ask for evidence either.\n\nNow, there are assertions that deserve being questioned. Once someone proposed that there is a "dimension of light" where god lives. Wouldn't you like to know what evidence there is to make such assertion? I can accept someone believes this through "faith", but if someone insists there is a "logical conclusion" to determine its existence, I'd ask for it. If someone had the evidence, I'd like to give it a try.\n\nI could give you other examples, but this is enough, it's all about the specific assertion.\n\nSo, I'd only ask for proof depending it what is being proposed. Even though I have to point out that, usually, I'm here to share my point of views and not to ask for proof of anything.\n\nI've got e-mails telling me I'll burn in hell... And their evidence is? o.0
122103
If you're going to make such a claim I would say the burden of proof would be on you to provide evidence, not on others to disprove it.  If you could provide those references and explanations for why you think they pertain to marijuana then perhaps we can talk.  I would venture to guess them to be absurd isogetical explanations but you are more than welcome to prove me wrong.
319192
Plenty of evidence! \n\nHere's a good place to "start" :