We were not there...we were given a book written by men for god. It does not tell the entire story, so we really don't know how life as we know it happened. We can make the bridge of faith that God created life from this book which I do. But god also gave us a brain and we have moved past the old testiment and trying to understand creation is not sinful. What is sinful is to hate your brother who thinks a little different than you.
But when science contradicts the bible I research it to find out what might be the problem ,, its either in my understanding or science may have being stretching it a bit. I discovered evolution a farse when it contradicted its own natural laws of science.
Your deep seated hatred for ALL things Republican is disturbing,comical and contradictory all in one...It gets harder each day to have a sane discussion with you...I don't think I have ever seen a Christian pass judgement on another based on political affiliation..UNTIL NOW
Whats next in your repertoire ? are you going to tell us that D Christians are somehow morally superior to their R counterparts ? While we are on the subject of defying God, would you like to explain how your party can defy God and support the abortion of an unborn child...
BHO was the will of God ? cant wait to run that one by my minister , I hope he still allows me to visit his church after asking that one..
I honestly don't know if I should pray for you or pray that our country is not taken over by those with similar ideas like you...
Some say 'mud to man evolution' is the greatest trick he's ever played.
[QUOTE=menmon;1020625]You are such a hypocrit. Just because I don't think it is government role to dictate what a women does with her body under her circumstances, I'm not worthy of god. How dare you! I don't like abortion, but it not my role to dictate it. It's god's role to judge not you. This right here is why you will find me most sunday morning out in gods creation instead of sitting next to someone like you. God can judge me for that too, not you!
I believe that we are to render unto Caesar that which is his....Let Caesar make the laws and collect the taxes.
However, there is nothing that says we have to agree with or support Caesar.
We are also challenged to stand for those unable to stand for themselves.
and I have also learned you dont have to be in a church to be a spiritual person, and it doesnt have to be on Sunday...I attended church on Saturday's as a kid...and now I attend on Wed nights because I am off work and able to make services on a regular basis
I love the Mathematical Odds of MACRO-Evolution.
...consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense. Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060.
The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros."
In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts." source