Perhaps. But since the thread starter just took a shit and ran we don't really have a starting point for the discussion we have had over and over again in this forum.
Huckabee, Tancredo, and Brownback. I have a feeling each of them have more of a chance than most people think. At this time in 1991, no one had heard of Bill Clinton.
To get nominated or get elected? I can imagine one of them stunning people in Iowa, then riding that to success in SoCar, and then riding THAT to the evangalicals winning it for them on Super Tuesday. But one of those guys has to "kill off" the other two. If you mean, they have a better chance to win the whole thing, I don't think so. Moderate Republicans would freak if Brownback were to be nominated, and true independents would kill him.
The Clinton rise phenomenon just doesn't happen in the GOP. The nomination will only go to one of the 3 front runners or Fred Thompson. The other candiates are cannon fodder and Ron Paul
I suppose that if you believe that history < 7,000 years, then a year and a half is an eternity. I think people may be underestimating the evangelical movement. I'm not a part of it, so I can't speak for any segment of that larger group, but it seems to me the last 6 years have inspired many to question the political alliance with bush-like candidates. I think you will be finding more and more that will weigh issues like global warming and care for the poor and sick (and other true Christian messages) and decide that those are more important than issues like evolution and gay marriage. Instead of pandering to the Regent University segment, I would speak to evangelical groups and make it clear that I respect their views on all subjects, and will consider those views, but that I am not a puppet of any movement.
McCain's view most completely represented mine. (Not that this matters to my vote.) It was a tough question to answer in 60 seconds and he did it pretty good. It's possible to believe the Biblical story of creation and that after that, evolution (or as I like to call it, genetic mutation) took place. If there was no genetic mutation, there would be only one type of person (God created Adam, created Eve from Adam), which would mean there would only be one hair color, one eye color, one skin color, we would have no genetic diseases, deformities, or abnormalities cause all of us would share one gene pool. One could take a look around the office, and realize that couldn't be right.
bingo. I don't think God necessarily created Mule Deer, Whitetail deer, and all the other varieties. Maybe one or two, who knows. Microevolution which produced the different varieties occured after the original creation.
This is a good thread. I am a Christian and I have never understand why it has to be an either/or when it comes to evolution and creationism. Couldn't both sides each have a part of the story? Evolution has yet to be proven wrong, yet something did start this cycle of life.
I never said I took the bible literally. Most Christians don't. Don't lump as all in with the born again crowd.
Probably not, but all three are men of considerable power so we really can't dismiss them (like an Alan Keyes). It's troubling.
The problem with that is, if you don't believe in everything, how do you pick and choose what to believe? Like if you're a Christian and you don't take the bible literally, yet you think homosexual is wrong based on the bible...how do you justify that? It's awfully convenient to believe the nice things while avoiding the absurd or cruel things.
Same as the following: Astronomy: Big Bang Theory Chemistry: Atomic theory — Kinetic theory of gases Computer science: Algorithmic information theory — Computation theory Economics: Decision theory Engineering: Circuit theory — Control theory — Signal theory - Systems theory Geology: Plate tectonic theory Mathematics: Catastrophe theory — Category theory — Chaos theory — Physics: Acoustic theory — Antenna theory - General relativity — Special relativity — Theory of relativity — Quantum field theory Planetary science: Giant impact theory Statistics : Extreme value theory
Show me one iota of evidence, just one post, where I said homosexuality is wrong. I'll pay you $100 thru paypal if you can find that post. I am dead serious. Guess what, I can support gay marriage, be pro choice, AND still go to church on Sunday. The bible was written by men. Men who put in their own opinions and bias. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm "I want God's gay and lesbian children to know of God's unconditional love and acceptance of them as well. We cannot find any condemnation in scripture for committed monogamous same-sex relationships." Rev. Charles Coppinger, Chaplain of the Arizona Legislature in a letter to legislators, sent 2000-NOV-7, announcing that he is a gay male. "The half-dozen biblical references to homosexuality do not reflect what we understand today about loving relationships. This is an identity, not a sin." The Rev. Dan Johnson of Good Samaritan United Methodist Church in Edina,MN. "I am always amazed at how the Bible, that portrays my Lord embracing the outcasts, touching the lepers, welcoming the Samaritans, not judging the woman taken in the act of adultery, and inviting 'all of ye,' not 'some of ye,' to 'come unto me,' can, in the hands of a few distorted people be turned into a book of hatred, violence and judgment." 5 "In reality, there are no biblical literalists, only selective literalists. By abolishing slavery and ordaining women, millions of Protestants have gone far beyond biblical literalism. It's time we did the same for homophobia." William Sloane Coffin 6