Eric

It reveals to us that forests once covered these areas. Shouldn't we be happy to learn this? Why isn't this interpreted to mean that perhaps we are moving towards a more "normal" climate?

If not, why not? If you refuse to participate what justification do you have to complain or criticize anyone? Everyone who is registered to vote is obligated to do so, less than 75% turnout is disgraceful.

Is this a national security issue? Is this basically an ethics issue? Is it a morality issue? Shouldn't the President speak out and demand a thorough review of conduct policy of agents who are supposed to be protecting him, his family, and others in our government? I would say that the number of good men/women qualified to serve as agents just dropped like a ton of lead in a swimming pool!

Atheists believe that God can't possibly exist every bit as passionately as Christians believe that God must exist. Each view determines what form society will be. So how can man escape this knot?

They meet in a room which has the Ten Commandments up on one of the walls, and yet they tell the entire nation that we can't have these same things out in public nor in our schools or libraries. That is not even logical.

Is it because what they claim to believe sounds legitimate? Or is it because people fail to stop and think things through to the logical conclusion?

Why do we accept "claim" as evidence of someone being something? I thought it relied upon actions/deeds and speech. Are we so naive today as to believe that deception does not happen in our world? This practiced rationale would seem to fuel polarization of society since it leads to an increase of uninformed conclusions being made about people and/or groups.

New strains of virus is not a new species, it is just different virus. It hasn't evolved into anything new. To me that is just straightforward natural adaptation to environmental factors.

Huxley bluntly stated that he knew that it did not hold water as a scientific theory, yet he supported it. Spence supported it also and pushed it in every area of life even though he also knew that it was not viable as a scientific theory.Why?

He knew that his theory had some major problems with irreducible complexity, so why can't scientists see that also? And why have we lost sight of the fact that Darwinism is now driven by philosophical naturalism?

I wish to create something which has never been seen before. How can I do that?

Isn't it possible that this naturalism is camouflaged within the scientific community so that it is not easily recognized? I am thinking of Carl Sagan and his popular "Cosmos" series and its impact on culture.

How do these two differ? Or are they pretty much the same thing?

What sort of disconnect will exist between people understanding where there food comes from versus getting it in the local grocery? If all of the farmland gets developed through greed of money, who will grow our food?

Or are we dealing in just another belief system based upon faith?

I mean, who has irrefutable proof that an omniscient, omnipresent, all powerful God does not exist, and has never existed? If you've got it, come on and show it to me.

Upon looking at the definition of this term it is evident that our government, controlled by the Democrats, is actively working to put in place a system in which more and more of our industries will be controlled and/or owned by the government. This plainly places us as being in a stage of society in Marxist theory where we are to be transitioned from capitalism to communism. Anyone else not very happy about this train of events?

Should he be allowed to interpret the Bible as he understands it? To proclaim views unpopular with his congregation? To criticize local citizens by name? How responsible should the church pulpit be?