As a christian with a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and a Doctorate in Bioengineering I find Mr. Dawkin’s assertion that evolution is a fact to be questionable a best. The one thing that evolution has not explained is the “creation” of information in a digital form that is organized to provide the equivalent of a highly functional computer program with engineering blueprints and manufacturing processes embedded. DNA, which is best described as digital code transcribed and stored using organic molecules as opposed to silicon or magnetic particles on a spinning platter, contains all of these things and likely more embedded within its complex and information dense structure.
Where did the massive amount of information stored in DNA come from? Random unguided chemical reactions taking place over billions of years? Or, a benevolent supreme being with the intelligence and wisdom to create massively complex life? My experience in scientific pursuit and also in the pursuit of spiritual enlightenment has lead to conclude that life was created by that supreme being, God. What will your pursuit of these things reveal to you?
You may not agree, but that doesn’t mean I am some dangerously ignorant knuckle dragging imbecile.
This is a great reply. I love it. I don't think Mr. Dawkins would like to debate you sir. The problem I have with evolution is it doesn't explain away the idea of irreducible complexity within the cells. If the machinery weren't as complicated and elegant as they are, it wouldn't function and the cell would die. Where did the information and coding come from to create such complicated machinery in the cell. Evolutionists have never been able to explain that to my satisfactions.
Blasted tablet keyboard! Arrgh!
I'm sorry Dora...do I offend you?
 September 7, 2012 at 2:09pm
I have virtually, not literally, read all of the posts and can find no one voicing concern that this guy is the first one in line to be president if, God forbid, something should happen to Mr. Obama! I’m figuratively, not literally, beside myself!
April 3, 2012 at 6:33pm
What are you using to determine that the people spewing are in fact “Christians” as you claim? Or is that just your impression based on the stance they happen to take?
I think there is reason to believe that anyone being “hateful,” and I mean that in the truest sense of the word, is not a Christian who has been washed in the blood of the Lamb and realizes that they are saved by grace through faith alone. But, if the definition of hate is lowered to include differences of opinion that make someone else feel uncomfortable, well, that’s just life. I may disagree with someone, and my disagreement may make them uncomfortable, but that doesn’t mean I “hate” them. If they think that then maybe they need to do some self-examination.
March 29, 2012 at 1:34pm
Anti-discrimination laws and regulations create discrimination in the reverse. If you tell me I can’t discriminate against you because of my beliefs and opinions then you are discriminating against me because of your beliefs and opinions. You have to understand that logic.
If the homosexual group feels that they have been discriminated against, then they have every right to take their business elsewhere and share their disdain with those in their circle of influence. However, what they have done is to create a reverse-discrimination situation by essentially pressing formal charges against the business for discrimination. So, the homosexual group can have their cake and eat it to (have their beliefs and discriminate with them), but not the Christian business owner(s), who have have to hire and attorney to defend themselves, and may have to pay a civil penalty or perhaps even be criminally prosecuted.
I understand why anti-discrimination laws and regulations were created, but can’t you see how they create the conundrum of a double-standard. There are other ways to solve these issues, that don’t involve one group forcing another group to accept their beliefs under penalty of the law.
March 29, 2012 at 1:19pm
Yes they do. As evidenced by this story also found on The Blaze.
Or also say that Romney will win both red and blue states when Santorum cant get 25 percent of the vote we will have a problem winning with him as the candadate.
check yourself - we are looking at romney 47% and santorum at 35%
rick santorum has no chance at courting the suburban/metro voters which tend to be moderates/independents. he also has no chance of winning the women vote. these are the voters that we lost in 2008 and we will lose them again if sanatorium is the nominee. his stances on social issues are simply too conservative for these voters.
romney will win the social conservatives regardless. he has the best potential to build a coalition that can beat obama because he can appeal across many demographics. obama is a master campaigner and he will have the MSM on his side. the odds are stacked against us! we will not win the election if it's just conservatives versus indepedents/liberals!
i am not a santorum supporter but it is hard to say what he can and cant do. he has had the spotlight for just a couple months and the narrative has been dominated by the media and romney's superPACs. Its not like santorum has been running for president for 5 years....
i was being too general so let me clarify. it's not that his stances on social and national security issues are necessarily too conservative and hawkish, respectively. the problem is public perception. the perception is that his stances on these issues are radical or extremist. it's entirely his fault too! he goes way over the top when he talks about these things on the stump and in the media.
February 11, 2012 at 6:17pm
Samuel and Morgan WERE two of my favorite actors. Sad that they have to be that way.
They, like the vast majority of blacks in this country are racists to the core. This is what NASA would term a "Major Malfunction". The liberals are cheering this fact and strengthen black racism every chance they get.
January 4, 2012 at 4:40pm
@THEKULIGS is correct. Premeditation makes the crime more severe as it relates to the prosecution of the dead man’s cohort.
January 4, 2012 at 4:35pm
@moderationisbest, you say it is sad someone had to die. Which is the same thing you would say if that poor woman had been killed by an intruder and did not have the capability of defending herself. Or what if she had been raped? What would you say then? Sad would not bring her back from the dead or restore her sanity after being raped.
Seriously? When someone attacks another human being with a knife and the obvious intent to harm or kill you say you are sad that they are dead? I’m thankful that she was armed and capable of defending herself.
What saddens me is that our culture creates predators like the decedent and bleeding hearts that are sad when he is killed for attacking an innocent women in her own house. Would you prefer she tried to talk it over with the guy as he was coming at her with a knife? Wake-up man!