I remember our pastor saying “many people say the reason wives should be subservient to their husbands is due to the fact that Adam was created first”. And “it is an argument used to say that women should not be Pastors”. Then he said that we should note that all the animals were created before Adam so that argument holds no water!
 May 4, 2016 at 10:13pm
Matt: why they think Trump would be superior to Clinton in clear and rational language:
1. Trump pro-gun (2nd amendment), Hillary not!
2. Trump may nominate a conservative to the supreme court, Hillary not!
3. Trump business experience, Hillary not!
4.On Individual rights, Donald Trump is far more conservative than Hillary Clinton!
5.Donald Trump is far more conservative than Hillary Clinton on domestic issues.
6.On Economic issues, Donald Trump is far more conservative than Hillary Clinton.
7.On Defense and international issues, Donald Trump is slightly more conservative than Hillary Clinton.
8.Donald will change Obamacare.
9.Donald will try to stop the importing of Muslims terrorists.
10. Donald will try to stop our open border.
Oh, you mean he'll TRY to build the wall that he used to rope in you Trumpets? So it's gone from "I'll build a big beautiful wall" to "he'll try to stop our open border". Sounds you you've lost some faith in him already. Just sayin'.
All lies. He's conned everyone including you.
You got that one right!!!!
Even a hard core feminist friend of mine is so scared of Hillary and her war mongering that she likes Trump better, but sadly she is a Canadian and cannot vote.
You realize he wants to accomplish #10 by building a useless wall which will require stealing land from private citizens in Texas, so number 4 is an obvious lie.
As for international issues, he wants trade wars, and doesn't give a damn about our allies.
His businesses are hit or miss, so what good is that?
Economic issues? Again, he wants trade wars and to build a $25,000,000,000+ wall. How us that conservative?
Changing Obama care does do good if an untrustworthy asshole is the one making the changes.
Trump is only pro-gun because that's what you want to hear.
You are lying to yourself. It's sad that your support for an evil candidate has gone so far that you create your own version of reality to support him.
May 4, 2016 at 9:53pm
You could read his book, or you could just simply read the Bible! The answer is YES!
 May 4, 2016 at 9:49pm
The #NeverTrump people who, no matter the consequence, including handing Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton the keys to the White House, are a bunch of idiots! Hillary will try ever trick in the book to take away our guns. She will definitely appoint a liberal to the supreme court and there goes any conservative opinions for a generation. How can they be so stupid?
No one is stupid.
Some people just don't take a candidate at his word.
We need proof, we need examples, we need confirmation.
And Trump hasn't shown any of that, yet.
Hillary might be a horrendous President.
But this might be a case of "the devil you know" versus "the devil you don't".
My guess is that Never Trumps can be just as stupid as Forever Trumps. The proof is all over the posts on this subject.
Demented DONNY will appoint a LIBERAL BUDDY too...Just listen to what he's saying now he's SHEDDING his "CONSERVATIVE CLOTHING" as you type
April 12, 2016 at 7:22pm
Jeez! I wish they would leave the looks of our money alone. At my age (73) all the different change and bills seems as if I am in a a foreign country. There must be more than 50 different quarters alone. None seem real to me. I understand the security aspect, but why does it have to look different?
Because "they" can't do anything else to show "they" actually do something.
April 6, 2016 at 3:47pm
It is also related to John 15. Here is verse 5:5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
The branch that does not remain with Jesus and is thrown into the fire is pretty much self explanatory (Hell).
 April 6, 2016 at 3:33pm
Actually many people consider transgender a mental illness: Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;’ Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’. By Michael W. Chapman, Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the formal diagnosis used by psychologists and physicians to describe people who experience significant dysphoria (distress) with the sex and gender they were assigned at birth. GID is classified as a medical disorder by the ICD-10 CM and DSM-5 (called gender dysphoria).[8.
 April 5, 2016 at 7:58pm
SandHillGuy: Amen Brother! It actually protects Christians and others by not giving these special rights to LBGT people.
April 1, 2016 at 7:17pm
Hey Chris Enloe! Great April First to you.
Mar 22, 2016 – Three students at George Mason University were arrested after Allegedly Making Bombs at GMU.
Mar 23, 2016 – Police at GMU say they are “actively investigating” two student rapes, just days apart.
 March 31, 2016 at 7:51pm
TPF: I believe it isn’t so much that the Christian community seems to focus on homosexuality, it is that the homosexual community seems to push it in our face. How many “Covet your neighbor’s wife Pride” marches have you seen? How many ‘Stealing Money Pride’ marches have you seen? When does a business that gets shoplifted have a law written that they must allow this type of behaviour? How many actors, athletes and others make an announcement that they are coming out of the closet and have coveted their neighbors wife?
It seems to me that the quest for equal rights by discriminated-against groups has always involved pushing the discrimination "in our face." This was clear when blacks campaigned for an end to Jim Crow laws and for voting rights. This was the pattern when women started to demand equal rights. It has been true over sexual orientation. And, in time, it will probably materialize over transgender people and transsexuals.
The way to avoid such obnoxious behavior is to engage in honest dialogue. But I don't see a lot of that going on.
I don't know any method of achieving an end to discrimination and positive social change without a degree of obnoxious behavior.
So you progressives have to be obnoxious because you can't engage in honest dialogue.
Exactly. They are shoving it in our faces wanting us all to accept their gay pride.
 March 21, 2016 at 8:32pm
Wow, in CA he could be sued by fair housing (although they are sorta left wingers). For example, if you say in your ad “next to a Catholic church”, you will be accused of discrimination (of Islam and Jewish people).
 March 15, 2016 at 5:41pm
This seems like making a mountain out of a anthill. She was grabbed on the forearm and she ‘doesn’t want to make a big thing of this since she supports Trump’ and then goes on the news and demands an apology. Now she quits her job and Ben Shapiro also quits. Lets hope that is the last we see of them, but I suspect we will see them on one of the liberal “news” outlets soon…..
 March 15, 2016 at 5:36pm
One thing for sure, he is not teaching them proper English. Maybe seeing the fact that 70 percent of the school district’s pupils read below their grade levels, it is the only way to communicate. Sad.
 March 10, 2016 at 6:47pm
Noah lived 950 years. That seems like plenty of time.
Average age would have been about 49 years of age back then if he was lucky thats not long to have a family, collect thousands of trees build an ark then collect 2 of 8.7 million species of animals give or take.
Impossible, only a fictional account is the logical answer.
O2 levels where higher as well as many other changes occurred BECAUSE of the massive changes the Earth went through during and after the Great Flood. From the land masses losing the water they where resting upon, to the loss of the ice shield, to the reduction of the magnetic field (which is still currently reducing - through observable science). The average age before the Great Flood was around 918 yo. It rapidly declined after. Look it up for yourself, although I doubt that you would care about the rate of human growth, land reduction and increase due to water levels (increase and decrease of ice).
I imagine that you only review the "evidence" from evolutionist through the "peer review" system. You know, like Professor Reiner Protsch, the 30 year peer reviewed expert in his field. No one was more regarded in aging of fossils. You know, the great academia professor that couldn't operate his own equipment, where peer review did not find out of his fraud, but the university of his employment suspected an issue and had a test performed behind his back.
humans cannot live to 950 years old.
So, because you believe that the Earth was identical before a Great Flood that changed the entire Earth, that humans could not live to 918 yo? Is that your argument? You are warned not to place your believe in assumptions based upon ignorance. I believe that in TODAYS Earth that it's impossible for humans to live 918 yo, after a great, world wide catastrophic flood in which massive changes took place.
Because the bible tells you that it must most definitely be true?
120 years from the time God told Noah to build the Ark until the flood. The air breathing animals CAME to him. Its all in Genesis.
So you also believe God destroyed all the other boats that existed when the flood came? This can be the only explanation (even irrational) that can be conjured up to explain why other people did not simply climb into their boats at the time.
Consider this ... you people mock the idea of the ark and that it could not possible have survived ... yet you now what to say that a little row boat will with no preparations. Really?
There very well have been people that got in boats or survived floating on something for a short time ... the event was cataclysmic ... you should do a little homework.
So according to you, there were only the ark and a few little row boats? No other larger boats? The story goes that it started to rain, then the water was rising. So there were no logical people that said, jeez lets get into a boat and take some food and water with us. They all just stood there and waited for the water so they could drown? Yes, that sounds very rational and what people would do in such circumstances.
Surely you know …
people always wait until the last minute and then have problems because they did so. Ever see people standing on their own roof ? WHY ? because they NEVER believed that the water would get that high.
My row boat was a bit sarcastic ( sorry you didn't pick up on that)… how large do you believe these other boats to be … maybe fishing vessels at best?
Also … the event was catastrophic so there was havoc going one. As I suggested go to Answers web site and read up on some of the info, instead of mocking things and insinuating other are stupid when you don’t even understand the opposing position, thinking and evidence.
There are still some aspects of genetics we don't understand. Some scientists over here reasoned that if chickens evolved from lizard-like forbears by natural selection, their genome would still contain the genes for a dinosaur descendant reptilian, and by careful experimentation were able to breed back to a critter with scales instead of feathers and teeth instead of a bird beak. But by current understanding the bird's DNA was also the DNAof the nasty little lizard. Therefore there's something else at work besides the "genes'in determining what the ultimate animal is. Current theory is that something determines if and when specific genes are activated-that the genes and DNA are more like a piano than lines of computer code. The piano has 88specific tones it can make,but music multiplies the number of possibilities by altering which ones are sounded what order and with what spacing between them. Thus how much d NA is identical two different species doesn't make them the same- something else does that.
Creationists websites are not a good place to go find answers. When looking for real answers, you will have to investigate and research a bit more. The Gobbly goop in your response is just illogical and highly improbable.
In any flooding situation, of course there are people that act stupid and die, but the entire human specie?? That's stretching it a bit, even for you.
The definition of stupid:
Seeing the truth, hearing the truth, but still believing the lies.
Again the insults ... typical I (you) got nothing of value response. So, I have to make myself feel good. Maybe you should take a look at how many people have been caught off guard down in Texas. This very moment, right in front of your face !!!!!!
You made a point I disproved it and that makes ME stupid ...LOL
By the way … still laughing 123
“Creationists websites” ARE filled with scientists …
you last sentence … the bible has a word for that to and it is kind of the total opposite . like everything you've said here.
Have the people of Texas gone extinct? If not, then you have made no point. Yes people die when there is flooding, claiming that all people have died is far fetched.
Tell me, if there were only 2 of a specie (not kind) on the ark, what did the carnivores eat? Or were they fasting for a few years, or is this one of the "mysterious ways"?
" If reliable data on belief in creation within the scientific community is not available, we could start by establishing how many scientists believe in a personal god, because the number who literally believe in creation must be somewhat smaller than this
•In 1998, a study by Larson and Witham appeared on the leading journal Nature ("Leading scientists still reject God"), showing that of the American scientists who had been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, only about 7 percent believe in a personal god. Religious believers form about40 percent of the less eminent scientists in America.
•A study in Britain, undertaken by R. Elisabeth Cornwell and Michael Stirrat, involved sending a questionnaire to all 1,074 Fellows of the Royal Society who possessed an email address, offering several propositions and asking the scientists to rank their beliefs on that point from 1 to 7. About 23 percent responded and preliminary results indicate that, of these, 3.3 percent agreed strongly (chose 7) and 78.8 percent disagreed strongly (chose 1) that a personal god exists. A total of 12 Fellows chose 6 or 7 to indicate that they were believers, while 213 Fellows chose 1 or 2 to indicate that they were nonbelievers.
So, in the United States, an undefined majority of scientists do not believe in God. In Britain, 86 percent of eminent scientists do not believe in God.
Can you please direct me to your stats on scientist believing in creation????
"The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science". A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists. Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific, pseudoscience, or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."
The Discovery Institute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007. This prompted the National Center for Science Education to produce a "light-hearted" petition called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It is intended to be a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of the lists of alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting creationist principles that creationist organizations produce. The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1370) than there are in total who support intelligent design. This is, again, why the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent.
January 12, 2016 at 3:27pm
Could we just call it……email?
 January 5, 2016 at 8:57pm
“No fewer than eight major studies from around the world have found homosexuality is not a genetic condition.
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says that these numerous, rigorous studies of identical twins have now made it impossible to argue that there is a ‘gay gene.’ If homosexuality were inborn and predetermined, then when one identical twin is homosexual, the other should be, as well.
Yet one study from Yale and Columbia Universities found homosexuality common to only 6.7 percent of male identical twins and 5.3 percent of female identical twins.
The low rate of common homosexuality in identical twins – around six percent – is easily explained by nurture, not nature.
Researchers Peter Bearman and Hannah Brueckner concluded that environment was the determining factor. They rejected outright that ‘genetic influence independent of social context’ as the reason for homosexuality. ‘(O)ur results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.’
‘Less gendered socialization’ means, a boy was without a positive father figure, or a girl was without a positive mother figure.
In light of the evidence, Sprigg said simply, ‘No one is born gay.’” — Mark Hodges
December 11, 2015 at 7:06pm
Don’t you just despise those comments from the left who say “that’s not who we are?” and Cupp’s “That’s not the America we live in” is equally as bad.
I say “it is the who we should be!” and to Cupp, “it is the America I would like to live in”!
 November 20, 2015 at 8:47pm
And nothing (but a “sit-down”) happened to the teacher? A clear case that she should have been fired.
 November 20, 2015 at 8:42pm
Here is my Google Fact Check. April 2015:(CNSNews.com) – The number of Americans 16 years and older who did not participate in the labor force–meaning they neither had a job nor actively sought one in the last four weeks–rose from 92,898,000 in February to 93,175,000 in March, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So Trump is right! Not the AP “fact checker”.
Plus: In today’s labor market, the unemployment rate drastically understates the weakness of job opportunities. This is due to the existence of a large pool of “missing workers”–potential workers who, because of weak job opportunities, are neither employed nor actively seeking a job. In other words, these are people who would be either working or looking for work if job opportunities were significantly stronger. Because jobless workers are only counted as unemployed if they are actively seeking work, these “missing workers” are not reflected in the unemployment rate.
 November 16, 2015 at 4:47pm
Something is very wrong! “Officials said the U.S. was already using intelligence to help France identify targets in the flurry of airstrikes France launched against the Islamic State’s stronghold in Syria following the attacks”. If we know of these target why haven’t WE already bombed them? Has Obama forbidden the military to bomb known ISIS targets?