I have lots starting in the mid 300's! Secure your little slice of paradise now!

I have actually been on the talkorigins website recently under the name smithks. Go check it out. It's mostly been a good experience, but its hard working with a majority that thinks I'm stupid. My main observation is that there exists no coherent theory to which everyone agrees. I'll bring up an evoltionary theory that I have read in a book or heard on programs such as NOVA, I am always told that "Oh, that's not what evolutionists believe. You have your facts wrong." Hmmm...I guess the proper analogy would be real men who turn into straw men.

There's usually then at least one person who goes on a derrogatory rant about how stupid I am to believe the Bible. It's the response that you would call "Un-Christlike". (Except atheists don't have a "Christ". You get the point.) Not everyone does that, and those that resist the urge should be recognized. There are a few who actually respond thoughtfully and recommend things for me to read and think about, and I appreciate those people.

You are begging the question. You presuppose that evolution and deep time are proven facts and that Christians are blindly holding to a young-earth belief for for a stubborn allegiance to the Bible.

The truth is that the facts point conclusively to nothing. All anyone has is data and theories designed to fit that data, but neither evolution nor creation is conclusively proven. Each side operates on faith, and you have clearly chosen evolution. That's fine, but I believe you to be mistaken.

I will concede that I hold to a young earth view because the Bible demands it. However, that does not mean it is a stubborn blind faith. I also hold to a "don't beat your wife" view because the Bible also demands that. Beyond allegiance to the Word of God, for Christians the Bible simply presents a theory that, in my opinion, better fits the facts.

I hope this helps you. I would urge you to not swallow every piece of science you are fed. The Earth is not flat, combustion is not a loss of phlogistin (sp?), the Earth does indeed move, big objects and small objects accelerate under gravity at the same rate (ignoring drag, of course), and the earth is not billions of years old. We Christians are still patiently waiting on society to grasp that last one.

Well...yeah. What's your point, Scott?

"When the Gallup Poll asked people about their views on the subject in March, 47 percent of Americans polled said that God created humans pretty much in their present form some time in the last 10,000 years. That belief was strongest among those with less education, regular churchgoers, people 65 and older, and Republicans"

Even if I allow your argument that the quoted passage in Matthew states that Peter himself and his predecessors would be the rock upon which God would build his church, there still are no grounds to believe that the Pope is infallible. That is a HUGE extrapolation of what you quoted, and is not demanded by the evidence. Further, what's with this "and probably more" statement? I for one could not stick to something that put me at odds with everyone here unless I was rock solid certain I had proof!

I can appreciate your concern that individual interpretations can result in relativism and therefore potential anarchy. I can actually submit that that argument is viable. Wouldn't it be nice if we all followed some accepted standard? I would answer that we have one, but people don't submit to it. I too am troubled by groups that blatantly disobey scripture and do things such as ordain homosexual pastors, ordain women as pastors/elders, bless gay unions, tolerate evolution or old-earth creationism (which is just a trojan horse), etc.

However, I don't agree that it is a good reason to support a system such as the RCC in which the whims of one man can add requirements which are not Biblical (and in some cases anti-Biblical) and claim they are given under the authority of God.

Reading your posts is beginning to frustrate me. Have you ever read the arguments of people who used to subscribe to geocentrism, flat-earth theory, or wrong theories about combustion? (It was commonly taught that combustion was a process in which a specific chemical - I don't remember the name - was ejected as opposed to oxygen being added and that ash was the virgin material minus this chemical)

As information came out that made the theories look stupid, adherents simply added further assumptions not demanded by any evidence (and sometimes contrary to the evidence) because they REFUSED to take the jump from what was patently absurd. For example, retrograde was explained by the unwarranted theory of really strange orbital machanics. In the end, the priority of the paradigm won out, and the theories died very hard only after they had first turned into monstrocities. Evolution will soon fall into this class if it has not already.

It is OK for the B&B owner(s) to do turn them away. They are intolerant of the behavior, not the person. Your example of racism does not apply.

Mary once appeared in a grilled cheese sandwich.

Mary now appears in a tree trunk, and people bow down to worship it.