Never really have bought into the whole global warming thing. But if it were true, it wouldn't really bother me much, because what truly matters is not this side of the door, but the other side after this life is over. Living a life that honors God and that truly loves others is what matters.

There is more than one area of evolution.

1. Microevolution (smaller changes throughout the life time of an organism through environment)

2. Macroevolution (large changes in species)

Macroevolution has not stood the test of time with its testing. It is propaganda for the most part.

Microevolution has stood the test of time and is an obvious reality.

There are hypotheses, theories, and proven facts/laws...

Microevolution seems to fit each category, but macroevolution is an hypothesis, and possibly a theory at best.

Well, we technically "shouldn't", however, even the way we approach debates is done under bias. We all have a world view which influences the way we approach debating with others and what each person's motives are. It is impossible to completely remove bias. In fact, the word "bias" has a negative connotation and is often used as a dysphemism for the word "perspective." Even the scientific method for testing and experimentation is done under the scope of a perspective, albeit a time-tested perspective.

The tyrant here is in a position of authority. He or she is oppressing the coward. The coward, though fearful and not taking the responsibility to stand up for what he or she believes in, feels defeated.

However, in all reality, both are to blame.

Yes, but with a very large HOWEVER...

First, what is tradition? And also what is progress?

Tradition is a natural enemy to progress because progress is the antithesis to tradition. The words are antonyms.

However, if you mean, for example, the belief in God being an obstacle to progress, or anything along that line, that is beyond a question of tradition and progress.

I hope we are speaking just of scientific inquiry. Otherwise, this topic doesn't work well as an argument because the natural and supernatural are different, and thus cannot be easily compared.

Polygamy is gross. So no way! In fact, I am not crazy about a lot of their facebook ads that are so misleading.

All the way, without any reserves. I am simply not smart enough to create God. I am simply not powerful enough to create God. And I am definitely no wise enough to create God.

Now when it comes to the actual concept of the existence of God, I think you would have to get more specific. As far as a Creator in general, the world speaks for itself. Evolutionary models of the formation of the universe have changed so many times that there is no consistency. The hypothesis of macro-evolution has no substantial evolution that could bring me to a place to say, "Oh! The universe came into existence by itself!"

God created man, and all creation can testify to that.

That or those who write the scripts could simply just take the words out. It actually detracts from films and television. Cuss words are in many ways like filler words for hollywood and sitcoms. It's kind of pathetic.

There were some very interesting and enlightening points of view on this subject.

I have come to believe that love is a choice, or as was said already, a series of choices. I DO believe that emotions stem from the choices that we make to love others, but ultimately, love is a choice.

Let's use a marriage as an example. There are many couples that get married because of they feel they are in love, but this is merely infatuation because they feel that excitement and newness in that relationship. When that newness dies off, so does the infatuation. You have to have a connection deeper than one's immediate feelings and the commitment to love someone by making the choice to sacrifice for the other person.

By laying selfishness aside and loving without the promise of return, you are going beyond infatuation and immediate emotions.

I believe that is what a love, a true love, comes down to.

I believe in God 100%. He is more real than every breath we take, he is more solid than the food we eat. By "real" and "solid" I refer to reality, for nothing would be without his hand sustaining it.

There is an intelligent design in this universe and the love of an Almighty God that was shown when he sent his own son to sacrifice himself on behalf of those who were in bondage to sin, shame, and death.

Yes, I believe in God. Quite so.

Christianity is the only belief system that teaches the "grace" of God and that God gave of himself a love and gift that is free. It is not based on a person's "efforts" for salvation, but is based on what God already did through Jesus on the cross.

Self-sacrifice is the ultimate presentation of love, and that is exactly what was demonstrated.

Christianity means to be "Christ-like"; to follow after Christ as a faithful servant. That means that those who are true Christians should do the same as Christ did, showing love as Christ did to them.

There is no "versus" about that. Love is the highest calling for any person and the best example of that is the one who gave his life for all to find it.

It would be a better place if every single person surrendered to God in the world. However, that will not happen. There will always be division.

Would it be better if it were possible - yes, because there would be complete unity.

But it is absolutely not possible. There is division because there is truth and deception. I truly wish that all would be united in truth, but truth cannot be divided against itself, and we are most certainly divided against one another.

I actually choose neither, so I am just leveling this a bit. ;)

What is reality? The physical world? Realities of situations? Reality of culture? Reality of truth?

I think "reality" needs to be defined better here...

Physical world - make perceptions match realities

Situations - Both

Culture - Both, but perception paves the wave toward cultural realities

Truth - The Reality of what is Real (redundant, eh?) - we should base our perceptions on those things which are true.

Fundamentally, this argument comes down to the basics of basics - The identity of truth.

You need a philosophical foundation for the practice of science. We are moral agents and all hold our respective world views, but if scientific research inhibits the freedom and well-being of others (which could be called "ethical concerns"), then the scientists who do the testing are on a sinking ship.

If he is not faithful to his wife, how can he be faithful to his country?

If he does not lead his house in right standing, how can he do the same for his country?

He who is faithful in little can be trusted with larger responsibilities for he has proven himself.

I am sorry that many of you feel this way. I would say man's imperfections and nature are at the root, not religion. I believe it is very possible that many religions spring about as a result of man's shortcomings (greed, hatred, selfishness, etc.).

Although I am curious as to what those who agree to this topic believe Christianity is? What does it mean?

Honestly, history overwhelming points toward Christ being very real. Please do some research.

By the way, was Aristotle real?

What about George Washington?

I can believe in science without faith. I "see" the evidence.

Faith is another kind of evidence that is mostly with sight, although the effects can be most astonishing.

Tell me this...

Under the assumption God made the world, would it be wiser to trust in the creator or the created?

Under the assumption there is no god, would it really matter since your life is going to end completely at any time?

My question would be:

What is more important? Truth or pleasure? It sounds like this thread is based on benefits and pleasures that come with "belief." If that alone is a person's motivation, that person needs a heart check.

Reflect on it. If a person has the right heart about seeking God out, I believe they will find truth. (key - right heart)

First, I think it would be wise to gain an understanding of who a christian is. If the point of this whole question is to decide if those who label themselves as Christians are judgmental or not, then there really isn't any way to tell unless you know the person's heart.

Second, all people are judgmental to one degree or another innately. Why do I make this claim? It is because there are differences among us, and with difference comes judgments (or decisions about others).

Finally, it is interesting that the very "argument" here is making a judgment in and of itself.

Here is another question: Is judgment a bad thing? I think it depends on the context and situation. A judge casts a judgment because he or she is in a position of authority to do so. I think it lines up that people may make judgments if they have the right authority (whether that authority be a literal position such as a judge, or one of spiritual oversight).