I mean, there are billions of books in the world. It all depends on what you like to read. Personally, I think he's amazing.

Maybe I could think of other writers I like equally, but if you're looking for amazing quality of writing, he's the best.

Presidency would be tough. The whole world is watching you. And, whenever the government trips, you're the figurehead. That wouldn't be great.

A whole nation on your hands! That would be stressful. I once heard the president, in office, ages twice as fast as normal. That's crazy!!

Yes and no. I'd like to say I have the fullest faith, but in moments of doubt, that would be very tempting. To see him! But, don't all of us dream of seeing one day, in heaven?

John 20:29

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Yes! Each person imagines what they want the book to appear as. Every character has favorable and unfavorable traits. Directors (try as they might) can't read people's brains, so it's their interpretation.

It depends on how active your imagination is, and how closely they follow the book in its best aspects. Sometimes the movies add onto the plot. Movies feel like they are missing something.

If you watch a movie before reading a book it blocks your point of view when you try to read it. You see actors instead of characters, which is crazy.

Books leave room to think. You can control their pace, which is great.

I mean, atleast for me, nothing beats curling up and enjoying a good book.

You say the bible is the only proof of creationism. Um, biblical archaeology?? Archaeology is science too.

Isn't evolution's bible Darwin's "On the Origin of Species..."? It has been proved by other branches of science.

And also, you think all things just appeared and began to evolve?

Was life created out of thin air? And, if so, how was the air created?

I beleive evolution could be, but as a stage after creation, that would progress life.

Both could be one in the same. Just, I beleive, for evolution to exsist, that creation must have preceeded it.

"The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared..."

How did they appear? What?

"... and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began. The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred..."

Unclear? Hmmm?

"Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA, and the assembly of simple cells."

How did RNA first become?

I do not believe this debate is fair, because evolution has so many gaps in its reasoning. How can it be compared to creationism? They are two different things.

I would say I agree with both, but the blatantly ignoring theology in scientific theory makes a rift between the two. So, creationism.

Gandhi influenced MLK's nonviolent protests. They both are amazing leaders, though.