A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ and His teachings through the Bible. If a person is not following in His footsteps then I would question his faith as a Christian. There are people who consider themselves Christians, but don't walk the walk, as is the case in the Crusades or whatever historical event that you may think of. Obviously there is more to it than that. It's like claiming that you are scientist, but don't follow the rules of Science (such as making a hypothesis). Standards of practice were created because people weren't proving what was being hypothesized. Christians go by the Bible as their standard of faith.

I would agree with you that there is no hard scientific data (i.e. mathematical equations) that God exists. I only see the order that is in this world, meaning you can scientifically equate 99.9% (not sure if that's a good number) of our surroundings. That's why Science exists. We have math, physics, chemistry, etc .. because the world has order. Faith can not be translated into numbers. Faith that a Creator exists can be proven, but not scientifically, or else it would not be considered faith.

Please, don't insult my faith. I'm just asking a simple question that warrants a complex answer. Some Christians have become power hungry, I agree. The true Christian calling is to walk in humility to serve others, just as Jesus came to serve.

I'll apologize for all those Christians that have set a bad example. I hope you understand that there are Christians that walk the walk and I hope that you meet one of them one day. Peace bro.

"And guess what, these well respected christians are nothing but liars and con artist, trying to maintain thier powers with the instilled fable to make them gurus and sages to get your MONEY!"

Let's not forget the scientists who get millions of dollars of TAX PAYERS monies to cure disease, and find out facts that they never cure or find. They perpetually come up with new diseases that don't really exist such as Alzeiher's and ADD! They get more and more money to NOT PROVE anything. It's a scam. We are no closer to curing Parkinson's disease and cancer than we are from the beginning of their SO-CALLED RESEARCH!

AnonymousJane_01

Genetic variation is a good thing, because you would look like me and I don't think you want that =). What I'm asking is why or how you go from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. That's a pretty big jump. What I believe evolution is saying is that a cell (or bacteria) mutated to form a male part and somehow kept that genetic mutation (let's say for a thousand years). Later a second bacteria mutated to form a female part (let's say another thousand years). Then somehow those two understood the male and female parts were used for reproduction. And then, the genetic mutations continued to form something as complex as a flower or mouse. And please remember that this is a trial and error process of getting ALL the genetic material aligned properly. So, there is no organization to this process. This is a brief outline of thought. There is much, much more that needs to happen! I've been stuck on this question of sexual reproduction for a while and I think I would believe evolution more if there wasn't such a deviation from asexual to sexual. The more I think about the details and intricacy of this process, the harder it is for me to believe in evolution.

Well, I'm no biologist, but...

I am just saying that sexual reproduction started out as a way for simple, single celled(?) organisms to exchange dna and reproduce. When this process first began, there were not distince males and females, this distinction did not arise until later on in the evolutionary process.

It's a good question though, because it's hard to imagine how sexual reproduction as we tend to think of it could have evolved slowly. You ought to look at diagrams of how different organisms undergoe cell division and development from the embryo on...That is the most clear proof of evolution I have ever seen. It's in my biology book from college.

Brandon

Balance. If animals and people were immortal, it'd throw off the balance to everything. If evolution is correct, I'd imagine we'd NEED the birth / death cycle to be able to evolve. otherwise the same old boring strand of dna would stay the same forever, and nothing would ever change. In that case, we'd never have evolved in the first place. Who is to say that our bodies are finished evolving right now? Evolution isn't a process you can observe over even a few millenia. IMO it takes a great deal more faith to believe in a god than it does for evolution. Neither one can be explained completely or proven. How can you ask scientists to tell you exactly what happened 50,000 years ago?

The formula - 'for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction' can even be applied here. A tree living 3000 years isn't exactly going to destroy anything, is it? Why do some bugs only have a life span of hours?

icralph,
following on from your deductions could it it be that GOD is SPIRITUAL so SCIENCE
cannot refute that GOD exist's.?
E=MC2 being the CREATOR of ALL MATTER. LIFE BEGINNING when CONDITIONS for that transformation for LIFE came to be. Tom.