Ron Cusano

I am not going to claim I understand all of the scientific lingo, and I am guessing that you don't either, but the way I heard it explained in films and interviews from national reknowned scientists on the subject was awlful convincing. Of course, there is always someone to try to explain it away!

She most likely does, and I have read many of the posts there. And, as I prev iously mentioned, I most certainly do know the difference between the two theorys. But, you still have not answered the points I raised. Have you discussed the "flagellum motor" on that thread?? If so, please point it out!!

Don't say "no-brainer"!! He thinks you're calling him stupid. He got mad at me before!!

Sorry about the moderator thing, but nevertheless, if I called someone stupid, the outrage would go on for days! I know they are two seperate theory's that are interwoven and dependant on each other. For the "flagellum moter" to have evolved through natural selection, it would have had to evolve from something similar and be an improvement on it. Scientists, even those who once subscribe to natural selection can find no logical way that the flagellum motor could have ever function without it being exactly as it now is. If you want a more scientific explanation, check out the article. There is plenty more date where that came from.

Who suggested a poll?? Are we reading the same thread??

PS - Here is a great website that may give you more information on the subject of the "flagellum motor"! http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4192msc1-10-2000.asp

OMG!! A Moderator calling someone stupid! Where is all the outrage!! Darwin's theory of natural selection presupposes, according to Darwin himself, that change can only occur when it causes a positive change in the species. For that to occur, there has to be a species to start with. Have you ever heard of the "flagellum motor" that science recently found within all cells? It is an actual rotory motor that is held together by 40 specfic parts. So where do you suppose this motor came from?? So wgere di it come from? Take away any one of the 40 parts, and the motor fails to function. Natural selection can not explain how this amazing motor came into existance, except through creation. This has cause many, many scientists to jump from the evolution bandwagon into the creationalist camp. But, of course, they must be stupid too!

That is my belief as well, and it is backed up by much scientific evidence that some folks will never tell you about.

If you are talking about natural selection, which in the opinion of a growing number of scientists that used to be on your side of the fence does not hole Water, it's about the same thing!

All I know is, that since 911 we have not seen any more terrorists flying planes into our buildings, sucide bombers in out malls, dirty bombs in our cites, antrax in our mail, and the like! What we have seen is the people who did and want to do these things to our country being attacked and killed far away from our shores! He hasn't done everything right, but he has done much! Oh Yes, there is none thing he hasn't done . . . get involved with of the White House Interns!! And he is the President of the country that you live in, so perhaps he deserves a little respect as long as he is in office. You can disagree with him, without being abusive!

All I know is, that since 911 we have not seen any more terrorists flying planes into our buildings, sucide bombers in out malls, dirty bombs in our cites, antrax in our mail, and the like! What we have seen is the people who did and want to do these things to our country being attacked and killed far away from our shores! He hasn't done everything right, but he has done much! Oh Yes, there is none thing he hasn't done . . . get involved with of the White House Interns!! And he is the President of the country that you live in, so perhaps he deserves a little respect as long as he is in office. You can disagree with him, without being abusive!

Just for the record, you and all the other members of you church don't have a choice in the matter. You are legally prohibited from claiming a tax deduction from a church that does not have tax exemption. Personally, I think all church's should enjoy tax exemption and still ahve the right to free expression. That's just my opinion!!

Then he is not bound by the tax exemption law. Good for him!

The tax exempt law does not prohibit ministers speaking about social, moral or political issues. It only prohibits them from entering the political process by endorsing a specific canidate or party. Many issues, such as abortion and gay marriage fall within that criteria and they are within the teir rights to discuss them and provide spiritual guidance therin.

You can add any thought or comment that you want. The two I listed are the views most commonly held.

If that is the case they are breaking the law and rishing their tax exempt status. I am on the East Coast and have been in a large number of church's and have yet to run across it.

It might mean that you do not understand the usage of the phrase or that you are looking to find fault with every word I write!

That makes pefect sense to me!! :clap2:

It can happen to any group, Democrats, Republicians, Conservatives, Liberals, Athiests, etc. So what is your point!! Not allow anyone the right to free expression of speech or for there to be leaders of any kind because the is a chance someone might do sonthing evil?? I don't understand that logic!

If what you said happened the way you said it did, it was definitely wrong, but I can tell you it is the rare exception rather that then rule. I agree that government should not regulate religion, and I feel that church's should be permitted to support canidates that support positions that are in accordance with church teachings. Withholding tax exempt status is blackmail clear and simple. Should religon be permitted to effect government?? Absolutely! Our elected officials are supposed to reflect the collective will of the majority of the people. If the majority of the voters are church goers, and they are, and church opinion is valuable in helping them decide issues in accordance with the spiritual views and understanding, it is a no-brainer! I think the people who have a problem with this are not church goers and are part of the minority of voters in this country.

Addressing political issues that effect the moral or doctrinal teaching of a church is not against the law or immoral. If a pastor see's a specific social/political issue as effecting or threatening the wellbeing of his congregation or society, he would be remiss in not addressing it. Suggesting that his flock vote for canidates that support moral issues that are dupportive of their their beliefs is a far cry from telling people who to vote for. There are ofter many canidates that support or oppose different views. Pat Roberts TV show is a far cry from a church or congregation, and is not covered by such regulations. As far as what goes on in other church's, unless you have some first hand information, all you are doing is speculating and guessing. As someone who is part and parcel of the church world, I can tell you first hand that I have NEVER experienced what you are alleging, and it certainly is not common or the norm. That is just not the way it is!

Clergy are entitled to have political views just like you and me, but legally and morally, they are prohibited from expressing them from the pulpit. Some like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have seperate political organizations they belong to which are no church's, and who's function is political. That is not a church telling you how to vote. As far a Billy Graham, he sat with many president's from both parties, but to my knowledge has never endorsed any canidate or party. Church's do and are legally and morally permitted to say how they feel on politcal issues, especially if they involve morality and/or church dogma, but they may not endorse any canidate or political party. I run a not-for-profit Christian Ministry which is held to those same rules. As an individual, I am entitles to my own political views and opinions, but if I were to express them coming from my ministry, I would lose my tax exempt status. If what you say you heard is true, it was legally and morally wrong, and by far the exception rather that the rule. You can't paint the majority of church's with that brush.

The comparison of the number exonorated vs the number of actual executions is irrelative. What is relative is the number of people exonorated vs the number convicted which is 6.2% Agreed it is way too high, but not high enough, in my estimation, to do away with the death penelty. What these numbers do not take into consideration is the number of people giulty of death penelty crimes that do not get convicted because of the safeguards in the law. Everyone agrees the system is not perfect, but it's the best we have so far. Why would you extrapolate that percentage to the population of the United States, when the whole population has not been convicted of death penelty crimes! Why is that relative?? It would only make sense if you were talking about convicted criminals that received the death penelty, and the number is still 6.2% if, and this is a big if, this is the case in every state. Do you have any information that it is?? You can't just guess or assume something like that. You need facts!

I know there are always some that fall between the cracks, but I think 50% is a little over stated. I have never heard of anything like that, and I am sure it would have been on every front page. I couldn't even comprehend how it could be proven that 50% of those on death row were innocent. Whereever you got that information, it sound very, very exagerated. The fact that occasionally an innocent person is convicted sucks, and our judicial system is not perfect. Few things are. But it is the best that we have right now, and there are crimes that, according to our laws, are worthy of the death penelty. I am sure there are innocent people in jsil for many other crimes as well. Should we not put people in jail then, because it is possible that someone who is innocent might suffer. Again, it sucks, but it is the best that be have to work with until someone comes up with a foolproof, perfect system of justice.

There is a big difference between just laws and laws that are unjust and repressive. Comparing Hitler and Caesar to the President of the United States is really out there!