blackbird

There is some question as to whether the invasion of Iraq caused ISIS. There have always been two different sects of Islam, the Sunnis and the Sheites. The radical version of Sunnis decided they wanted a caliphate and got support from many Islamic radicals. They are not content living in peace with other non-violent Muslims. They have been blowing up Muslims in Iraq, not Americans. They oppose anyone who does not believe their extreme version of Islam. That is the real reason for their existence, not Americans in Iraq.

That's one reason I don't believe in socialism, which requires big government and big bureaucracy to function. Governments waste millions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money. I don't trust them with my money.

Just found an interesting video on Netflix if you have it. "Is Genesis History" goes into it with creation scientists. Explains a lot of things. There are two schools of thought, or two paradigms. One is the old earth paradigm and the other is the Genesis paradigm. It seems to boil down to the uniformitarian principle which is used to support the old earth theory. The catastrophism paradigm explains the young earth paradigm. The video looks at the Grand Canyon which is explained as a result of Noah's flood. A very sudden deposition of layers including fossils. They also interviewed a Hebraist, a specialist on the Hebrew language and Genesis. He said it is written in a way not to be interpreted as anything other than literal, that God created the universe in six days.

Somebody has to be the chief. Yes, the chief needs to be able to remove those who might undermine the executive of government or those who he does not have confidence in.

He's probably correct. The military in Egypt probably thought that too.

Probably both reasons.

The question is should she be treated as some kind of terrorist or how long should she be locked up?

The debate about the science involved in creation appears to be complex and who is to know. I would investigate the inspiration and truth of the Bible (KJV 1611). That should be a higher priority. It is interesting of course to read the articles about creation but it might not resolve the question one way or another in the end in one's mind. The truth of scripture is of extreme importance because it determines one's future for eternity. That puts things in perspective.

The CBC is running a story about illegal or undocumented immigrants in the states and how hard it is for them now being deported. They interviewed a couple of Trump supporters to see what they think. One of them said if the U.S. doesn't deal with it, it will only get worse and more will keep pouring in illegally. Reminded of how the Liberals could care less about illegals crossing the border into Canada even though some of them might be criminals trying to escape deportation from the U.S. I think the word got out that Trudeau welcomes them to Canada. But he apparently is not providing any funding in B.C. to help take care of them when they get here. It might not be good as they were led to believe. This may come as a surprise to a lot of them. They may end up sleeping on the streets in downtown and panhandling.

Check this article. Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation http://creation.com/keith-h-wanser-physics-in-six-days

I was taught, but I can't recall if someone told me that God created everything or if I first read it in Genesis. In any case, because it is clear in the Bible, I accept. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35 I am satisfied the account in Genesis is God's word to be taken literally. The very first verse in the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1 KJV (1611)

..

The Bible gives just a brief account of creation in Genesis. That is sufficient for most people who read the Bible. I guess that is all God wanted to say about it. Other subjects are given more attention in the Bible probably because they were considered more important. Still the Bible is a fairly big book. Not sure why you are using the term "dog". God is not a dog and nobody ever associated him with a dog. Sounds a bit derogatory. Why not use the term God when speaking to people who believe in God? Perhaps you could consider doing that much.

I believe in a literal interpretation of creation and am not governed by what a large number of christians believe simply because that part of the Bible is meant to be interpreted literally. I have been taught that one is to take the parts of the Bible literally that are meant to be literal unless the context indicates it is metaphorically speaking. There is no indication the account of creation is meant to be a metaphor or legend of some kind although there are probably some people who would disagree. There are parts of the Old Testament which are primarily historical accounts of what happened which some people do not realize as well. The vast majority of christians use modern corrupt versions of the Bible also. That doesn't mean someone who understand that should follow along and do the same. The KJV (1611) is the only version which is based on the received text and is 100% accurate. I would disagree with your account of the fossil record. This has been explained in various articles on creation websites. I will see what I can find.

Do you mean "believe" instead of "leave"? I don't understand your question.

When you say the earth has a false age, you are assuming the geological time chart is correct. Your claim rests on the assumption that everything you have been told about the age of the earth by old earth scientists is true. The articles on creation science website give evidence to show old earth science is false. I have not studied much information on creation websites, but I did hear a series of presentations on some of it ten or fifteen years ago. I can't remember much of it. For me to summarize the information which is already on the creation websites I would have to go and spend hours or days studying it. I don't believe I am required to do that. I may read some of these articles as I have time, and may comment at that time. But you should not depend on me to answer all of your questions. If you are interested in knowing the answers to some of yours questions, you need to make an effort to read some of these articles yourself. I have provided one or two links. One of them is at creation.com I accept the biblical account that everything was created in six literal days. When I say it was created with an apparent age, I am not saying God was trying to deceive anyone. That was just a personal opinion I had come to, but it may not be correct. I would tend to believe more from the creation websites with articles from people who have far more knowledge than I do. You did make a good point in saying why consider what the creation websites are saying if I believe everything was created with an apparent age. It is something I will have to give some thought to and study. However, it doesn't change the fact that God still created the earth in six days. Perhaps it was NOT created exactly the way we see it today with the fossils. It is conceivable that the fossils were deposited after Noah's flood. Prof. Stott also gave information is his slide show presentation to demonstrate that the geological time chart is flawed, which makes it doubtful. Creationists reject the uniformitarian principle. As I recall the fossil record is incomplete and I seem to remember hearing professor Stott saying there were some contradictions that give weight to a fairly quick deposition of fossils, which would fit the the catastrophic event such as the flood.

Age in something like a tree, or a dinasaur you take for granted but don't ask why it was created with an age. Why the big concern about layers in the earth with fossils. I guess it could have been created with no fossils. But what would that prove? You would have to ask God why he created it the way he did. Maybe to test people. Why didn't he create earth with a giant sign that says "I God created it"? I don't know the reason it was created the way it was. But Genesis says it was created in six days. It had to have been created with an age. All living creatures had to have been created with an age. Man and woman were created with an age. Again we come back to the fact it was a supernatural event which cannot be dissected in scientific terms. Science oriented creationists do have articles which give their point of view on such things as how the fossils may have formed and refuting the old earth claims. The links I gave have lots of articles on that.

Evidence of an old earth has already been debunked. Carbon 14 dating is only good for a few thousand years. People mistakenly think it was used to measure things millions of years old. Check this article: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers I believe the biblical account of creation in Genesis. I believe the earth was created with an apparent age built in it at the time of creation. For instance a tree had to have a certain age at the moment of creation. So, one can look at these debates but the way I see it eliminates doubts. One must accept that creation was a supernatural event of course. God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh day. That avoids the endless debate about how it happened. But if one wishes to delve into all the scientific information that some creation believers have, one is free to do so. But I'm not sure it will satisfy someone who will not accept it. I see it as a matter of faith in the written word, the King James Bible (1611). The Bible is a spiritual book full of supernatural events. Men wrote it under the inspiration of God. The evidence for the inspiration of the Bible is within the Bible itself.

Which countries are on the ban list today? Some not on the ban list like SA have governments that agree to support the war against ISIS and terrorism. The U.S. chooses it's allies based on what they believe is in their best interest, not what some lefty thinks would make an appearance of the best social justice.

Because SA is an ally of the U.S. and helping fight Islamic terrorism.

Obama and the Dems signed agreements like the Paris Accord committing America to give billions to third world countries and shut down American industries. Trump is putting America first.

So why didn't Hillary support Trump's plan to deport illegal criminals in the election campaign? Why didn't she support building the wall? Why didn't she support a travel ban from countries known for terrorists.

A wall would slow the drugs, criminals, and illegals down. I think it's a good idea. Might help Canada too as a spinoff benefit.

Hillary and Obama (and Trudeau to some extent) are very experienced in the political system and government and are expected to know far more than someone who never had any experience in it. He was a businessman who spent time in negotiating contracts for business. It will take time for him to learn how governments works and what you can do and can't. But you oppose Trump so much you blame him for not doing everything exactly as someone who knows all about it. You have to treat someone who was not hired for a job because of his qualifications and experience, but was chosen by the people to do a job that few people have experience in, but has a plan that millions support.

The Hillary and her party support the killing of unborn babies, about nine million to date. Trump opposes abortion. Hillary /Obama wouldn't deport illegal aliens who committed criminals acts. Wouldn't get serious about criminals and terrorists coming into the U.S. Wouldn't get serious about stopping the flow of U.S. jobs to Mexico and China. Lots of reasons for supporting Trump. You worry about some alleged groping twenty years ago but ignore all the bad things the Dems have been doing to the U.S. and unborn babies. Not in the same league of crimes.