Frank Sinatra wrote: Oh Ethan lighten up. The boy was born and worked as a missionary in the PI with his parents.
Wonderful. He can therefore do the church a favor and exercise his spiritual gifts by returning there and conducting missionary work - where he's needed.
Frank Sinatra wrote: He is a wonderful role model and it is not idolatry with me. Me thinks your jealous because you are not an American.
The true role models for Christians are martyrs and those who give their lives selflessly to the cause of Christ and his church, without regard to their country of birth. Even then I wouldn't go so far as to idolize them the way you do with your athletes. After all, only Christ deserves our adulation.
Athletes - even Christian ones - are concerned about three things: money, furthering their careers, and women. That's about it. They're avaricious, ambitious (in an ungodly way), and overly self-centered. The whole culture is self-absorbed.
Only in America is this kind of garbage equated with the gospel of Jesus Christ. What possible benefit to the church is there from this individual who has the useless talent of kicking a ball through two steel poles? The only person who benefits from it is him - certainly none of you and - more importantly - certainly not the church. This kind of adulation you Americans heap on your athletes is nothing short of idolatry.
From a Christian standpoint it's totally unjustifiable.
Earlier you stated that if you had sufficient space you would explain how you reconcile the theory of evolution with the doctrine of Scripture. You may not be able to do that in one post, but - and only if you are willing to do this, of course - perhaps you can explain it in a series of posts, i.e. Part 1, 2, 3, etc.
Even though we may not agree on everything, I'm impressed with the way you've conducted yourself on this thread. You've managed to maintain your composure where most would resort to banal, crude pedantry.
As for everyone else, I've two questions: first, what are the qualifications for being a Christian? If there is more than merely trusting in Christ for salvation, what would that be? Secondly, how many of you have the scientific background Bravo has in order to speak authoritatively on the subject at hand? When he's talking about genes and chromosomes, do you really understand what he's saying?
Certainly this is a touchy issue. Bravo elucidates himself quite well and raises cogent points. Science, properly defined, is as he says it is. Upon making a few observations, one proceeds to synthesize them into a coherent framework through a hypothesis. Through experimentation he attempts to legitimize his prediction and from the results concludes whether he is correct or not. If so, (and his results are repeatable) he has a working theory. If not, it's back to the drawing board. That, in a nutshell, is science.
While I don't claim to have exhaustive knowledge about the subject, evolution - at least for now - appears to best explain what's been observed. However, science is in and of itself an open-ended discipline. New facts will be discovered in the future that may falsify the entire theory altogether (and for evolution to be scientific, it must be falsifiable).
I also agree with others on this board that there are philosophical problems with holding both the Darwinian theory of evolution and Scripture in equal esteem. I am curious about how you (Bravo) reconcile the two positions. I have tried to do this in the past and it seems to amount to mental gymnastics.