What really irks me is that in saying people can be born homosexual they are calling the millions who have come OUT of homosexuality blatent liars. How would they like it if these people decided to sue them for slander because of this scientifically incorrect (and disproven) ad?
This is blatent abuse of anyone who 'turned' straight.
There are no homosexual christians. Only ex-homosexual Christians.
For reference, I protest that statement about turning the Bible into a saint. I know of no 'protestant' locally who honours the paper above the worth of an averagely priced book. Last I checked only every saved person had the right to be called a saint.
I'm glad to see the Judge freely handing them out to those he perceives can benefit from them.
Two models: Little bit of water and a lot of time.
Or, a lot of water, and a little bit of time.
Both can carve canyons in rock. There are many examples of such canyons being formed rapidly. Mt St Helens' 1/40th scale grand canyon model for example.
If you ignore the tiny river at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and assume it was a flood product, and factor in mud and sand into the flow, carving stuff like Grand Canyon would be like a hot knife through butter when you grasp how much water would flow off a continentin a receding global flood.
All this while completely denying two important facts.
1) many of the greatest scientific breakthroughs that directly lead to our 'modern' age technology were made by creationist bible believing christians.
2) evolution is, like creationism, a belief system about the past where in the absence of an observer is founded in nothing but a faith that it happened the way they say it did.
The same statements they make about creationism can fully apply to their own position:
"Advocates of evolutionism seek "to impose religious dogma" at the expense of childrenâ€™s education."
"For some people evolution, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life,"
"If we are not careful, evolution could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe." (too late that's already happened)
Time and time again it's the creationists who are better equiped to define the evolutionary theory, in logical manner, than such 'leaders' as this Council. They clearly don't understand what evolutionary scientists actually do/say/believe.
"Even evolutionary scientists wouldnâ€™t agree that evolution is based on facts, Mohler pointed out"