Ok perhaps I should have said major religions. I guess I believe it is not very likely for one of the minor ones to be true because if it was then the God that created us didn’t do a very good job at promoting the truth.

“Also what about Romans 10:9-13? Doesn’t that state that you need to pray in order to be saved? Is that not work?”

I don’t consider that work. I was trying to convey the idea of works or deeds.

As I understand it all other religions require work for salvation.

Really? All other religions require work for salvation? I find that very hard to believe. So, I’ll pick one: what about Taoism?

Also what about Romans 10:9-13? Doesn’t that state that you need to pray in order to be saved? Is that not work?

@Kate Church of God, eh? You guys speak in tongues, right?

Authority given by God to work in his name (i.e. preach)

I think that you are right regarding that “people often believe what they want to believe.” I think a lot of people seek Christ for comfort and for the support of the congregation. Likewise, I think a lot of people deny Christ out of immature rebellion and events in their life they think should have been prevented by Him.

Obviously, most think that others should believe whatever we believe. Personally, I’d be happy if everybody just believed in whatever brought the most joy to their lives without harm to others.

Did you watch the video “The Case for Christ” in this original post? What did you think of that?

I believe that most people often believe what they want to believe. Even when they are faced with evidence that points towards the existence of God or the Bible’s reliability.

I know this is in the context of talking to the Jews but I think it still applies to everyone: “But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.” – Deuteronomy 4:29

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeCHiUe1et0

I did find an abstract from the American Journal of Botany regarding a suggestion that the snap-trap probably evolved from sundews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosera).

The authors of the link you sent seem to accept microevolution (changes within species) but reject macroevolution (evolution of different species). However, there is no debate among scientists that macroevolution has taken place. In fact, macroevolution has been shown to be the compound effect of microevolution (i.e. many changes over a long period of time).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

It has become apparent to me that you love to read.

“Over time, the plants added elaborate structures and weapons such as trigger hairs and teeth to trap and immobilise their meaty prey, botanists say.” – how is this claim substantiated?

Here is a site I found that you might find interesting: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_02.html

Keep in mind that the Nintendo Wii had a designer too. I should mention that I do believe in micro-evolution. Natural selection and change within a species makes total sense but I don’t believe cats and dogs came from the same animal back in the day.

I also think it makes sense for different animals to have similar functions like a DVD player if they were all designed by the same manufacturer.

I understand what the mousetrap video is saying. Watch the video above as it makes points beyond that.

Thanks for pointing out the misspelling and broken video.