Christianity does NOT mean one is anti-Science
Those of you that are ANTI-religious, and not content to let those of use who are Christian live our faith. A faith, by the way, that demands we live our faith in public and private - there is no secular in the Christian life.
What many of you don't realize: why is "God in the gaps" of scientific theory invalid while "science in the gaps" of scientific theory is valid? You can say all you want about science being "real" and God being a "myth" all you want. From a philosophical point of view, as well as an emperical point of view, it is impossible to PROVE the Big-Bang from a materialistic point of view. One can only infer: first there was nothing, then it exploded...
Your problems with the biblical account of Creation (how can God create when he didnt' exist yet) is your imposition of TIME upon the equation. Logically, an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an exterior force. (Newton's second law? I'm not sure.) If the Big Bang occured materialistically, and time, matter, and space were all created at the same instant (a point Creationists don't deny, by the way); what was the EXTERIOR FORCE that set the whole thing in motion? You can talk about The Oscillation Model, or Vibrating Membranes between multiple dimensions of existence, but all you're doing is moving the point of ultimate beginnings back a few notches in the hopes that you obscure it to keep from thinking about the Ultimate Beginning. Not to mention you're violating Okham's Razor, where the simplest explanation is the correct one. Oscillation or Vibrating Membranes necessitate the existence of a mechanism more complicated than the one you're attempting to explain. You then need to explain how that more complicated mechanism came to being. The Bible teaches that God exists OUTSIDE our temporal existence, and there is nothing outside that. (Okham's Razor again.) He is the external force. Now here's the rub: Can you prove me wrong EMPIRICALLY? I didn't think so.
Dinosaurs becoming birds? Where are the countless fossils of varying species with elongated scales that aren't yet feathers. These dino-birds would have to exist in enough numbers to propogate and continue the evoutionary actions. After all, evolution stands a better chance when multiple variations compete for the next rung on the evolutionary ladder. These multtiple variations must not only be genetically compatible with each similar member of quasi-species, but they must be enough numbers of each quasi-species to prevent the genetic mutations from cross-contaminating each-other until the mutations have proven no damage to the original organism.
Only one thing can be proven from a fossil: it died. You can not empiracally prove to anyone that particular animal ever produced offspring. That is merely a logical assumption based on the numbers of that particular kind of fossilised animal previously found.
Here's a neat thought: How many generations of what life spans are we spaeking about when it comes to Materialistic Evolution from the macro-molecule in the pre-biotic soup until today? Bear in mind there are only 1x10e21 (that's 1 times 10 to the 21st power) seconds in the universe if you accept the universe is 16 trillion years old. WAIT! Did you factor the effects of gravity on the speed of light? THe Satterfield/Norman Theory states the speed of light is NOT a constant. More impoartantly, the speed of light has been slowing down according to an inverse-square equation. Look at the particulate of fireworks after the detonation: don't they slow down the further they travel from the point of detonation? Why is it illogical to assume the same for light particles/waves. Granted there's not much mass in a particle of light, but they DO have mass (light "bends" around gravimetric fields, and can be refrated by water) therefore light is affected by gravity, and if the universe if 16 trillion years old, how much has the speed of light decreased in that time. BUT WAIT! If we measure the age of the universe by the distance of the celestial bodies, and our calulations of that distance are based on the speed of light, and we AREN'T compensating for the changes in the speed of light, then our age of the universe is incorrect.
Those of you who are anti-religious: when you believe that Christians are anti-science, you have Christianity incorrect. Yes we Christians (I'm a "young-earth Creationist" at that) reap the advantage of scientific knowledge. You miss the point. Even the Amish enjoy a limited form of technology: levers; wheels; fulcrums; had tools; meterology; genetics (in the form of growing crops). The real point here is one of ideology, and Mahmoud Amhadinijad (as well as Osama bin Laden) are taking it as such! Our ENEMIES (for they say they want to destroy us) have admitted they are in a war with us over ideology.
Please tell me the most recent terrorist act / massacre / mass homocide, that was a result of the *natural working* of the Christian faith. Hint: Jonestown wasn't. The Crusades wasn't. The Branch Davidians wasn't. Please tell me any atrocities that result in the *natural outworking* of Christianity. Now tell me what atrocities are done in the name of those that oppose Christ as well as being a natural working of the anti-Christian ideology represented by the leader of that movement. Stalin. Pol Pot. Hitler. 9/11. 7/7. The Crusades and the Inquisition was based upon the Church attempting to control political power - a position it was NEVER meant to occupy. (And I will fight to keep The Church from being The Government.)
But the entire point is moot as: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The U.S. Constition - Article VI - Clause 3.
Simply stated: So what if she's a Christian. That point does not disqualify (nor qualify) her from being elected! Those of you who think she should be disqualified because she's Christian - you're the bigots!