[gunmum]

So, why didn't you answer my question? Which 10 Commandments? It's a legitimate question.

Ex. 34 contains a ritual Decalogue that is likely meant to be parallel to the ethical Decalogue (Ex.20),
Ex. 34 as a whole is a narrative of the renewal of the covenant following the golden calf incident.
Exod. 20 and Deut. 5 are addressed to different sets of people with different experiences -- the first set had just been released from Egypt; the second set had never known slavery but were born during the Exodus; moreover, the Deuteronomy covenant would rule those who came afterwards who never knew the toil in Egypt.

You do believe in science don't you? I mean, the physics that allows you to use your computer, the medical help you got you referred to, the medicines that were developed, and of course I can go on and on.
Science developed those, not faith. Using the same scientific process that shows us through geology, biology, astronomy and other specialities that show us how evolution has worked.

Its really quite laughable to me that people think that science and religion are opposites. There is more evidence pointing toward a creator than evolution.
It takes a heck of a lot more faith to believe in a "scientist" that can't find "the link" to our existence! Oh, but it happened billions and billions of years ago? Please...that's just like saying that this watch here with all it's intricate pieces is a direct result of a watch factory explosion!

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

Many evolutionists also converted to Christianity after finding more evidence of a creator!

fact that the rules laid out don't change (molecules are comprised of atoms, which have various parts like electrons and nuclei, every single time you raise the temperature of a subject above burning point, it burns, and it never will get colder then absolute zero).

so? the rules don't change and yet "billions of years" change the rules? Who needs faith now??

In 2005, Australian scientists announced the discovery of dozens of fossilized sea turtles that they say have exciting implications for evolution.However, the exciting implications seem rather to be against evolution!
The fossils are “believed” to be 110 millions years old. But contrary to evolutionary expectations, they look “basically the same as sea turtles do today.”
Evolutionists have no idea where the sea turtles came from or what they are related to. They just appear in the fossil record (the oldest, a single specimen found in Brazil in 1998, is “dated” at 115 million years), fully formed and fully recognizable. They have since “remained virtually unchanged for over 100 million years,” Discovery reports.

Scientists have found from microscopic examination of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) fossils, dated to be 3.5 billion years old, that they are essentially identical to the blue-green algae that are still living today.3 Microscopic algae didn’t change over 3.5 billion years of evolution? Who’s kidding whom?

How do you explain natural selection? Wouldn't it require that you would have a choice that already exists? So now we are waiting on evolution to produce a random mutation to be able to make this choice? And what instances have any of these mutations really panned out?