« Back to story "Debunking Creationist Claims"

Story Comments

Posted by: flyonthewallzz 1 year, 10 months ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 10 months ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

Radio: I just posted this comment on another thread:
I have been thinking a lot lately about the beauty of being created in Gods image lately.
And I am not speaking as a white dude with a beard (which I am).
A gorgeous allegory too bear in mind with those we share this earth with.
Things are not simple, and an Image is much more complicated than how light is reflected from it.
I joyously embrace the concept of being created in Gods image.
My personal interpretation may offend many.
Tough.

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
45 Replies

loading ...
- Neutral
  flyonthewallzz1 year, 10 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  Science has been studying CHI and they have found that brainwaves of those that achieve excellence go to the alpha (they are thinking nothing).
  Of course they can only hook up all there gizmos to folks like sharpshooters.
  Not in the slightest bit as complicated as creating a song.
  What is prayer?
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  27 Replies
  
  loading ...
  - Neutral
    Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 10 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    Ah tho gizmo reminds me of the Zen Archer story.
    Somehow a personal interpretation would seem the only one with legitimacy! I have issues only with those who gather in groups and insist on their group leader's "insights" being the only way for everyone. If indeed that is one's personal belief - fine. But when pushed as science, or public policy it becomes a problem. Tolerance and learning always trump intolerance and ignorance. Enlightenment will not be found in ignorance and darkness, rather in learning and light.
    Peace won't be found in war, love in hatred, etc.
    The insistence that Calvin's or anyone else's interpretive dogmas are sacrosanct and unquestionable is problematic.
    God is everything and God is nothing
    Man, with his hat on is taller than a taxicab
    still evolution is observable and science
    good wishes to all, agree or not.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    26 Replies
    
    loading ...
    - Neutral
      flyonthewallzz1 year, 10 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      Agreed
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      0 Replies
      
      loading ...
    - HomeGManComment removed: Retracted by user23 Replies
      - Neutral
        Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        On the whole I think that the article indeed suggests just that. If one's concept of God is threatened by observing nature, rather than fight the observations, perhaps it's one's particular concept of God that actually could be adjusted.
        After all aren't people ultimately seeking truth in both matters?
        If not, ultimately these religions will find fewer and fewer adherents unless they wrestle enough control to force and brainwash people into accepting their doctrines.
        (which some are attempting). I mentioned a few ways in the article that evolution and bible text can co exist. It seems that rigid fundamentalism regardless of which religion we are talking about causes problems.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        HomeGManComment removed: Retracted by user
      - Neutral
        SpazMat1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Those who sell a "science based" ethic are selling snake oil. Science is a methodology, not an ethic. It is a way to look at the world and attempt to derive the objective from the subjective.
        Science only tells what, not why. People beat against the what and postulate a why, a theory. They come up with experiments to prove or disprove the theory, and run them. Science did not say why a theory is correct, only if it is correct.
        This is not a put down of science, it is a statement of what it is. Often, people will make claims in the "name of science", when it makes no such claims itself. Evolution is a theory that most (if not all) of the available data fits. But the theory says what probably happened, not why.
        It says there is a fitness function, and that change occurs. It does not say what controls the fitness function, or what really causes the change. The best we can do at this point is statistical characterization.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        20 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        HomeGManComment removed: Retracted by user6 Replies
        
        Neutral
        SpazMat1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Frankly, yes, except religion claims to require faith.
        People who say things in the name of science claim you don't, and that you better believe them.
        Science itself just observes, so to speak, through those carrying it out.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        RickyDawkins1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        History has shown us that Morse's telegraph usually works better than prayer.
        Science is a lot like History, except that science is about the future instead of the past...
        -RD
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        earthlingerer1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Science leads us to question, and then find answers. With this knowledge, we can apply the science to daily life. Like agriculture.
        Religion tells us NOT to question, just do as it says, without understanding. With this unquestioning ignorance, we can direct, usually through threats and intimidation, others to continue in the path of ignorance. Like evangelicism.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        HomeGManComment removed: Retracted by user
        
        Neutral
        SpazMat1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        "Religion tells us NOT to question, just do as it says, without understanding. With this unquestioning ignorance, we can direct, usually through threats and intimidation, others to continue in the path of ignorance. Like evangelicism."
        Wow. You need to increase your sample size, or just flat stop throwing out data that does not match you hypothesis.
        My religion tells me to question, to hold everything up to the light of reason, to be discerning and open.
        I strive to learn more about God's creation, and science is the tool I use. That is the historical reason much research has been done.
        Not everyone practices it that way, but not everyone practices science that way, either. Quantum mechanics was heresy, in the science world, plate tectonics, a bunch of stuff.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        SpazMat1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        RD, Wondered when you would get here.
        No. Flat our wrong. Science is about the past. It is how to analyze subjective data to get objective information.
        Developing theories is not even about the future, it is still about describing what you (past tense) saw, and why you think it happened.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        MonkeyBiz1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        "Science only tells what, not why. People beat against the what and postulate a why, a theory. They come up with experiments to prove or disprove the theory, and run them. Science did not say why a theory is correct, only if it is correct."
        That is totally false. Most scientists start out with the question, "why?" The what is usually there for all to see. Take lightening for instance. We all know the what, a bright flash streaking through the sky and destroying anything that it hits on the ground. The why of lightening is what a scientist would be interested in? Why is it so bright? Why does it burn trees that it hits? Why is it so loud? Why does it only occur around storms?
        "It does not say what controls the fitness function, or what really causes the change."
        Yes it does. It's the environment and mutational adaptation to it.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        12 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        SpazMat1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        "Most scientists start out with the question, "why?" "
        I'm sure you have empirical data to back that up, like you know most scientists,m and that is what they told you?
        Most scientists I know start with the question "what really happened?"
        Then they devise ways to actually measure what happened, and then they attempt to make sense of that data. Only when they think they have a grasp on the data do they move to the "why" question.
        Starting with a "why" and moving forward from there almost always ends up in corrupted data that supports an agenda, not reality.
        -----
        "Yes it does. It's the environment and mutational adaptation to it."
        Last time I looked, it did not give a description of the environment, and in fact, it is supposed to be environment neutral, that is, it should hold no matter what the environment.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        11 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        Helixbuilder1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Really? Why would anyone not research why a disease occurs?
        My guess is you don't work in science.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        SpazMat1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        I'm glad I have you vote of confidence.
        Personally, I start out figuring out 'what', before I assume I can figure out 'why'.
        How do you do it?
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        Helixbuilder1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Searching for a 'why' usually reveals the 'what'. Read the history of science as there are many examples.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        SpazMat1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        OK, let me ask you, why what?
        What are you asking why about?
        How can you ask why when you don't know what you are asking it about?
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 11) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        Helixbuilder1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        This is needless hair splitting. Let me clear this up, take colon cancer for instance research has be going on for decades to find out WHY normal cells become cancerous.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 13) (recursion depth : 12) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        MonkeyBiz1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Helixbuilder is on to something, you do not work in science. As a matter of fact it appears you do not have a clue about science or scientists.
        "I'm sure you have empirical data to back that up, like you know most scientists,m and that is what they told you?"
        ROFLMAO!! Empirical data? If they are scientists, they practice the scientific method.
        "Starting with a "why" and moving forward from there almost always ends up in corrupted data that supports an agenda, not reality." Can you cite an instance of real science that produced corrupted data due to your example?
        Environmental neutrality in evolution is an oxymoron. Why are there no crocodiles at the north pole or polar bears in the jungle? Evolution is ALL about the environment and living organisms mutational adaptation to it through natural selection.
        You do not know what you are talking about.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        SpazMat1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        "Environmental neutrality in evolution is an oxymoron. Why are there no crocodiles at the north pole or polar bears in the jungle?"
        OK, I'll lay it out in small words.
        Evolution (to late, hope you can follow it anyway) is a theory that change is reinforced, or not, by a fitness function. It does not say the fitness function must include a hot environment or a cold environment.
        It works the same in the poles as it does in the tropic. The fitness function is different, but it's application is the same.
        See, Fitness function in both places. Different, but the theory is neutral to the actual environment.
        Do YOU believe there's one theory for the sea and a different one for Australian outback?
        "ROFLMAO!! Empirical data? If they are scientists, they practice the scientific method."
        So if HelizBuilder is making a statement he derived from reality, he will have data, whether you call it lab or empirical, maux nix.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        MonkeyBiz1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        I don't know where you get your cockamamie ideas, but they surely were not from a credible learning institution. Considering your apparent lack of scientific knowledge, your insults are a little misplaced and only add an inappropriate arrogance to your ignorance.
        Why don't you read a book about the scientific method and evolution, then get back to us. Pay particular attention to the adaptation to the environment. If you do not understand the relationship between adapting to the environment and evolution, you do not understand evolution, and shouldn't be arguing about it.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        SpazMat1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        The theory of evolution does not change based on the environment it is applied to, only the outcome changes.
        Thus, environmentally neutral.
        Like the same Standard Model that applies to hot dense space applies to cold empty space.
        Same theory, different outcome.
        Really, insulting you or me aside, you don't understand that?
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 11) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        MonkeyBiz1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        I have not said the THEORY changes based on the environment, I am saying the actual evolutionary changes are based on the environment. The environment is key to whatever changes take place.
        The mechanisms that produce the adaptive mutations are the same regardless of the nature of the environment, but the adaptive mutations are adaptive to a specific environment. Do you understand that? That is very fundamental to the understanding of evolution.
        Environmentally favorable adaptive mutations are passed along while unfavorable ones probably won't be. That is why a polar bear has thick hair and a layer of fat. A polar bear born bald with no fat due to a genetic mutation will probably not survive to pass along the mutation. Do you see how the environment is part of the process, not neutral as you are arguing?
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 13) (recursion depth : 12) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        SpazMat1 year, 9 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        And I have said the outcome changes from environment to environment.
        As a matter of fact, I have stated that in just about every post since you did not understad what I meant by "environmentally neutral".
        Environment is part of the process described by the theory, but not part of the theory.
        The theory holds no matter the environment.
        An example of a theory that does not:
        "You can move in water"
        That only works in environments above 0 degrees C.
        From 0 to 100 C, it is obvious (if painful after around 60C, give or take). Above 100, well, it's all vapor, so no issue (other than increased pain).
        For temperatures below freezing, the water is frozen and you can't move (I know, I know, I'm simplifying it, there is creep etc, but it is an analogy).
        "Environmentally favorable adaptive mutations" are changes the fitness function likes. The fitness function changes with environment, but the theory of a fitness function does not.
        See why I say it is neutral?
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 14) (recursion depth : 13) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
    - Neutral
      Frontiermike1 year, 9 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      I love how you come at life,
      I don't agree that the observations and sciences of evolution are correct, but still... more power to you in the way your discussing this issue
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      0 Replies
      
      loading ...
- Neutral
  Jaydee401 year, 10 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  Gee my mom and dad created me in there image, her eyes, his jaw sort of thing plus they got to have sex while doing it, god must have been busy that day. Sorry but when people bring up god like you did it makes me want to call them names and insult their intelligence, your probably a great person but it's a standard reaction from me now with out thinking in most cases. How can a smart person using free thinking still believe what you said? We know the only known way humans can be created is with that fun thing we all love to do called sex. Yes I know it can be done in a lab but don't tell my wife that OK. So stories like the virgin Mary and creation in the bible can't be real, it's fantasy at best. Best case scenario is there was once a cult about two thousand years ago that the leader names Jesus founded and was likely killed over. His followers practised this cult and the Romans as they often did back then absorbed it into their culture.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  14 Replies
  
  loading ...
  - Neutral
    flyonthewallzz1 year, 10 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    Jaydee40:
    The concept of imagery that you are saying I hold in my head are contemporary.
    The luxury of graphic representation is modern.
    Allegory is a good tool.
    I may have chosen to use traditional language.
    If there is mud I will be a stick.
    I wonder if things really have to be redefined.
    The "God in our Image" is an excellent allegory.
    I wonder if there may be reasons why so many religions make it taboo to create physical images. (teddy bears)
    A word can have many meanings.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    13 Replies
    
    loading ...
    - Neutral
      Jaydee401 year, 10 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      Yes a word can have many meanings but one must accept that it has a basic use. To go against that basic use is pretentious at best and foolhardy at least. If you wish to speak of the different images some of the different gods have taken have at it but that not it either is it?
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      12 Replies
      
      loading ...
      - Neutral
        Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Though I see a distinction in a "God" that is a word for all encompassing nature, for the sum of matter and energy which some (like the Deists) perceived and some dude in a cloud who demands your worship and punishes you forever with fire in conjunction with some other dude with a pitchfork... It's not exactly black and white.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        11 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        HomeGManComment removed: Retracted by user10 Replies
        
        Neutral
        SpazMat1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Do you think that the Big Bang was not "poof" creation?
        "I have to question how well any of us could possibly understand some entity with the capacity to afford us the things we are aware of"
        "I don't think one worthy of worship would never demand it, nor punish any who decide not to worship with a fire lake skinny-dip."
        You explain why we can't understand a god that created the universe, and then, in the same breath, limit what that thing you do not understand. If you can't understand it, how can you say that it is wrong for it to do a certain thing?
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        HomeGManComment removed: Retracted by user5 Replies
        
        Neutral
        SpazMat1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        I understood what you meant about poof creation, I just thought that the link between poof and the big bang was amusing.
        Not is a belittling way, as I believe it is what happened, but in a "lol" kind of way, since nothing happened faster than the big boom.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Though evolution is biological not astrophysical and makes no claim about the universe. Absence of proof is indeed not proof of absence. But that applies equally to natural phenomena such as believed about singularities at the end of black holes. No one knows and every answer begs new questions. At this point it isn't knowable - but that does not mean it will remain unknowable. The point of this article is that I think religious groups do a disservice to themselves by trying to displace science or object to it, this is prompted by continuing efforts to have intelligent design taught in science classrooms. Philosophy? Religion? yes. Science? no.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        SpazMat1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Roger that.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 11) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        earthlingerer1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        "God" is clearly a force, without any semblance of a being. Clearly non-sentient, as proven through all those "writings" that people like to parade and proffer.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 13) (recursion depth : 12) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        SpazMat1 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        LOL! So that is YOUR belief?
        Or do you have proof of your hypothesis?
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 14) (recursion depth : 13) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        Jaydee401 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        I know what I am, I know how I can to be, I know my kind has a limited time to play it's part, where does the question of a creator ever come into play. I know if one exists with the power or ability to help mankind with the troubles we face here on earth but fails to do so then that entity is not my friend but a foe. I know from being on catholic and presbyterian church boards that religion is a money grab and nothing but and it's targets are most often the weakest amongst society. I know I will only answer to the people who's lives I've touched for what I have done during my life and beyond that I ask for nothing and give nothing. What really makes me sick with god and religion is all the crap done in it's name and the idea you can do all kind of bad stuff then simply ask for forgiveness and be saved from damnation, does that sound right to anyone else because it doesn't to me?
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        HomeGManComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
        
        Neutral
        Jaydee401 year, 10 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        "I do find those who do what they do out of human compassion, whether faith or science guides them or not, and I am thankful for them."
        And they will never get what they deserve but will never complain either. The rock upon which civilization is built.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
- Neutral
  mark-stevens1 year, 10 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  Gods image? why would God need hair, legs, arms,eyes (other body parts) a mouth, eyes??? And what was God doing and thinking prior to creating the Universe, and why so big.
  Don't think I'm defending science... there was a ball of pure matter and then it blew up real big???
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  0 Replies
  
  loading ...
- Neutral
  DaleTheReasoner1 year, 10 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  I'm one who believes that man created God and not the other way around... and I have a postulate that proves it (at least to me). Here goes: If God created all men in his image, then why do all men around the world have such widely different concepts of God? Wouldn't we all have the same vision and image of what or whom God is?
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  0 Replies
  
  loading ...