bizarre Soft blood tissue in millions of year old dinosaurs. How's that possible?

[Bruno Schulz]

You didn’t look very hard - first article on google search:

Soft tissues in fossil bone

Cells and soft tissues in fossil bone: A review of preservation mechanisms, with corrections of misconceptions

palaeo-electronica.org

This won't suffice for him, though. He thinks non-theistic scientists are in on a grand global conspiracy against Christianity. Notice all his "science" resources are from theistic pseudoscience-pushers. Funny that he has the conspiracy backwards though. What @Dolly wrote is dead right : "science seeks proof through testing, while faith starts with beliefs that can't be tested. Science doubts until proven true, while faith believes until disproven." But he doesn't understand this.

 

[Darkwing87]

Except for Jesus. That isn’t possible

Even some of the most committed atheists admit Jesus was likely a real person or persons. The miracles and resurrection are probably bullshit though.

 

[slickrick27]

This won't suffice for him, though. He thinks non-theistic scientists are in on a grand global conspiracy against Christianity. Notice all his "science" resources are from theistic pseudoscience-pushers. Funny that he has the conspiracy backwards though. What @Dolly wrote is dead right : "science seeks proof through testing, while faith starts with beliefs that can't be tested. Science doubts until proven true, while faith believes until disproven." But he doesn't understand this.

Hold on a second, I've post articles that have secular sources in them. Everything I post isn't all from Christian based sources. So I'll tell you what, I'll post more stuff from secular scientists. You guys are trying to separate science from faith, I'm not though, I'm including them together and trying to demonstrate that it works.

This won't suffice for him, though. He thinks non-theistic scientists are in on a grand global conspiracy against Christianity. Notice all his "science" resources are from theistic pseudoscience-pushers. Funny that he has the conspiracy backwards though. What @Dolly wrote is dead right : "science seeks proof through testing, while faith starts with beliefs that can't be tested. Science doubts until proven true, while faith believes until disproven." But he doesn't understand this.

And yes I did read the article that father corpse sent. I said it was interesting, and that they were hypotheses with inconclusive results. They didn't prove the Fenton method. It's a theoretical equation that they are working on.

 

[RandyScott111]

Ice.

 

[Bruno Schulz]

Hold on a second, I've post articles that have secular sources in them. Everything I post isn't all from Christian based sources. So I'll tell you what, I'll post more stuff from secular scientists. You guys are trying to separate science from faith, I'm not though, I'm including them together and trying to demonstrate that it works.


And yes I did read the article that father corpse sent. I said it was interesting, and that they were hypotheses with inconclusive results. They didn't prove the Fenton method. It's a theoretical equation that they are working on.

But you want certainty. Science rarely, if ever, offers 100% certainty because it is always amenable to updating by newer, more precise findings. Religion, on the other hand, offers certainty to the faithful because they believe it is sacrosanct, and that's what makes it appealing to them. It is not that people cannot be scientifically minded and theistic, but you are trying to reconcile a literalist interpretation of the bible with contemporary scientific knowledge; this is not doable because the answer therein is always simply "God", and in the absence of undeniable proof of supernatural forces (e.g., "God") scientific findings will never support your thesis blending the two. This is do, in large part, to the divergent methodologies involved in science and religion. You're methodology is simply to use faith in God, and faith in a putatively sacrosanct resource (i.e., the Bible), to scaffold your arguments, but this is circular logic, and circular logic is logically fallacious. [Watch the Circular Logic video @lechmich posted on one of your threads.] It may work with faith-based religion because God is always the answer and final word therein, but it doesn't work with scientific methods because you can't answer a question with the question (e.g., "Why is evolution fact? Evolution is fact because it is factual.") Therefore, your attempts to reconcile science and a faith-based literalist interpretation of the Bible are fundamentally at odds by how each defines proof. Again, there is a divergence of methodologies here, between these two fields. Think about reconciling any fictional book with science. For example, "Alice in Wonderland". Sound silly? Well, if I believed "Alice in Wonderland" was factual because "God" utilized and divinely inspire a human servant, C.S. Lewis, to write it, then it's not a silly a notion that it can then be supported by science because God, ultimately, is not only responsible for the existence of science, but is ultimately responsible for everything. Ultimately, God is the question and the answer to everything in this worldview. But in the scientific worldview, with emphasis on its strict definitions and methods of constitutive proof and evidence, supernatural forces are not an answer except in the face of incontrovertible proof so defined. Therein, God is not the answer: God is a non-answer. Because, again, God is not provable by scientific standards, but God is provable by your non-scientific standards. You get it? No shared concept of constitutive proof = irreconcilably and fundamentally divergent methods.
Another fundamental difference between religion and science is the concept of falsification. Religious adherents try to find proof and support for their faith, while science tries continually to prove disprove itself. Why would science try to disprove itself? Because if a theory or hypothesis is able to withstand scientific scrutiny and experimentation then it has strength scientifically. This is how scientific proof is constructed. But if something doesn't stand up to scientific rigor, then it is either emended or discarded, and the process begins again - no big loss. It is a process of discovery, not of proving steadfast, faith-based preconceived notions. All of scientific discovery is built upon this.

 

[Fäthër Cörpsë]

Hold on a second, I've post articles that have secular sources in them. Everything I post isn't all from Christian based sources. So I'll tell you what, I'll post more stuff from secular scientists. You guys are trying to separate science from faith, I'm not though, I'm including them together and trying to demonstrate that it works.


And yes I did read the article that father corpse sent. I said it was interesting, and that they were hypotheses with inconclusive results. They didn't prove the Fenton method. It's a theoretical equation that they are working on.

Article states the Fenton mechanism is a plausible means of cell preservation in fossil study.

Ironically, it’s the Young Earth Creationists that refute this plausibility. Article even says that. And it’s what you’re doing here too.

 

[Bruno Schulz]

But you want certainty. Science rarely, if ever, offers 100% certainty because it is always amenable to updating by newer, more precise findings. Religion, on the other hand, offers certainty to the faithful because they believe it is sacrosanct, and that's what makes it appealing to them. It is not that people cannot be scientifically minded and theistic, but you are trying to reconcile a literalist interpretation of the bible with contemporary scientific knowledge; this is not doable because the answer therein is always simply "God", and in the absence of undeniable proof of supernatural forces (e.g., "God") scientific findings will never support your thesis blending the two. This is do, in large part, to the divergent methodologies involved in science and religion. You're methodology is simply to use faith in God, and faith in a putatively sacrosanct resource (i.e., the Bible), to scaffold your arguments, but this is circular logic, and circular logic is logically fallacious. [Watch the Circular Logic video @lechmich posted on one of your threads.] It may work with faith-based religion because God is always the answer and final word therein, but it doesn't work with scientific methods because you can't answer a question with the question (e.g., "Why is evolution fact? Evolution is fact because it is factual.") Therefore, your attempts to reconcile science and a faith-based literalist interpretation of the Bible are fundamentally at odds by how each defines proof. Again, there is a divergence of methodologies here, between these two fields. Think about reconciling any fictional book with science. For example, "Alice in Wonderland". Sound silly? Well, if I believed "Alice in Wonderland" was factual because "God" utilized and divinely inspire a human servant, C.S. Lewis, to write it, then it's not a silly a notion that it can then be supported by science because God, ultimately, is not only responsible for the existence of science, but is ultimately responsible for everything. Ultimately, God is the question and the answer to everything in this worldview. But in the scientific worldview, with emphasis on its strict definitions and methods of constitutive proof and evidence, supernatural forces are not an answer except in the face of incontrovertible proof so defined. Therein, God is not the answer: God is a non-answer. Because, again, God is not provable by scientific standards, but God is provable by your non-scientific standards. You get it? No shared concept of constitutive proof = irreconcilably and fundamentally divergent methods.
Another fundamental difference between religion and science is the concept of falsification. Religious adherents try to find proof and support for their faith, while science tries continually to prove disprove itself. Why would science try to disprove itself? Because if a theory or hypothesis is able to withstand scientific scrutiny and experimentation then it has strength scientifically. This is how scientific proof is constructed. But if something doesn't stand up to scientific rigor, then it is either emended or discarded, and the process begins again - no big loss. It is a process of discovery, not of proving steadfast, faith-based preconceived notions. All of scientific discovery is built upon this.

Edit: should read "Falsifiability" not "falsification". See, I corrected my error, and now I'm moving forward with a clearer knowledge not to make that same mistake again - just like science is wont to.

 

[slickrick27]

Article states the Fenton mechanism is a plausible means of cell preservation in fossil study.

Ironically, it’s the Young Earth Creationists that refute this plausibility. Article even says that. And it’s what you’re doing here too.

It's plausible. It's an interesting concept. But yet still inconclusive.

But you want certainty. Science rarely, if ever, offers 100% certainty because it is always amenable to updating by newer, more precise findings. Religion, on the other hand, offers certainty to the faithful because they believe it is sacrosanct, and that's what makes it appealing to them. It is not that people cannot be scientifically minded and theistic, but you are trying to reconcile a literalist interpretation of the bible with contemporary scientific knowledge; this is not doable because the answer therein is always simply "God", and in the absence of undeniable proof of supernatural forces (e.g., "God") scientific findings will never support your thesis blending the two. This is do, in large part, to the divergent methodologies involved in science and religion. You're methodology is simply to use faith in God, and faith in a putatively sacrosanct resource (i.e., the Bible), to scaffold your arguments, but this is circular logic, and circular logic is logically fallacious. [Watch the Circular Logic video @lechmich posted on one of your threads.] It may work with faith-based religion because God is always the answer and final word therein, but it doesn't work with scientific methods because you can't answer a question with the question (e.g., "Why is evolution fact? Evolution is fact because it is factual.") Therefore, your attempts to reconcile science and a faith-based literalist interpretation of the Bible are fundamentally at odds by how each defines proof. Again, there is a divergence of methodologies here, between these two fields. Think about reconciling any fictional book with science. For example, "Alice in Wonderland". Sound silly? Well, if I believed "Alice in Wonderland" was factual because "God" utilized and divinely inspire a human servant, C.S. Lewis, to write it, then it's not a silly a notion that it can then be supported by science because God, ultimately, is not only responsible for the existence of science, but is ultimately responsible for everything. Ultimately, God is the question and the answer to everything in this worldview. But in the scientific worldview, with emphasis on its strict definitions and methods of constitutive proof and evidence, supernatural forces are not an answer except in the face of incontrovertible proof so defined. Therein, God is not the answer: God is a non-answer. Because, again, God is not provable by scientific standards, but God is provable by your non-scientific standards. You get it? No shared concept of constitutive proof = irreconcilably and fundamentally divergent methods.
Another fundamental difference between religion and science is the concept of falsification. Religious adherents try to find proof and support for their faith, while science tries continually to prove disprove itself. Why would science try to disprove itself? Because if a theory or hypothesis is able to withstand scientific scrutiny and experimentation then it has strength scientifically. This is how scientific proof is constructed. But if something doesn't stand up to scientific rigor, then it is either emended or discarded, and the process begins again - no big loss. It is a process of discovery, not of proving steadfast, faith-based preconceived notions. All of scientific discovery is built upon this.

Respect for putting that much time and thought into your response, as I've said in other threads, I didn't always believe in God. I was atheist once and accepted the mainstream narrative. Its the science and evidence that doesn't add up. It can't be proven. No one was able to witness the big bang, it's not a proven science, it's mostly accepted but there are lots of problems with that entire theory. There's been entire books Written on this. It's way too much to get into in a little reply like this. I'll slowly post things little by little. If at best I'll say evolution is plausible, there are definitely some good arguments and some hard to answer questions and vice versa.

 

[Bruno Schulz]

It's plausible. It's an interesting concept. But yet still inconclusive.


Respect for putting that much time and thought into your response, as I've said in other threads, I didn't always believe in God. I was atheist once and accepted the mainstream narrative. Its the science and evidence that doesn't add up. It can't be proven. No one was able to witness the big bang, it's not a proven science, it's mostly accepted but there are lots of problems with that entire theory. There's been entire books Written on this. It's way too much to get into in a little reply like this. I'll slowly post things little by little. If at best I'll say evolution is plausible, there are definitely some good arguments and some hard to answer questions and vice versa.

The Big Bang does add up, but it's a scientific theory in the works, as all scientific theories are in the works, forever. There is much debate in the scientific community as to the exact nature of the Big Bang, but asking questions is the first step in answering questions. The scientific theory (i.e., empirically supported theory) of the Big Bang explains many phenomena we see in space including the expansion of space, background radiation, etc. That said, no answer is definitive in science, and it is always amenable to newer empirical findings. This does not sit well with people who demand certainty, as you yourself seem to, but uncertainty is one of the currencies of science, and that is ok because that yields progress.

 

[Qtek2020]

How is soft blood tissue found in dinosaur fossils that are millions of years old? It wouldn't be possible if they were that old. O and what about the carbon dating of the soft blood tissue? *Spoiler alert- they aren't millions of years old.

Chemical decomposition rates simply don't allow for soft tissue to last for millions of years. How is there soft tissue in these t-rex bones? So what is this? View attachment 778156

Time travel

 

[slickrick27]

The Big Bang does add up, but it's a scientific theory in the works, as all scientific theories are in the works, forever. There is much debate in the scientific community as to the exact nature of the Big Bang, but asking questions is the first step in answering questions. The scientific theory (i.e., empirically supported theory) of the Big Bang explains many phenomena we see in space including the expansion of space, background radiation, etc. That said, no answer is definitive in science, and it is always amenable to newer empirical findings. This does not sit well with people who demand certainty, as you yourself seem to, but uncertainty is one of the currencies of science, and that is ok because that yields progress.

And I could say the same thing about evolutionists, they demand certainty about God and the bible and Jesus being the Son of God and rising from the dead. As in the past with dozens of other scientific theories, aka theoretical science, as technology advances and our knowledge of the universe increases, I'm sure lots of currently accepted theories will be replaced with newer concepts and theories. Hopefully the true ones.

And I could say the same thing about evolutionists, they demand certainty about God and the bible and Jesus being the Son of God and rising from the dead. As in the past with dozens of other scientific theories, aka theoretical science, as technology advances and our knowledge of the universe increases, I'm sure lots of currently accepted theories will be replaced with newer concepts and theories. Hopefully the true ones.

And there are sciences that we know for sure are 100 percent correct. Like gravity, and the speed of light and sound and lots of other things that we can see and observe and test. At the end of the day evolutionists are still putting faith in something that can't be proven, it's still faith and trust is something that you don't know for 100 % certainty. Our understanding of Historical science will change in time as we continue to unravel the mysteries of the universe.

And I could say the same thing about evolutionists, they demand certainty about God and the bible and Jesus being the Son of God and rising from the dead. As in the past with dozens of other scientific theories, aka theoretical science, as technology advances and our knowledge of the universe increases, I'm sure lots of currently accepted theories will be replaced with newer concepts and theories. Hopefully the true ones.


And there are sciences that we know for sure are 100 percent correct. Like gravity, and the speed of light and sound and lots of other things that we can see and observe and test. At the end of the day evolutionists are still putting faith in something that can't be proven, it's still faith and trust is something that you don't know for 100 % certainty. Our understanding of Historical science will change in time as we continue to unravel the mysteries of the universe.

*In

 

[Bruno Schulz]

And I could say the same thing about evolutionists, they demand certainty about God and the bible and Jesus being the Son of God and rising from the dead.

Who are these people? Not any scientists of consequence I imagine. Richard Dawkins, maybe, who in his mind knows there's no proof? Maybe bumpkin laymen who have an atheistically-biased worldview - a childishly proud vested interest in wielding truth as a weapon; but, to me, that's as bad as having a theistically-biased worldview entailing the same childishly proud vested interest in wielding truth as a weapon. If someone sincerely cares about truth, or rather truth's closest approximation (as "truth" is a nebulous and slippery concept), they will not be biased either way. I think you're painting proponents of evolution with a broad brushstroke based on your conception that there exists some grand conflict between science and religion. This supposed conflict between science and religion is really a non-issue as far as the scientific community is concerned, but it seems like the religious communities of the world see themselves in opposition to science. I assure you it is a one-way conflict. A true scientist is not going to be biased by either theism or atheism. But, like any facet of the world under scrutiny, there are both good and bad examples therein. There are good scientists and there are bad scientists; there are good theists and there are bad thesis You can't throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[slickrick27]

Who are these people? Not any scientists of consequence I imagine. Richard Dawkins, maybe, who in his mind knows there's no proof? Maybe bumpkin laymen who have an atheistically-biased worldview - a childishly proud vested interest in wielding truth as a weapon; but, to me, that's as bad as having a theistically-biased worldview entailing the same childishly proud vested interest in wielding truth as a weapon. If someone sincerely cares about truth, or rather truth's closest approximation (as "truth" is a nebulous and slippery concept), they will not be biased either way. I think you're painting proponents of evolution with a broad brushstroke based on your conception that there exists some grand conflict between science and religion. This supposed conflict between science and religion is really a non-issue as far as the scientific community is concerned, but it seems like the religious communities of the world see themselves in opposition to science. I assure you it is a one-way conflict. A true scientist is not going to be biased by either theism or atheism. But, like any facet of the world under scrutiny, there are both good and bad examples therein. There are good scientists and there are bad scientists; there are good theists and there are bad thesis You can't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Ok I see what your saying. Like I said I'm always open to learning new concepts and technology, but really what it comes down to is this, if a scientist is an evolutionist/darwinist that means he discredits the Genesis account of creation and how we got here and the earth was established. They don't have to be worried about religion specifically but to imply that the big bang happened and life evolved from nothing to all of this is to deny God and say Christianity is not true. It's all got to be true or none it can be trusted. God's Word (the Bible) is inerrant, so if Genesis account isn't true than the whole Bible is garbage and Christianity and Judaism are totally b.s and lies.

Ok I see what your saying. Like I said I'm always open to learning new concepts and technology, but really what it comes down to is this, if a scientist is an evolutionist/darwinist that means he discredits the Genesis account of creation and how we got here and the earth was established. They don't have to be worried about religion specifically but to imply that the big bang happened and life evolved from nothing to all of this is to deny God and say Christianity is not true. It's all got to be true or none it can be trusted. God's Word (the Bible) is inerrant, so if Genesis account isn't true than the whole Bible is garbage and Christianity and Judaism are totally b.s and lies.

That's why evolutionists and darwinists don't believe the bible to begin with, because they don't trust it and can't prove it actually happened.

Ok I see what your saying. Like I said I'm always open to learning new concepts and technology, but really what it comes down to is this, if a scientist is an evolutionist/darwinist that means he discredits the Genesis account of creation and how we got here and the earth was established. They don't have to be worried about religion specifically but to imply that the big bang happened and life evolved from nothing to all of this is to deny God and say Christianity is not true. It's all got to be true or none it can be trusted. God's Word (the Bible) is inerrant, so if Genesis account isn't true than the whole Bible is garbage and Christianity and Judaism are totally b.s and lies.


That's why evolutionists and darwinists don't believe the bible to begin with, because they don't trust it and can't prove it actually happened.

And Richard Hawkins is a world renowned leading scientist lol. He's one of the top dogs in the evolutionist circle.

 

[Bruno Schulz]

Ok I see what you but really what it comes down to is this, if a scientist is an evolutionist/darwinist that means he discredits the Genesis account of creation and how we got here and the earth was established. They don't have to be worried about religion specifically but to imply that the big bang happened and life evolved from nothing to all of this is to deny God and say Christianity is not true. It's all got to be true or none it can be trusted. God's Word (the Bible) is inerrant, so if Genesis account isn't true than the whole Bible is garbage and Christianity and Judaism are totally b.s and lies.

Not every theist supports a literalist interpretation of the Bible like you do. There are many theists who are science-minded proponents of evolution. And then there are atheists, who don't believe in the validity of the Bible at all anyway, so why would you care what they think? Aren't you secure in your worldview? In the end, this is a you problem. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, theists and scientists essentially speak different languages with regard to truth; they have different conceptions regarding the nature of truth. As a result, there is no reconciliation that will satisfy a biased party in this purported conflict (including you). Really, it seems as if the literalist Bible proponents feel under attack by science and are trying to fight it, but to be blunt, science is the pursuit of empirical truths, and empirical truths do not care about anybody's feelings or worldviews. Science marches on blindly in this pursuit - no matter the direction.

 

[slickrick27]

Ok I see what your saying. Like I said I'm always open to learning new concepts and technology, but really what it comes down to is this, if a scientist is an evolutionist/darwinist that means he discredits the Genesis account of creation and how we got here and the earth was established. They don't have to be worried about religion specifically but to imply that the big bang happened and life evolved from nothing to all of this is to deny God and say Christianity is not true. It's all got to be true or none it can be trusted. God's Word (the Bible) is inerrant, so if Genesis account isn't true than the whole Bible is garbage and Christianity and Judaism are totally b.s and lies.


That's why evolutionists and darwinists don't believe the bible to begin with, because they don't trust it and can't prove it actually happened.


And Richard Hawkins is a world renowned leading scientist lol. He's one of the top dogs in the evolutionist circle.

* Dawkins. He's a British evolutionary biologist, who's published several books, including some top best sellers I believe. Lots of his work is used and relied upon in the evolutionist movement.

 

[Bruno Schulz]

* Dawkins. He's a British evolutionary biologist, who's published several books, including some top best sellers I believe. Lots of his work is used and relied upon in the evolutionist movement.

It's not a movement. There is no movement. I sympathize that it would be difficult to understand this from your vantage point within this purported conflict between good and evil, but I assure you there is no movement. I'm going to stop writing now. This is why I don't argue religion with anyone: because they are not amenable to change and are only interested in pushing their biased worldview. I wish you good luck in you endeavor.

 

[slickrick27]

Not every theist supports a literalist interpretation of the Bible like you do. There are many theists who are science-minded proponents of evolution. And then there are atheists, who don't believe in the validity of the Bible at all anyway, so why would you care what they think? Aren't you secure in your worldview? In the end, this is a you problem. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, theists and scientists essentially speak different languages with regard to truth; they have different conceptions regarding the nature of truth. As a result, there is no reconciliation that will satisfy a biased party in this purported conflict (including you). Really, it seems as if the literalist Bible proponents feel under attack by science and are trying to fight it, but to be blunt, science is the pursuit of empirical truths, and empirical truths do not care about anybody's feelings or worldviews. Science marches on blindly in this pursuit - no matter the direction.

Well the thing is, you can't be pro creation and pro evolution. Meaning you can't cherry pick the bible. The bible says God's Word is inerrant and all of it is true. So to say that your a "theist" or christian and not believe the entire bible is not correct. And your right, it's like the democrats and Republicans, it can get sort of political. I'm just showing people things that are interesting and it's up to the viewer to make their own choice at the end of the day. I'm not trying to force this on anyone. I'll only engage in conversations with people if they want to.

It's not a movement. There is no movement. I sympathize that it would be difficult to understand this from your vantage point within this purported conflict between good and evil, but I assure you there is no movement.

I knew you were gonna say that it wasn't a movement I shouldn't even used that word, regardless of whatever terminology you'd like to use, Richard Dawkins is a renowned scientist and evolutionists use his work and studies to prove evolution.

 

[Bruno Schulz]

Well the thing is, you can't be pro creation and pro evolution. Meaning you can't cherry pick the bible. The bible says God's Word is inerrant and all of it is true. So to say that your a "theist" or christian and not believe the entire bible is not correct. And your right, it's like the democrats and Republicans, it can get sort of political. I'm just showing people things that are interesting and it's up to the viewer to make their own choice at the end of the day. I'm not trying to force this on anyone. I'll only engage in conversations with people if they want to.


I knew you were gonna say that it wasn't a movement I shouldn't even used that word, regardless of whatever terminology you'd like to use, Richard Dawkins is a renowned scientist and evolutionists use his work and studies to prove evolution.

The things is, you're likely not going to convince anyone on this site because the arguments offered in your posts are only convincing to the naive. I wonder, by the way, why you are trying to convince anyone of anything, let alone on a gore site? Are you trying to proselytize? Are you trying to spread the word of God? If that's the case, it would behoove you to find a site with more traffic and a more receptive audience.

I knew you were gonna say that it wasn't a movement I shouldn't even used that word, regardless of whatever terminology you'd like to use, Richard Dawkins is a renowned scientist and evolutionists use his work and studies to prove evolution.

Yes, language matters. Word choice is important. The funny thing is is that to the world at large, evolution is fact. It is only in religious enclaves like yours that it is not. From your vantage point it must appear as if religion is fighting a big bad dangerous opponent, but in reality, religion is virtually fighting the weather.

 

[slickrick27]

The things is, you're likely not going to convince anyone on this site because the arguments offered in your posts are only convincing to the naive. I wonder, by the way, why you are trying to convince anyone of anything, let alone on a gore site? Are you trying to proselytize? Are you trying to spread the word of God? If that's the case, it would behoove you to find a site with more traffic and a more receptive audience.


Yes, language matters. Word choice is important. The funny thing is is that to the world at large, evolution is fact. It is only in religious enclaves like yours that it is not. From your vantage point it must appear as if religion is fighting a big bad dangerous opponent, but in reality, religion is virtually fighting the weather.

It's all good. I just plant a seed. I don't do facebook and tiktok and social media platforms. So while I'm here enjoying the awesome content on this site, I'm just planting some seeds along the way and talking about things that are interesting to me. I'll see you on the threads. ✌

 

[Gnosis]

So do you use science to disqualify science and qualify religion?