Creationism
08 Oct 2010, 12:58 pm
wavefreak58 wrote:
Wedge wrote:
How can God create light on the first day if he only created the sun on the forth day?
Where does it say that the sun was the only source of light?
But you could be right. Maybe he created other stars before the sun or maybe a supernova was making the sky bright.
Ok I didn´t read it carefully. All the stars were only created in the forth day.
Last edited by Wedge on 08 Oct 2010, 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
08 Oct 2010, 1:13 pm
Wedge wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
Wedge wrote:
How can God create light on the first day if he only created the sun on the forth day?
Where does it say that the sun was the only source of light?
But you could be right. Maybe he created other stars before the sun or maybe a supernova was making the sky bright.
How about instead of making great leaps of fancy, such as super novas or just light from something other than the sun. How about just admitting that you do not know. That is a very honest answer. Instead of just pulling things out of the air to try and sound reasonable. Trust me, you don't sound reasonable at all. You sound crazy and a little pathetic.
Of course the other honest answer would be to admit that it's just a story with no real basis in reality. That might be pushing it a bit for you though.
It was answers like "maybe it was a super nova, or some other kind of light" that made me decide to just stop going to church. Admittedly I was an agnostic since I was a kid, but I was raised in a christian home all my life. But still, the fact that I was directly discouraged from asking questions, and when I did ask questions, I was either shot down, or I got utterly ridiculous answers like you are giving. And those are not answers, they are flights of fancy more for your sake than ours.
08 Oct 2010, 1:44 pm
Wedge wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Ambrose_Rotten wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
To presuppose the universe had no creator is to say that the universe created itself. And then AG shall mention a philosophy of time in which causality is irrelevant.
I believe this thread is about how life began on earth. Not how the universe began. They are two different things.
Wrong. Creationism is a lot more generalized than abiogenesis.
Biblically, on the first day God created light. On the second day, God created the expanse. On the third day, the ocean and the super-continent as well as plants. On the forth day, the sun, our moon, and the stars, on the fifth day, the creatures of the sea and the birds. On the sixth day, land animals other than birds, and man. So, going from the Bible a lot more is addressed than merely life upon the earth alone, regardless of whether or not evolutionists today seek to isolate and obfuscate the matter in a sea of vague definitions and equivocation.
How can God create light on the first day if he only created the sun on the forth day?
Since God is "light," He clearly could have created light without first having to create the sun, stars, and moon. And so on day one God made light (intrinsic light); then on day four God made the physical power sources (sun and stars) of all the lights in the universe.
Some of the atheist evolutionists have a similar belief about having light come before the source in that they believe that their mysterious big bang happened about 15 billion years ago while the sun developed by evolutionary process only about 5 billion years. And so they believe that before the universe could set up the sun and stars as the power sources of light, the sun and stars first had to be prepared.
_________________
Stung by the splendor of a sudden thought. ~ Robert Browning
08 Oct 2010, 2:14 pm
JetLag wrote:
Since God is "light," He clearly could have created light without first having to create the sun, stars, and moon. And so on day one God made light (intrinsic light); then on day four God made the physical power sources (sun and stars) of all the lights in the universe.
Some of the atheist evolutionists have a similar belief about having light come before the source in that they believe that their mysterious big bang happened about 15 billion years ago while the sun developed by evolutionary process only about 5 billion years. And so they believe that before the universe could set up the sun and stars as the power sources of light, the sun and stars first had to be prepared.
Some of the atheist evolutionists have a similar belief about having light come before the source in that they believe that their mysterious big bang happened about 15 billion years ago while the sun developed by evolutionary process only about 5 billion years. And so they believe that before the universe could set up the sun and stars as the power sources of light, the sun and stars first had to be prepared.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/exhibit/map_exhibit.html <- what "some of the atheist evolutionists" believe about "having light come before the source." which is to say, light coming from a source that is not a star before the formation of stars.
conversely, we could go with the 6 days idea.... (taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days)
Quote:
"Objection 2
According to Genesis 1, the sun was not created until Day 4. How could there be day and night (ordinary days) without the sun for the first three days?
Answer
1. Again, it is important for us to let the language of God’s Word speak to us. If we come to Genesis 1 without any outside influences, as has been shown, each of the six days of creation appears with the Hebrew word yom qualified by a number and the phrase “evening and morning.” The first three days are written the same way as the next three. So if we let the language speak to us, all six days were ordinary earth days.
2. The sun is not needed for day and night. What is needed is light and a rotating earth. On the first day of creation, God made light (Genesis 1:3). The phrase “evening and morning” certainly implies a rotating earth. Thus, if we have light from one direction, and a spinning earth, there can be day and night."
According to Genesis 1, the sun was not created until Day 4. How could there be day and night (ordinary days) without the sun for the first three days?
Answer
1. Again, it is important for us to let the language of God’s Word speak to us. If we come to Genesis 1 without any outside influences, as has been shown, each of the six days of creation appears with the Hebrew word yom qualified by a number and the phrase “evening and morning.” The first three days are written the same way as the next three. So if we let the language speak to us, all six days were ordinary earth days.
2. The sun is not needed for day and night. What is needed is light and a rotating earth. On the first day of creation, God made light (Genesis 1:3). The phrase “evening and morning” certainly implies a rotating earth. Thus, if we have light from one direction, and a spinning earth, there can be day and night."
hmm.... there seems to be a discrepancy in our understanding of how eachother think. my version of what you believe seems to match up quite nicely with what you actually believe. your other statement, however, seems to misunderstand the conclusions drawn by "atheist evolutionists."
_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
08 Oct 2010, 2:40 pm
Let's suppose for a moment that God could have made such a thing as a "planet factory" like the one described in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."
Why wouldn't a depiction of the formation of the universe as related in Genesis be plausible if the earth was a special creation of God while while other celestial bodies are a separate creation? If you think about it, no region of the known universe yet appears to be friendly towards supporting life. Earth and the Terran solar system seem to be "just perfect" for the task, even with the remote possibility that we could move to Mars if we had a need for expansion. It is plausible that God could have made the Earth in His own sort of "workshop," giving it the special attention needed for the continued support of life until the Earth, its star, its satellite, and possibly everything else in the solar system could be hung in its place within the galaxy. Since Earth would have been God's top priority, there'd be no need for the sun at all until the primary support systems could be set in place.
A prophet being given a glimpse of how this occurred would have written the vision down as he saw it, and it makes sense God would only inspire that prophet to write those relevant events down in that way. Further, it also makes sense that, if the Bible only records the most relevant facts, that God would have shown creation in a series of "episodes" highlighting the main points of creation. Thus, each "day" need not be read as a 24 hour day, though it's possible, nor that (24 hours or not) the days were consecutive days. Only the chronological order of creation days need be preserved. If you believe that earth-dating is accurate (though it is also possible to call the evidence into question), this system of heaven as a "planet factory" or "workshop" would account for the apparent long periods of time indicated by a progression of adaptive variation (not to be confused with evolution), the fossil record that we DO have, the lack of plentiful transition fossils, or even radiological evidence of an "old" earth. Regardless of which side you're on, pro-Creation or pro-Evolution, neither really seem to render the other as implausible. As to how you go about determining the actual truth of one or the other is an entirely different topic.
08 Oct 2010, 2:49 pm
i am an agnostic. too stupid, i guess, to be able to know the unknowable. oh, the shame.
not that i have looked into this more than a fleeting thought......but could not 'first light' have come from what every physics genius calls the big bang. seems that the bb fits is well with genesis. the rest of the story loses me. lost again, a common occurrence in my small realm.
louie's doc recently went to the ..creation museum.. in northern kentucky. she was anxious to ask questions about what she had seen there. it was sad. humans hanging out with t-rex. grand canyon formed in an instant. silly thing after silly thing. you could feel the ignorance and arrogance, a really dangerous combination. being a lousy speaker, i sent her a really long e-mail about the scientific viewpoint of what she had seen presented as ...the only truth...she is catholic and my only contact with the world of humans. walked a fine line to try to bring her back to reality.
TENSU...i feel you to be a kindred spirt and ask you to understand that most humans who are convinced of the truth of evolution hear creation presented as the ..creation museum..presents it. surely you can agree that the earth is not 6000 years old and humans did not party with dinosaurs. the grand canyon was not created overnight
and this is making me ill. the arrogance of rabid creationist cause the saner among us to cringe. god may very well have created the heavens and the earth. sounds as likely to me as that all the matter in our universe was at one time contained as matter and energy in an area the size of a hydrogen atom. i have no idea. no one does.
that's where evolutionist are coming from. running from...the creation museum and it's supporters. far away, running to evade that particular insanity.
08 Oct 2010, 3:40 pm
AngelRho wrote:
Why wouldn't a depiction of the formation of the universe as related in Genesis be plausible if the earth was a special creation of God while while other celestial bodies are a separate creation? If you think about it, no region of the known universe yet appears to be friendly towards supporting life. Earth and the Terran solar system seem to be "just perfect" for the task, even with the remote possibility that we could move to Mars if we had a need for expansion. It is plausible that God could have made the Earth in His own sort of "workshop," giving it the special attention needed for the continued support of life until the Earth, its star, its satellite, and possibly everything else in the solar system could be hung in its place within the galaxy. Since Earth would have been God's top priority, there'd be no need for the sun at all until the primary support systems could be set in place.
Actually, to say that "no region of the known universe appears to be friendly towards supporting life" is not entirely true. For instance, we've already found earth-like planets in the habitable zone of their sun, i.e. the Gliese 581 system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581.
Furthermore, while the earth-like planets of the star Gliese 581 are not exact clones of Earth because they're predicted to be tidally locked, I've got some inside information about unpublished results from the Kepler satellite, told to me by my professor who supervised me for my MSc in Astrophysics. This data shows that the kind of solar system we have is actually quite typical and they predict that up to at least 50 virtual clones Earth could actually be discovered by Kepler, never mind just earth-like planets in the habitable zones of their parent star. Of course, whether or not they do have life on them is a different matter.
In any case, even if life was rare in the universe, that could simply be explained by statistics and required special conditions for life to exist. For example, the rare earth hypothesis assumes that our Earth with complex multicellular life, could indeed be unique but based on pure scientific arguments. So no need to invoke the biblical account of genesis at all. Simply put, whether or not life is rare, life will only appear where it's capable of existing if it were to appear. We live on the earth rather than the moon or Mars because cannot live in those places. That's the simple explanation, we don't need Genesis or God at all to explain it.
08 Oct 2010, 3:42 pm
AngelRho wrote:
Let's suppose for a moment that God could have made such a thing as a "planet factory" like the one described in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."
Why wouldn't a depiction of the formation of the universe as related in Genesis be plausible if the earth was a special creation of God while while other celestial bodies are a separate creation? If you think about it, no region of the known universe yet appears to be friendly towards supporting life. Earth and the Terran solar system seem to be "just perfect" for the task, even with the remote possibility that we could move to Mars if we had a need for expansion. It is plausible that God could have made the Earth in His own sort of "workshop," giving it the special attention needed for the continued support of life until the Earth, its star, its satellite, and possibly everything else in the solar system could be hung in its place within the galaxy. Since Earth would have been God's top priority, there'd be no need for the sun at all until the primary support systems could be set in place.
A prophet being given a glimpse of how this occurred would have written the vision down as he saw it, and it makes sense God would only inspire that prophet to write those relevant events down in that way. Further, it also makes sense that, if the Bible only records the most relevant facts, that God would have shown creation in a series of "episodes" highlighting the main points of creation. Thus, each "day" need not be read as a 24 hour day, though it's possible, nor that (24 hours or not) the days were consecutive days. Only the chronological order of creation days need be preserved. If you believe that earth-dating is accurate (though it is also possible to call the evidence into question), this system of heaven as a "planet factory" or "workshop" would account for the apparent long periods of time indicated by a progression of adaptive variation (not to be confused with evolution), the fossil record that we DO have, the lack of plentiful transition fossils, or even radiological evidence of an "old" earth. Regardless of which side you're on, pro-Creation or pro-Evolution, neither really seem to render the other as implausible. As to how you go about determining the actual truth of one or the other is an entirely different topic.
Why wouldn't a depiction of the formation of the universe as related in Genesis be plausible if the earth was a special creation of God while while other celestial bodies are a separate creation? If you think about it, no region of the known universe yet appears to be friendly towards supporting life. Earth and the Terran solar system seem to be "just perfect" for the task, even with the remote possibility that we could move to Mars if we had a need for expansion. It is plausible that God could have made the Earth in His own sort of "workshop," giving it the special attention needed for the continued support of life until the Earth, its star, its satellite, and possibly everything else in the solar system could be hung in its place within the galaxy. Since Earth would have been God's top priority, there'd be no need for the sun at all until the primary support systems could be set in place.
A prophet being given a glimpse of how this occurred would have written the vision down as he saw it, and it makes sense God would only inspire that prophet to write those relevant events down in that way. Further, it also makes sense that, if the Bible only records the most relevant facts, that God would have shown creation in a series of "episodes" highlighting the main points of creation. Thus, each "day" need not be read as a 24 hour day, though it's possible, nor that (24 hours or not) the days were consecutive days. Only the chronological order of creation days need be preserved. If you believe that earth-dating is accurate (though it is also possible to call the evidence into question), this system of heaven as a "planet factory" or "workshop" would account for the apparent long periods of time indicated by a progression of adaptive variation (not to be confused with evolution), the fossil record that we DO have, the lack of plentiful transition fossils, or even radiological evidence of an "old" earth. Regardless of which side you're on, pro-Creation or pro-Evolution, neither really seem to render the other as implausible. As to how you go about determining the actual truth of one or the other is an entirely different topic.
now see, this kind of creationism is nowhere near as ridiculous as the 6-day literal interpretation.
danandlouie: my wife is a catholic and mocks the creation museum. that said, less than half of americans accept the theory of evolution.
_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
08 Oct 2010, 4:24 pm
AngelRho wrote:
If you think about it, no region of the known universe yet appears to be friendly towards supporting life. Earth and the Terran solar system seem to be "just perfect" for the task,
That would make sense if there were a few hundred thousand or even a couple of million planets in the universe, as we could quite feasibly check them all out. But this is not the case. As you are no doubt aware it is estimated that there are between 1 - 30 billion planets in our galaxy and approximately 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Your statement above is just a massive strawman aimed at the gullible. As Dawkins points out even given massively absurd odds of (for instance) a billion to one that life will arise on a planet you still get the probability of at least 1 billion planets having some form of life, and as he also says the chance of finding one of those life bearing planets in a universe the scale of ours if like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack.
Of course the irony of your opening statement regarding Magrathea being that Adams was a great observer of human behavior and some of the idiocies / absurdities that we carry on with.
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
08 Oct 2010, 8:27 pm
Jookia wrote:
Tensu wrote:
I can't help but notice, Jookia, that you have stepped around an important question I've asked.
You believe in "right", but you have no way to prove that X or Y is "right" or that "right" even exists at all.
yet you dismiss other things that are similarly hard to prove as being most likely hoaxes or hallucinations.
my point is, if you find these things unworthy of your attention because they cannot be "proven" in a scientific sense, then why do you believe in "right", when the concept of "right" cannot be proven in a scientific sense?
So for now, let's focus on "right".
You believe in "right", but you have no way to prove that X or Y is "right" or that "right" even exists at all.
yet you dismiss other things that are similarly hard to prove as being most likely hoaxes or hallucinations.
my point is, if you find these things unworthy of your attention because they cannot be "proven" in a scientific sense, then why do you believe in "right", when the concept of "right" cannot be proven in a scientific sense?
So for now, let's focus on "right".
I stepped around it because this isn't related to the topic and I'm not going to keep playing in to questions like that where you can keep deconstructing to the point of questioning if anything exists.
I don't think you understand what I was trying to accomplish. If you would humor me for a while, you would see where I'm going with this, namely, I'm pointing out that the belief in right and wrong is a religious belief, not a scientific one. You have already accepted morality even though you have no proof of morality, thus to reject God because you have no proof of God is fallacious.
08 Oct 2010, 9:26 pm
Tensu wrote:
I can't help but notice, Jookia, that you have stepped around an important question I've asked.
You believe in "right", but you have no way to prove that X or Y is "right" or that "right" even exists at all.
yet you dismiss other things that are similarly hard to prove as being most likely hoaxes or hallucinations.
my point is, if you find these things unworthy of your attention because they cannot be "proven" in a scientific sense, then why do you believe in "right", when the concept of "right" cannot be proven in a scientific sense?
as for Zeus and what not, I'd have to type pages upon pages explaining my thoughts on that, and I was hoping to start several threads on my ideas on the subject later, where they can be the full attention of the threads in question.
but there is much that I need to do before that can be done...
So for now, let's focus on "right".
You believe in "right", but you have no way to prove that X or Y is "right" or that "right" even exists at all.
yet you dismiss other things that are similarly hard to prove as being most likely hoaxes or hallucinations.
my point is, if you find these things unworthy of your attention because they cannot be "proven" in a scientific sense, then why do you believe in "right", when the concept of "right" cannot be proven in a scientific sense?
as for Zeus and what not, I'd have to type pages upon pages explaining my thoughts on that, and I was hoping to start several threads on my ideas on the subject later, where they can be the full attention of the threads in question.
but there is much that I need to do before that can be done...
So for now, let's focus on "right".
http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/
that's a link to a great TED talk by sam harris where he gives an idea of scientific morality. underneath the video is a very long article written by harris that addresses a lot of the concerns people have had about the idea.
but if that's too much information, we can stick to "right." you believe in "right" but you don't understand how someone could differentiate between "right" and "wrong" without using "because -blank- says so?" really?
....really?
_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
08 Oct 2010, 10:29 pm
DentArthurDent wrote:
That would make sense if there were a few hundred thousand or even a couple of million planets in the universe, as we could quite feasibly check them all out. But this is not the case. As you are no doubt aware it is estimated that there are between 1 - 30 billion planets in our galaxy and approximately 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Your statement above is just a massive strawman aimed at the gullible. As Dawkins points out even given massively absurd odds of (for instance) a billion to one that life will arise on a planet you still get the probability of at least 1 billion planets having some form of life, and as he also says the chance of finding one of those life bearing planets in a universe the scale of ours if like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack.
Unless, of course, we ARE the needle in the haystack.
And there is no straw man. Where is the evidence of a comparable system? The issue here is there is no empirical evidence of it as of yet. Last I checked, scientific reasoning tends to ignore that for which there is no evidence. Empirically speaking, it is not correct to say that life exists beyond our solar system. Moreover, it is not correct to say that even the CAPACITY for life exists. I think we're looking at the possibility of water beneath the the surface of a Jovian moon, which seems promising, but that's about it at the moment.
That leaves the possibility that other planets beyond our galaxy of a comparable age as or older than the Terran system. Now, in that kind of spread of time, it makes sense that there ought to be at least the same or better probability that life would arise. Perhaps such an advanced civilization could arise to make use of space travel and much more advanced technologies. If you're a conspiracy theorist or you watch the History Channel too much, you might say we have the evidence, it's just been covered up by various world governments. That hardly seems likely, though, since such evidence would be difficult to pass over or ignore. Not only that, but unfortunately more of the scientific community still regard UFOs and extra-terrestrials as pseudo-science. Enough time has passed, therefore we should have had more evidence by now.
But we don't. And your argument regarding "feasibility" just doesn't cut it. If life is so likely to develop in x-billion years, there ought to be an increased likelihood that we could readily find systems capable of fostering life. Only time will tell, but I suspect we already know the answer to that question.
Side note: I was using Magrathea more as a simile rather than a loose interpretation of Genesis. The idea here being, assuming God to be the Creator, that He has the power to create distinctly separate and different creations with the full intent of bringing them together at the proper time. I have no more evidence of that than you have of other regions of space being hospitable to the arrival of life, but given the wording of the order of Creation--light before sun--it does seem to make plausible sense that Earth was not created in conjunction with the rest of the universe, but rather that the universe was prepared for the arrival of Earth, the release of a specially-created planet made specifically for God's purpose and divided from the spiritual realm as soon as the universe was able to support it.
09 Oct 2010, 12:09 am
Tensu wrote:
don't think you understand what I was trying to accomplish. If you would humor me for a while, you would see where I'm going with this, namely, I'm pointing out that the belief in right and wrong is a religious belief, not a scientific one. You have already accepted morality even though you have no proof of morality, thus to reject God because you have no proof of God is fallacious.
Morality is based on opinions and the way you were brought up in your society. Sure, religion can be an influence. But it's not required.
Morality is observed with almost every person, God is not.
But assuming morality is religion-based, why has it evolved over time? For the Christian religion, why are not still restricting women? Why don't we have slavery? Would it not stay the same as when it was first set? And what about before it was set? Did Moses beat people up and rape women before he carried two tombstones of commandments down the hill? Why not?
09 Oct 2010, 3:56 am
AngelRho wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
That would make sense if there were a few hundred thousand or even a couple of million planets in the universe, as we could quite feasibly check them all out. But this is not the case. As you are no doubt aware it is estimated that there are between 1 - 30 billion planets in our galaxy and approximately 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Your statement above is just a massive strawman aimed at the gullible. As Dawkins points out even given massively absurd odds of (for instance) a billion to one that life will arise on a planet you still get the probability of at least 1 billion planets having some form of life, and as he also says the chance of finding one of those life bearing planets in a universe the scale of ours if like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack.
Unless, of course, we ARE the needle in the haystack.
And there is no straw man. Where is the evidence of a comparable system? The issue here is there is no empirical evidence of it as of yet. Last I checked, scientific reasoning tends to ignore that for which there is no evidence. Empirically speaking, it is not correct to say that life exists beyond our solar system. Moreover, it is not correct to say that even the CAPACITY for life exists. I think we're looking at the possibility of water beneath the the surface of a Jovian moon, which seems promising, but that's about it at the moment.
That leaves the possibility that other planets beyond our galaxy of a comparable age as or older than the Terran system. Now, in that kind of spread of time, it makes sense that there ought to be at least the same or better probability that life would arise. Perhaps such an advanced civilization could arise to make use of space travel and much more advanced technologies. If you're a conspiracy theorist or you watch the History Channel too much, you might say we have the evidence, it's just been covered up by various world governments. That hardly seems likely, though, since such evidence would be difficult to pass over or ignore. Not only that, but unfortunately more of the scientific community still regard UFOs and extra-terrestrials as pseudo-science. Enough time has passed, therefore we should have had more evidence by now.
But we don't. And your argument regarding "feasibility" just doesn't cut it. If life is so likely to develop in x-billion years, there ought to be an increased likelihood that we could readily find systems capable of fostering life. Only time will tell, but I suspect we already know the answer to that question.
Side note: I was using Magrathea more as a simile rather than a loose interpretation of Genesis. The idea here being, assuming God to be the Creator, that He has the power to create distinctly separate and different creations with the full intent of bringing them together at the proper time. I have no more evidence of that than you have of other regions of space being hospitable to the arrival of life, but given the wording of the order of Creation--light before sun--it does seem to make plausible sense that Earth was not created in conjunction with the rest of the universe, but rather that the universe was prepared for the arrival of Earth, the release of a specially-created planet made specifically for God's purpose and divided from the spiritual realm as soon as the universe was able to support it.
If nothing else I can only admire your voracious appetite for totally improbable fantasy.
09 Oct 2010, 4:08 am
waltur wrote:
danandlouie: my wife is a catholic and mocks the creation museum. that said, less than half of americans accept the theory of evolution.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
America must be a strange place.
_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.
"How can it not know what it is?"
