Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

WOAH WOAH WOAH!

Hold on!

...Did this potential trainwreck of a thread -actually- manage to remain more or less civilized, enough so that it's survived for 6 pages with no lock?

Am... Am I supposed to have faith in Humanity once more?



Edit: I guess I made that 7 pages.

Clearly Dakka (and perhaps humanity as a whole) has evolved to the point where this is possible

I can't really think of the pope as anything but 'mainstream' either. Everyone knows who the pope is, Catholic or otherwise. He has discussions with world leaders, as a mediator and advisor in world affairs (well not so much this one, but the last one did). The election after John Paul II passed was all over the news so much you had to know about it even if you are a devout follower of Thor.

The pope's stance on modern issues is a political force because, unfortunately, in countries with a substantial Catholic population what the pope says has very real political weight. No politician in the U.S. would even think of directly contradicting the wishes of the Pope for fear of losing a substantial number of Catholic voters who take what he says very seriously. This is not right. This is medieval, but it is very real.

The Catholic Church still wields political power outside the boundaries of country borders just like it did back in the middle ages. That is, even with the most benevolent of intentions, counterproductive to the advancement of the overall goal of free thinking self governing societies. So yeah that's pretty mainstream. But hey so is the Dalai Lama. Even if a religion is not the most prolific one, if it's leaders are newsworthy as often as the royals or the hollywood people, that sounds mainstream to me.

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't have anything like the power they did in the Middle Ages.

There isn't a single country in the western world that does not permit contraception. Legal abortion is also pretty widely available, even in predominantly Roman Catholic countries such as Mexico. Both these are against Roman Catholic doctrine.

The recent child sex scandals have dealt the Church a serious blow to prestige and moral authority among members.

The fact of the matter is that GG knows he has a belief system held by a very small percentage of Christians, but like always he is putting his fingers in his ears, just like when people tell him that evolution is as much of a fact as anything in Science.

Its not my opinion, its a fact. Most Christians arent Creationists. Even in America, the most aggressively Creationist nation of any first world country, has only about 30% of people who are young earthers, and in Europe they number far far less as well.

Most Christians are not Creationists. Accept it.

Mr Mystery wrote:Is it worth pointing out that, according to a recent article on the BBC Website (a source I do trust) that there is growing support for the origin of life on earth being in fact extraterrestrial in nature? Something to do with the direction of helixes or some such.

Well it is possible, or at least that the essential building blocks for life arrived from elsewhere. But that only means it evolved somewhere and arrived here and evolved further.

What it could mean is that there is greater potential for more life on other worlds, even if they share a common galactic point of origin.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Is it worth pointing out that, according to a recent article on the BBC Website (a source I do trust) that there is growing support for the origin of life on earth being in fact extraterrestrial in nature? Something to do with the direction of helixes or some such.

Well it is possible, or at least that the essential building blocks for life arrived from elsewhere. But that only means it evolved somewhere and arrived here and evolved further.

What it could mean is that there is greater potential for more life on other worlds, even if they share a common galactic point of origin.

I'd love to see life on other worlds.

It always amuses me that some people opine 'yeah, there may be life out there, but probably not intelligent.'

Who are we to say that we're not 'late-bloomers' and that, in fact, there's plenty of life out there that's far more advanced than us.

Aah... the future is exciting. Anyway, I digress...

GazzyG wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Is it worth pointing out that, according to a recent article on the BBC Website (a source I do trust) that there is growing support for the origin of life on earth being in fact extraterrestrial in nature? Something to do with the direction of helixes or some such.

Well it is possible, or at least that the essential building blocks for life arrived from elsewhere. But that only means it evolved somewhere and arrived here and evolved further.

What it could mean is that there is greater potential for more life on other worlds, even if they share a common galactic point of origin.

I'd love to see life on other worlds.

It always amuses me that some people opine 'yeah, there may be life out there, but probably not intelligent.'

Who are we to say that we're not 'late-bloomers' and that, in fact, there's plenty of life out there that's far more advanced than us.

Aah... the future is exciting. Anyway, I digress...

I think the real problem is not the underlying probability of life occurring elsewhere but of the massive convenience of them existing at the same moment in time as us (after all humanity is a blink in the age of the universe) and the impracticality of being able to contact with them.

mattyrm wrote:The fact of the matter is that GG knows he has a belief system held by a very small percentage of Christians, but like always he is putting his fingers in his ears, just like when people tell him that evolution is as much of a fact as anything in Science.

Its not my opinion, its a fact. Most Christians arent Creationists. Even in America, the most aggressively Creationist nation of any first world country, has only about 30% of people who are young earthers, and in Europe they number far far less as well.

Most Christians are not Creationists. Accept it.

Actually, by the definition of Creation, then all Christians are Creationists. However, you are correct that they are not all young earthers.

Creationism =/=Young Earth Creationism.

And yes, I know at this point I'm simply arguing semantics.

Also, outside of the US, and UK I think too, most Christians are not young earth creationist.


As for the ID argument. We like to think that extraterrestrial beings are always far more advance than us. They could be. They could be less advanced. For all we know, they may be extinct now.

generalgrog wrote:
The fact is, most baptists, pentacostals, 7th day adventists are young earth creationists. That is a huge portion of the Church body. Just because you aren't COE or Roman Catholic doesn't make you "extreme".

No, what makes Young Earth Creationism extreme is its tendency to ignore all physical evidence.

There are few Young Earth Creationists in the UK, certainly fewer than the USA, per capita.

Kilkrazy wrote:There are few Young Earth Creationists in the UK, certainly fewer than the USA, per capita.

My old church was.

GazzyG wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There are few Young Earth Creationists in the UK, certainly fewer than the USA, per capita.

My old church was.

It can't have been that old a church then

GazzyG wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There are few Young Earth Creationists in the UK, certainly fewer than the USA, per capita.

My old church was.

My old church wasn't.

These are pieces of anecdotal evidence which are of no value in answering the question of what proportion of the population of a country believes in Young Earth Creationism.

Y'ever get the feeling that maybe the Christian factions that are arguing about this sort of thing have kind of lost sight of the real point?

Kilkrazy wrote:

GazzyG wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There are few Young Earth Creationists in the UK, certainly fewer than the USA, per capita.

My old church was.

My old church wasn't.

These are pieces of anecdotal evidence which are of no value in answering the question of what proportion of the population of a country believes in Young Earth Creationism.

Indeed they are of no value in answering that question.

However, I was sharing the fact that my old church was.

Very sorry if it riled you. I do beg your pardon.

Yeah sorry Mike I did of course mean young earth Creationists.

There are numerous sources for this information, I just really cant be bothered looking for them at the moment because I am in the middle of a film with the missus.

Off the top of my head, about 80% of Europeans are aware that evolution is a fact, I think the Americans were about the same as Turkey, at about 38% last time I checked, but baring in mind most Turks who believe this are Muslims and I said "Young earth Christians"

Plus the survey i read merely asked the question "do you believe that humans evolved from other animals" not the actual Religion of the person being questioned. Im sure many were Jews/Muslims/not so well educated people in general.

Im willing to bet its about 8-10% of European Christians and about 25-30% of American Christians. As i said, its obviously a minority. The church of England certainly doesnt believe it, neither does the Catholic church.

Thankfully.

GazzyG wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

GazzyG wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There are few Young Earth Creationists in the UK, certainly fewer than the USA, per capita.

My old church was.

My old church wasn't.

These are pieces of anecdotal evidence which are of no value in answering the question of what proportion of the population of a country believes in Young Earth Creationism.

Indeed they are of no value in answering that question.

However, I was sharing the fact that my old church was.

Very sorry if it riled you. I do beg your pardon.

Least said, soonest mended.

Let's get back to the topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Yeah sorry Mike I did of course mean young earth Creationists.

There are numerous sources for this information, I just really cant be bothered looking for them at the moment because I am in the middle of a film with the missus.

Off the top of my head, about 80% of Europeans are aware that evolution is a fact, I think the Americans were about the same as Turkey, at about 38% last time I checked, but baring in mind most Turks who believe this are Muslims and I said "Young earth Christians"

Plus the survey i read merely asked the question "do you believe that humans evolved from other animals" not the actual Religion of the person being questioned. Im sure many were Jews/Muslims/not so well educated people in general.

Im willing to bet its about 8-10% of European Christians and about 25-30% of American Christians. As i said, its obviously a minority. The church of England certainly doesnt believe it, neither does the Catholic church.

Thankfully.

This is the chart you are looking for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg

I haven't read this thread, as yet. My comment is therefore on the OP only.

Some creationists like to believe that dinosaurs are demons; I take this as being something along the lines of: The demons were smote by God or an army of angels, during Lucifers rebellion and were buried where they fell. It also has a semblance of internal consistency as the fall of Lucifer predated the story of Adam and it would account for the big teeth and scary skulls we find.

Now I am not buying that, neither is just about every Christian (or Jew) I have ever met. But at least it has a consistency to it. I can even see scriptures to support the possibility such as the demons being released from their prison beneath the earth in Revelations.

However veggie T-Rex in 4004 BC? Sorry that's too much for my limited faith.

Monster Rain wrote:Y'ever get the feeling that maybe the Christian factions that are arguing about this sort of thing have kind of lost sight of the real point?

Yes! and it happened along time ago, imho.

metallifan wrote:There's no reason that faith couldn't be based around science. But to ignore science in blind obedience to faith is self-destructive and close-minded.

Definitely. To take every scientific finding about the world and run it through a narrow filter of young earth creationism before accepting it, or else inventing some nonsensical rejection is bound to really limit one's understanding of the world.

But you know, that's their choice, they have the right to be wrong, they even have the right to be ridiculous. It's their faith. But the greater problem comes from the disingenuous attacks on science, constantly spammed they are each disprovable or able to placed in a context that makes the original charge false, but they can be invented and repeated faster than we can respond to each. The problem isn't that most folk who hear this spamming will become young earth creationists, the problem is that many listeners come away with an idea that science is just a set of assumptions, or just another suggestion of how things operate.

That's a really dangerous idea, that science and reason is placed on the same level as anyone's opinion. It's a position that can turn capable people into idiots. It's a problem that the nonsense machine of young earth creationism isn't wholly responsible for, but they certainly play their part.

It's a serious problem, and I don't know what the solution is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike Noble wrote:Yeah, but why do you need to say that there are irreducibly complex biological systems just to have evidence for Intelligent design? Couldn't the explanation be what I said? That they find it improbable that life just randomly happened? That the universe just spontaneously created itself out of nothing? Sounds kind of crazy to me. I'm not denying the Theories of Evolution and the Big Bang, I'm just saying, having some kind of creator makes things more plausible IMO.

But science doesn't just say 'life just randomly happened'. There is an immense amount of study into the formation of early life, with a range of likely early stages, that has been examined and re-examined.

This is the thing people really have to get - science is not just an opinion. It's ideas are constantly checked and rechecked against our findings in the natural world. The scientific theories that not only align themselves with what we've discovered, but go on the predict future findings are the ones we embrace.

We aren't expected to keep up to date with every scientific development, but I really think we ought to be expected to appreciate that scientific theory has a lot of study behind it, to the point where we really aren't entitled to say 'oh that one word description of a thing doesn't seem very plausible'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:Intelligent Design doesn't have to have anything to do with the bible, does it? Just saying "something created life etc" doesn't say it had to be any particular "something" like a garden of eden or an ark. Sounds kind of agnostic to me actually. So I think that's a big difference saying "it was not just chance and evolution it had a creator and a purpose behind it" is not the same as getting into stories and specifics of the creator and his goals and process as if it was history.

No, taken in isolation there's nothing inherently religious about it. But once you consider the origin of the idea it becomes clear exactly what it is. It was formed by Christian groups who lost the battle to have creationism taught in school alongside evolution, so they rebranded their efforts as intelligent design to have a second crack.

When this nonsense was taken to court their was evidence shown of copy and paste being used in intelligent design documents, where they just went through their old creation documents and replaced 'creation' with 'intelligent design'. Seriously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Completely disagree with this. Creationism is not an "extreme Christian movement". Just because the pope is an old earther doesn't make it mainstream. There are a lot of things the pope believes, that I don't agree with. That doesn't make me "extreme".

The fact is, most baptists, pentacostals, 7th day adventists are young earth creationists. That is a huge portion of the Church body. Just because you aren't COE or Roman Catholic doesn't make you "extreme".

GG

Extremism has nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with the nature of the belief. Believing in something despite the wealth of directly contradicting scientific evidence is a form of extreme belief.

On Halos:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
(Article)

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=51
(Just more info)

Sebster has summed up the matter perfectly. It may not be obvious thanks to my belligerent manner, but I have no problem at all with your average believer, I even have a genuine affection for the c of e as I was raised in said religion, and I respect it for that reason. I was free to question, free to ask, and free to leave it when I grew up and understood it all!

If all believers practiced the more sensible and nuanced version like most British Christians I wouldn't complain about it. What I care about is extremists that refuse to listen to reason. I firmly believe that Creationists and devout Muslims are especially dangerous, the former because they actively discourage learning and science, the latter should be increasingly obvious in this day and age, and also, death for apostasy?!

Seriously. That's fethed up.

sebster wrote:
But the greater problem comes from the disingenuous attacks on science, constantly spammed they are each disprovable or able to placed in a context that makes the original charge false, but they can be invented and repeated faster than we can respond to each. The problem isn't that most folk who hear this spamming will become young earth creationists, the problem is that many listeners come away with an idea that science is just a set of assumptions, or just another suggestion of how things operate.

That's a really dangerous idea, that science and reason is placed on the same level as anyone's opinion. It's a position that can turn capable people into idiots. It's a problem that the nonsense machine of young earth creationism isn't wholly responsible for, but they certainly play their part.

It's a serious problem, and I don't know what the solution is.

You can take that and replace it with any dogma. I hear it enough from atheists actually, I also hear it here.
Do not assume that this methodology is a tool of young earth creationists, its a propaganda technique which is inherently neutral and it is used by many.

sebster wrote:
This is the thing people really have to get - science is not just an opinion. It's ideas are constantly checked and rechecked against our findings in the natural world. The scientific theories that not only align themselves with what we've discovered, but go on the predict future findings are the ones we embrace.

Mostly true, however you fall into the pitfall of thinking there is orthodoxy in science, wheras that only applies to scientiifc law.
In science opinions abound because the esswential failings that you correctly see in religious nutjobs is often not seen in the scientific community.

Case in point watch any decent science program, by that I mean BBC or equivalent not Discovery channel, you will see time and again new theories proposed by someone that receive reactionary view because they tread on the pet theories of other thinkers. I have seen this time and again in medicine, physics, archeology, grogpahy and clijmatology anthorpology any 'ology you can care to mention really.

sebster wrote:
We aren't expected to keep up to date with every scientific development, but I really think we ought to be expected to appreciate that scientific theory has a lot of study behind it, to the point where we really aren't entitled to say 'oh that one word description of a thing doesn't seem very plausible'.

Guitardian wrote:Intelligent Design doesn't have to have anything to do with the bible, does it? Just saying "something created life etc" doesn't say it had to be any particular "something" like a garden of eden or an ark. Sounds kind of agnostic to me actually. So I think that's a big difference saying "it was not just chance and evolution it had a creator and a purpose behind it" is not the same as getting into stories and specifics of the creator and his goals and process as if it was history.

No, taken in isolation there's nothing inherently religious about it. But once you consider the origin of the idea it becomes clear exactly what it is. It was formed by Christian groups who lost the battle to have creationism taught in school alongside evolution, so they rebranded their efforts as intelligent design to have a second crack.

A rather twisted viewpoint there. Intelligent design doesn't really exist, its just a catchword to a non-literalist view of creationism and is as old as evolutionary theory. It is definately Biblical, but it works on the time proven principle within scripture that scripture itself should not be taken as absolutely literally. After all Jesus did not become the 'conquering Lion of Judah' which from a literalist point of view would mean a war leader. Remaining Biblical literalists understand that, because the literalists were proven wrong by Jesuis himself when he refused to kick the Romans out of Palestine. However they dont accept other non-literalist interpretations, which is contradictory as the precedent to do so is as old as Christianity.

Christians and Jews have known for a very long time that there is a lot 'wrong' with the Book of Genesis, discussions on such topics as how Caine got his wife when he Adam and Eve were the only people on the planet have been discussed for millenia. Some stories are metaphorical and are transparently so. The Bible says in plain text 'that to God a thousand years is like a day and a day a thousand years'. So at a minimum the six days of creation might mean six thousand years, not enough by far but a 'thousand' in Hebrew also means a 'lot', not necessarily ten hundreds. As for evening and morning, to an ever present God would that not be simultaneous?

There is a myth that there was a 'victory' of science over religion on creationism. None on fact exists the victory was over Biblical literalism, which of itself is not defendable in scripture. Creationism is still out there, itself sometimes called intelligent design for political reasons and because as seen here a lot of agitators like to put words into the mouths of the Christian community. If someone says they are a creationist it is assumed, often accompanied with much derision, that that means a 'young earther'.

sebster wrote:
When this nonsense was taken to court their was evidence shown of copy and paste being used in intelligent design documents, where they just went through their old creation documents and replaced 'creation' with 'intelligent design'. Seriously.

Why would some feel the need to do this? As you said its just a name change, perhaps it is to prevent discrimination.

generalgrog wrote:
The fact is, most baptists, pentacostals, 7th day adventists are young earth creationists. That is a huge portion of the Church body. Just because you aren't COE or Roman Catholic doesn't make you "extreme".
GG

Sorry grog, very few Christians are young earthers. Seventh Day adventism is the only denomination that keeps this as a doctrine, and even they ignore it fopr the most paert. People go to a seventh day adventist church because their parents went to it et al, there aren't many left, its just a community church thats all.

sebster wrote:
Extremism has nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with the nature of the belief. Believing in something despite the wealth of directly contradicting scientific evidence is a form of extreme belief.

This is correct but here you are being unfair, evidence to point out extremism need not be scientific, nor must extremism be unscientific to begin with. Atheism as practiced by the Soviet Union was 'scientific' in its approach.
Too many people have fallen for the dogma that 'religion' is dogmatic and 'science' is not, not only is it highly ironic, its also quite dangerous.

There are a lot of radicals with a hate on for religious people thinly covered with a stolen labcoat and packaged as reason, and their excuse is normally based on this. Yers closed eyed relgious fundemantalists certainly exist, and they are not only an enbarassment but also a threat, however extremism and dogma are human failings found in any group, discpline or community.

Orlanth wrote:You can take that and replace it with any dogma. I hear it enough from atheists actually, I also hear it here.
Do not assume that this methodology is a tool of young earth creationists, its a propaganda technique which is inherently neutral and it is used by many.

Absolutely, there's also plenty of atheists and all kinds of other folk following their own kinds of dogma. But they don't have websites claiming half truth nonsense about science like many young earthers do.

Mostly true, however you fall into the pitfall of thinking there is orthodoxy in science, wheras that only applies to scientiifc law.
In science opinions abound because the esswential failings that you correctly see in religious nutjobs is often not seen in the scientific community.

Absolutely. The mistake people make is in seeing that level of debate, typically at a high level, and thinking that we have the knowledge to pick a side in the debate because we saw a Discovery channel special one time, or because some guy on some website made an argument that sounded reasonable.

People need to respect the professional knowledge of others. And this means when the overwhelming majority of a profession agree on some basic idea like evolution, we need to acknowledge that.

A rather twisted viewpoint there. Intelligent design doesn't really exist, its just a catchword to a non-literalist view of creationism and is as old as evolutionary theory.

As a concept it's as old as anything, but as part of the political debate going on right now in the US the term sees it's origins in the late 80s and early 90s.

There is a myth that there was a 'victory' of science over religion on creationism. None on fact exists the victory was over Biblical literalism, which of itself is not defendable in scripture. Creationism is still out there, itself sometimes called intelligent design for political reasons and because as seen here a lot of agitators like to put words into the mouths of the Christian community. If someone says they are a creationist it is assumed, often accompanied with much derision, that that means a 'young earther'.

Oh, absolutely. Though the victory has never carried through into the court of pulic opinion, where the literalists still hold incredible sway and evolution is still rejected or doubted by a majority of Americans. Elsewhere in the developed world the situation isn't as bad, but is still serious.

Why would some feel the need to do this? As you said its just a name change, perhaps it is to prevent discrimination.

No, it was a name change to step around the defeat of the creationists in Edwards v Aguillard in 1988. A Louisiana law had been passed that would have seen creation science taught alongside evolution in science class. It was found unconstitutional because the law specifically favoured one religion over any others.

In the wake of this case the creation scientists rebranded themselves as proponents of intelligent design. The court in Kitzmiller v Dover Area School in 2005 found conclusive evidence of this.

This is correct but here you are being unfair, evidence to point out extremism need not be scientific, nor must extremism be unscientific to begin with. Atheism as practiced by the Soviet Union was 'scientific' in its approach.

Sure, the Soviets were also extremists, and believed in science. My point in rejecting science made one an extremist didn't mean extremism was limited to the rejection of science, abandoning individual rights for the sake of the overall benefit of the socialist state would be another form of extremism.

Facebooked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:No he isn't. He's just an individual who knows how to sound smart in order to impress credulous people that are lacking in intellectual curiosity. It's pseudoscience.

What? Not even quasi-science?

Medium of Death wrote:Wanting to know the scale of the Ark they built as well as it's size.

Dinosaurs and people, living together in harmony? What nonsense.

As for proof:

It's sedimentary, my dear Watson.

In recorded history, there are nurmerous 'great floods' which could be attributed to this. Also, remembering that the Bible is not an accurate history of the entire world, simply the corner where Christianity existed... so not all animals were required aboard the Ark... just those in the immediate vicinity...

Oh, and its basically hearsay...

metallifan wrote:

generalgrog wrote:There is plenty of evidence for Creation IF you believe the assumptions behind the evidence.

Exactly what evidence does Creationism have going for it? A strong belief that faith trumps reason isn't exactly evidence.

Point.

dogma wrote: All religions, and most philosophies, are attempts at control. They involve prohibition, guidance, and many similar things; all of which are controlling. Indeed, claims to "good" are all about influencing the behavior of others in order to make them more appealing to a certain sentiment; regardless of whether that is divinely correct or not.

Gonna sig this.

I still cannot believe there was not much play on this quote from the article...


"The guide says that in Genesis 1:30 God gives “green herb” to every creature to eat and so there are no predators."

How did Noah control 'munchies'?

Kilkrazy wrote:Why didn't the dinosaurs make it to the Ark?

Noah was instructed to take a couple of every type of animal.

The dinosaurs became gay, and god punished them with aids.

All religions are recycled mythologies that follow some basic same stories and have common themes and archetypes. The great floods trace back to the Epic of Gilgamesh, and have been mentioned in countless religious texts. Horus (from ancient Egypt) is an exact parallel to Jesus Christ. Other common themes have been repeated, like the half man half god concept. Look at Hercules. Born from a god and a woman, and was on Earth to help benefit mankind. Some believe that a sun god and the son of a god also share a common theme but based on interpretation. Many languages have lived and died over our existence and "son" and "sun" have been thought to be changed in translations and concept.

Noah, lived to be 900 years old. Was told to grab two of every animal that made it to the Ark, and that the animals would kneel before (Zod, sorry couldn't resist) before him to show their penance towards God. So, these animals gave up instincts for conscious thought, and the animals that did not abide consciously made a decision to self destruct. Some creationists would have you believe that we are de-evolving. That we used to live longer, and be smarter. That things grew larger because they lived longer, and that since we are being punished we are becoming dumber and living a shorter life span. This is due to the fact that Noah lived to be 900 years old.

Just look at this gem




The saddest part, is that these charlatans actually make money off of this crap. I wonder how they can sleep at night?

AvatarForm wrote:
"The guide says that in Genesis 1:30 God gives “green herb” to every creature to eat and sohere are no predators."

How did Noah control 'munchies'?

Where do you think the dinosaurs went? I'm enjoying some green herb right now. Techno is amazing.

Whats the issue? Coconuts are proof of the existence of God. Everything else is just details. mmm coconut and chocolate...