The fact is you are refusing to look at the bigger issue raised in this piece
So while you admit that while you don't know what atheists believe, Christianity takes less faith. And by the way, since when is disbelief belief?
Genesis? Is that the planetary flood book? The one we found no evidence? Oh wait - yes it is!
>>"I voted FOR one man, one woman marriage. Period."<<
I ask again what study out there has found and stated that God isn't necessary. We do know how many things work. But we have no evidence if God is needed or not. I think you are asking science for more than it has or for more than it can do.
I think the issue can't really be handled effectively until it becomes about women, children, and men who are being taken advantage of in Hollywood.
Murder. "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".
Looks like I did. Mea culpa
I did, complain some more?
Wow, that is a very specific compliant.
That's actually a kind of hostile response to a rational comment I made.
What year is that from? Oh, a long time ago? In a different country, even. Why do you insist on living in the past, in a foreign country?
nope it was god that flooded the world including every newborn baby, human or animal
Anything less than full citizenship would be a violation of basic human rights. If they can't vote they will be taken advantage of.
I stand corrected and agree with you.
But not the creation of earth at the beginning. the whole account is out of order and wrong.
The answer is absolutely NO. No one is "reluctant" or "eager" to accept changes to scientific theory. All that matters is--Is there new information that either clarifies or discredits the existing understanding? Where is the evidence that supports this? How does this new information relate to other aspects of the Theory?
Empiricists hold that