Arrogant, boring balderdash.

Interesting article but he might be over-egging the pudding, like, everyone knows that the rationalist, scientific experiments in gaul, the ussr, china and nazi germany didn't go so well, and put humanity back hundreds of years. I mean, by now we should really have people on Mars but scientists are still trying to figure out men from women or something...it gets really confusing.

"Science denial by climate sceptics"? No need to go further. You don't get science or religion (such as AGW).

Good’ol Brian.

In his unoriginal view of life, Brian beams with success stories. From this very privileged lofty tower, Brian has made his life mission, one of tipping buckets of S* from the great height, on silly little religious people far below.

Brian, from the club of hollow men, which includes in its ranks, Malcolm Turnbull, is, like Malcom, a very needed man in our society.

But how buoying to the limbic senses to know, thanks to Brian, that all this human limbic bad brain thinking started, wait for it…..da, da da, in South Africa!
Well, one redeeming feature of South Africa though, is its awareness of corruption, and its amusement that the bad business practices rejected by them, are flying out to the great farmland of corruption, Auzkong.

Maybe Brian should drink a little less alcohol and a lot more water. And before writing another like this, as he sits contemplating the meaning of life, (which all underlings early realise, has no meaning); from his office in the first cave on the left, down shrunken brain street, consider he may be wrong!

Like the other posters I got as far as the part comparing the anti-vaxers with climate sceptics, which I found insulting, and skimmed the rest. The anti-vaxers are, in fact, akin to those who believe in global warming/climate change, as its about doom and gloom and conspiracies. As for the marriage equality stuff, there are genuine religious objections to the change. You may not agree with them, but those objections are genuine, and those who hold them have every right to make their objections known. The article is of little value and should be ignored.

>>The inconvenient truth is that all humans are prone to self-deception. But some more than others! <<

How true! This very article, and what it is trying to say in simplified terms about reason and the complex concept of religion, is a best example of that.

>> Religion is a by-product of our survival mechanisms <<

So is e.g. mathematics and science.

If religion can masquarade as pseudoscince (as it certainly can) so can science masquarade for some as a kind of psudo-religion. Again, this article is a good illustration of that.

curmudgeonathome,
While I agree there are genuine objections to SSM, I can't agree that the article is of little value and should be ignored, because your other comments show you're making precisely the kind of logical error that Brian Morris is writing about!

Your likening of the anti-vaxers are to those who believe in global warming/climate change is an irrational emotional reaction to what you see as "doom and gloom and conspiracies". But crucially, you are ignoring the evidence. Science shows us the temperature of the planet is increasing. It explains why the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet. But because of your emotional reaction to what the consequences could be if we don't do something about it, you prefer to reject the evidence and base your opinions on your irrational wishful thinking instead.

y Brian says:” those who reject clear evidence of climate change”
Presumably he means by "climate change" the human effect on climate. There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so his support for the climate fraud is based on ignorance, if he is unaware of the absence of science, or dishonesty, if he is aware of the science deficiency, but dishonestly supports the fraud.
If you have any science, Brian, please refer us to it.
You have made an effort to understand the human condition. It is understandable that you are off to such a bad start, because we know so little about it.

Reading this article was like standing in fecal storm and finding that one was left unsoiled. The advocates of scientism are adept at using the most obvious and shallow criticism that may apply to many religious but fail to reach a serious point.

I have had an interest in evolutionary psychology and given seminars on the Swiss army knife view of the brain. I have read Pascal Boyer's book 'Religion explained". This was all interesting but none of it undermined my understanding of Christian theology. It seems that our detractors have to work much harder than this to make a dent.

And then there is the old chestnut: religion is a cultural construct. Well, of course, what else could it be? It is not part of nature although it obviously situated in the natural world as everything is. You might as well say, gravely, that the Renaissance was a cultural construct. But this obviously misses the point.

It is possible to work in science (neuroscience) and theology without producing mind paralysing contradictions. This article is overblown in an entirely partisan fashion.

Today's truth is based on selecting the parts you like and ignoring the rest.
Facts are based on 'preferred view', and the desire of truth by the masses is anchored by the option of inaction being available at all times.
In short, if I don't like it, it's not true

Meanwhile the best pseudo scientist can came up with for origins is the big bang fantasy. You would think with such irrational nonsense you would just shut up. oh well anything to deny the obvious (design requires Designer, creation demands a Creator). I really don't think Brian even knows what the word rational means. for those deluded by the man made warming religion it means denying the facts and demonising those who disagree. Btw anyone found the missing link yet? I thought not. Just waiting for fraudulent claim 6050.

Brian – when your very first sentence is seriously mistaken, it is hard to take the rest of your article seriously.

You say that there is an “evolutionary flaw”.

No, if materialistic evolution is true, as you evidently believe, there can be no “flaw” in it. To say that something has a flaw in it is to infer that this thing is not the way it was meant to be: something is wrong with it.

But if the universe has unintentionally happened to have come into being then there is no particular way that it is meant to be. It is irrational to claim that there is something wrong with it or any part of it (humans as in your article); it just is what it happens to be and we are just what we happen to be.

Of course you may prefer things to be one way rather than another, but unless you think you are God, there really seems to be no reason why anyone should care what your preferences are.

It is also worth noting that in your whole article you never say that you think that humans have real free will. Unless we can actually choose between alternative ways of being and thinking, then there really is no point in going on like you do.

But of course, accounting for free will in a materialistic universe that has just happened into being is a huge problem for you so I see why you have avoided the subject. It does destroy your article though.

runner,
You don't seem to know the difference between a hypothesis, a theory and a fantasy:
A hypothesis is an explanation someone comes up with for what might be occurring.
A theory is something that fits the facts and is the best explanation we have for why something is so.
A fantasy does not fit the facts.

The big bang theory says nothing about whether there's a Creator. That's not what it was intended to explain. But if you think there was no big bang, why do you think the cosmic background radiation is polarised? Indeed why do yo think the universe is expanding? Or do you think the redshift is the result of something other than expansion?

How much longer will you allow yourself to be played by the neocons who invented the notion of "man made warming religion"? Are you unaware that the neocons are atheists serving their own greed at the expense of humanity? And what facts are you imagining that those like me, who believe in global warming because it fits the facts, are ignoring?

___________________________________________________________________________________

JP,
A flaw is a weakness, imperfection or shortcoming. This does not necessarily equate to a difference from how something was meant to be.

Brian, you complain that people ignore science and base their beliefs on emotions, but then you support SSM?
What is homosexuality but a denial of biology and a belief in emotional reactions?
Science clearly demonstrates that the human body was not designed for sodomy, in fact its downright unhealthy unless multiple precautions are taken, yet we are told that people can't help their urges, they are innate. That is emotional, not scientific. And in terms of evolution, heterosexual sex evolved to ensure the survival of the species. That is science, not emotion.
Science also clearly defines two sexes/genders and occasionally makes a mistake and produces a biologically abnormal third sex. Yet we are asked to accept that despite all biological evidence to the contrary, people must be treated as the gender they emotionally choose.
You haven't really thought this through, have you?

Brian, you've made a case for our irrationality and limited vision! And given some of what we know to be real can't yet be proven! Particularly when some science reliant zealots refuse to accept eyewitness evidence and simply treat it as common hallucinations?

True science rules nothing out that simply can't be objectively disproved!

All you've managed to prove, is an extremely narrow unhealthy obsession with what you can see and therefore prove?

Even so like most of your ilk? Able to embrace a particular unproven evolutionary theory as being the most plausible?

Simply put, a whirlwind whipping through a junkyard has better odds of creating a fully functional and flyable 747, than evolutionary theory, with more holes than Swiss cheese. Creating something far more complex!

Like a walking, thinking, talking, gum chewing, communicating inventive, empathetic and loving human being!

Even when essential pieces of a very large jigsaw are patently missing!

Or confound the very fundamentals of science? Which states as immutable law, that energy can neither be created or destroyed, merely transformed!

Meaning everything that is the known universe or unified field of energy, had to exist in some form before the big bang theory?

Which to be scientifically plausible? Would be a gravity affected phenomena and therefore slowing! Rather than as shown as an unexplained inconvenient truth, accelerating!

Meaning there is a force at work here, stronger than gravity! And maybe implicit in some of those seemingly automatic remissions and miraculous cures?

Or a young man comatose for some significant period awakening able to carry a conversation in fluent Mandarin? Even though never ever exposed to the language or speakers?

I could expand, but word limits prevail!
Alan B.

Meanwhile the contents of this reference describe the baneful limitations of the dismal reductionist paradigm/ideology promoted by Morris. A paradigm in which we are now all trapped with no exceptions, including all the usual suspects who promote Christian "theology".
http://www.aboutadidam.org/lesser_alternatives/scientific_materialism/index.html

The "big bang" is of course a "creation" story/myth.
But what was the real purpose of old-time religious "creation" myths? This essay provides an interesting Understanding and a criticism of the dismal reductionist implicit in the interpretations and use of such myths by most/all of the usual "religious" suspects, including Sells
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/creamyth.html

This essay describes the dimwitted mis-understanding of the nature of Reality promoted by the advocates of both scientism and conventional mommy-daddy creator-"God" religion. http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/spacetim.html

Big Nana,

Homosexuality is not a denial of science. What a silly thing to say.

<<Science clearly demonstrates that the human body was not designed for sodomy …>>

It wasn’t designed for oral sex either. So what?

<<… we are told that people can't help their urges, they are innate. That is emotional, not scientific.>>

What do urges have to do with anything? Do you mean the urge to have sex? Because I can assure you that is very scientifically explainable.

<<And in terms of evolution, heterosexual sex evolved to ensure the survival of the species.>>

Scientists are getting closer to understanding why homosexuality evolved, too.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=evolution+of+homosexuality

<<… we are asked to accept that despite all biological evidence to the contrary, people must be treated as the gender they emotionally choose.>>

No, were not. Transgender people don’t choose to feel like the gender they feel like. It’s not an emotional decision (nor is homosexuality, if that's what you were getting at). There are many valid scientific explanations for transgenderism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality

What is this biological evidence against transgenderism that you speak of? It's sounds to me like you're conflating biological sex with gender.

AJ, the article is about people making emotional judgements rather than ones based on scientific fact. And no, people don't choose to be homosexual but society chooses whether to accept that behaviour as normal or acceptable. Just because something is done doesn't mean it is normal. People have sex with every imaginable living and dead and ininimate object possible, but our acceptance of those acts is purely based on our emotional response, not any scientific evidence. In fact various cultures have different ideas on what is acceptable and what is not.That's based on emotion, not biological fact. Acceptance of any minority sexual behaviour has always been a changeable state.
And there is absolutely no proof that transgenderism has a biological base. It has a pyschiatric base, like anorexia, or body dysmorphic syndrome.
The very fact that 80% of children who believe they are transgender change their mind by the time they are adults shows this is an emotional response to external triggers, not a biological fact.
Gender theory is called that because that's all it is, a theory, not scientific fact.

//that's all it is, a theory, not scientific fact.//

Just a theory, eh? You mean like thermodynamics?

I really wish more people knew what the word theory actually means.

From wikipedia:

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, by using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Big Nana:

As someone claiming a medical background and an allegedly unbiased disposition? I find it passing strange that you of all people, still cling to the mindless myth that choice plays a part in homosexual behaviour?

True, some psychologically sick folk will have sex with almost anything! But arguably only around 10% of that deviation has its roots in homosexuality?

Moreover, not curable by aversion or thoroughly disgraced electric shock therapy. Sorry about the obvious sexual connotation pun.

As for the rest, their sexual urges are controlled solely by nature and their genes. Is often stronger than the survival instinct and may still be affecting/motivating the individual up until the day before she/he dies!

Yes there is a gay gene, not just one, but several down near the bottom of the double helix, DNA spiral.

And therefore surprising that someone purporting to be a trained medical professional? Wouldn't know that!?

But keeps on doggedly repeating, the gay bashing, risible rubbish in verbal vogue, when she was a med student?

I used to believe as you seem to? The difference?

My mind remains open and non atrophied! And accept countervailing, credible, scientific evidence!

You remind me of a senior, highly placed flat earther, from the flat earth society, taken for a guest space flight by Virgin boss, Richard Brampton, who obliged his guest to look out a portal when at the very top of the flight trajectory.

Then when the aircraft landed, Sir Richard asked this highly placed, flat earth society individual, to recant his "primitive" understanding in light of irrefutable evidence of his own eyes. To which the flat earther replied, the graphics were nearly as good as the moon landing hoax and the special effects were quite remarkable!

You'll have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.

Aidan
In fact, the antivaxing movement provides a handy illustration of the main argument against global warming. The medical technique of vaccination has a solid established record of achievement. Before disease control children used to die like flies. Deaths from infectious disease generally have plummeted. Global warming can point to no such record. All forecasting with climate models have proved to be of very limited use to date. Before you deny this take a look at this paper in Nature Geoscience https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n7/full/ngeo2973.html
note the authors, including Michael Mann. They certainly aren't abandoning global warming, but the climate establishment is admitting the models have not been successful to date. The OLO article is, as we can all agree, of no value and should be ignored. Leave it with you.

Excellent article. I'd recommend "Why we believe in gods", it provides a logical explanation for superstition and all its dysfunctions that have plagued humanity.

The problem is of course, that science is difficult and religion is easy.

//The problem is of course, that science is difficult and religion is easy.//

I disagree. Science isn't nearly as hard as it is to swallow the crap some religious people would have you believe.

The fact of the matter is that the doctrine /ideology of scientism and the world-wide culture that extends from it is principally responsible for suppressing the evolutionary potential of humankind.
These paragraphs from the previously mentioned author.

"In this dark epoch , the human world is ruled by the point of view of scientific materialism.
Scientific materialism has deprived humankind of all profundity of view - relative to the nature and significance of the conditional universe, and relative to the Reality of the Divine.
Scientific materialism is a global cultural program, which has so effectively supported the ego's motive to achieve a perfectly independent state of "self-sufficiency" that, as a result, the human collective has brought itself to the point of global destruction and universal despair."

Unfortunately conventional exoteric religion which is based on the left-brained spirit-killing word reinforces this now world dominant paradigm.

As another alternative why not check out the title Kundalini The Evolutionary Energy In Man by. Gopi Krishna.

On the seeming conundrum on re the anti-vaccination why not check out this reference http://vaccines.mercola.com Which is to say that the usual arguments in support of mass vaccinations and their presumed effectiveness (including herd immunity), the intrinsically toxic nature of some of the contents of the various vaccines,the way they are given and the time sequences in which they are given are somewhat suspect.
This author and his website was of course criticized in a recent Online Opinion essay.

It's all very technical DD. I've read all your links, that's not much different to Sells’s theolocratic doctrineering.

What matters is how you live life and how you respond to it…it's that simple in the end. That's how the great preacher Christ described it too, in his own words. Keep it simple stupid, KISS theory, Christ invented it!

AJ, where did I ever say homosexuality was a choice? What I said was it doesn't have a biological origin. And no, there is not any " gay gene". If you are talking about epigenetics then that is presumed environmental influence upon a portion of DNA, and is still a very controversial topic.
Many of our life compulsions and desires and drives have a psychological or psychiatric base, and that is another issue up for debate in this area.

Big Nana,

Your second post addressed to me was actually AlanB, not me.

<<Just because something is done doesn't mean it is normal.>>

I know. A lot of what people do is not practiced by the majority. I don’t see what this has to do with anything I’ve said, though.

<<People have sex with every imaginable living and dead and ininimate object possible, but our acceptance of those acts is purely based on our emotional response, not any scientific evidence.>>

This is a false dilemma. There is a third possibility: that we come to a rational conclusions based on what is harmful and what is not.

<<In fact various cultures have different ideas on what is acceptable and what is not.That's based on emotion, not biological fact.>>

Or rational conclusions based on objective considerations.

<<And there is absolutely no proof that transgenderism has a biological base.>>

Yes, there is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality#REFERENCES

<<It has a pyschiatric base, like anorexia, or body dysmorphic syndrome.>>

What is the evidence for this?

<<The very fact that 80% of children who believe they are transgender change their mind by the time they are adults shows this is an emotional response to external triggers …>>

Ah, the infamous 80% statistic. You're a bibliography of flawed studies.

No, this was based on a misleading study in 1995, which conflated transgenderism and a more general gender non-conformance. It’s no wonder it found that 80% of the subjects had changed by the time they were in high school.

<<Gender theory is called that because that's all it is, a theory, not scientific fact.>>

I believe Toni Lavis has already addressed this. Is the theory of gravity called a theory because it’s not a scientific fact? What about evolution?

Dear Spocky,
I thinks there's flaws in many of your arguments;
I think you're full of your own bs and I take offense to your garbage, because I can find rational arguments in PRETTY MUCH ALL OF the things you casually discredited.
Climate Science, who cares - none of us are going to live forever and humans have been dealing with climate change for thousands of years.
- Which is why there is a accurate map of the coastline of Antarctica which currently sits under 1 mile of ice.
The beach is still in virtually the same place it was when I was a kid 40yrs ago.
Can you control the earths axis; and solar output?
Did humans invent refridgeration and air conditioning in the last 100yrs?
Have humans not shown their ability to adapt during the last million years?
Anti Vaxxers - I get put in that category despite the fact I'm not against the science of innoculation.
I'm against families being mandated to vaccinate and the lack of informed consent of the potential side effects of vaccines - marketed as safe and effective which are not.
Tell me why is there a massive increase in autism / child cancer etc?
Why don't you be fair and tell the whole story instead of cherry picking?
Marriage Equality.
I opposed SSM on the basis that I oppose the sexual indoctrination of children with a LGBT agenda, and the victimisation of other members of the community.
Now personally I have no interest in what goes on in gays bedrooms, it's none of my business but I don't think men who decide to become women should be hanging round the female toilets, and I don't think taxpayers should subsidise their sex change operations / treatments either.

[Cont.]
Voluntary Assisted Dying, I think people should be able to choose their exit.
But only until someone 'logical' thinks its rational to put a ramshot in the back of everyones heads because the cost of care is not economically viable to keep them alive any longer. How long from when it passes till you have death panels? Probably do now.
Donalds Trumps 'Alternate facts' were actually factual.
Protests on Inaugruation day were timed and located to deliberately prevent people from entering the inaugruation, and the image often used to discredit the turnout was taken at 9am hours before the event actually started...
Don't try to put me in a box, selling your crappy narrative.
I agree with some of your thinking, but in the bigger picture I think you've got more or less everything around the twist.
Your just trying to sell your own ideas and beliefs and I'm not sure you've thought about it all as rationally as what you think you have.

Runner writes Tuesday, 24 October 2017 10:38:39 AM P2: "....oh well anything to deny the obvious (design requires Designer, creation demands a Creator)."

And here we have exactly the phenomenon, in its pristine glory, that Brian Morris identifies. The only "obvious" element of which he speaks is fantasy. Where is the design? Where is the creation?" Reason in reverse is the process du jour for such intellectual perversion. From an uncountable number of universes, each one unique in its properties, one so far has had those properties that made life as we perceive it possible. There may be others.

This "designed" Universe is fatally hostile to us outside of our planet. Clearly, this Universe was not "designed" with humans in mind.

Our mouths were "designed" with too many teeth, hence many of us suffer the agony of wisdom teeth. "Wisdom"?

Our spine is "deslgned" much more suitably for an animal that walks on four legs. Hence heavy manual labour and the prevalence of back pain and injuries.

Just three examples of "design"

As for "creation", scientific accomplishments make the mention of the word in this context an utterly risible proposition.

Paleontology has evealed that there are thousands upon thousands of missing links within the Animal Kingdom, which includes humans. A refusal to admit it by you places you at the ratbag end of the intellectual spectrum with all creationist ilk. Science doesn't give a damn for your perversity and closed mind. It ignores you and that pisses you off, doesn't it?

All people that on earth do dwell,
sing to the Lord with cheerful voice;
Him serve with mirth, His praise forth tell;
come ye before Him and rejoice.

Know that the Lord is God indeed;
without our aid He did us make;
we are His flock, He doth us feed,
and for His sheep He doth us take.

O enter then His gates with praise,
approach with joy His courts unto;
praise, laud, and bless His name always,
for it is seemly so to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us2O62TTqYA

The author has no idea what religion is.
Yes, humans may invent religious techniques, but religion itself is a primordial property of time itself: wherever time seems to be real, all flows from God and all eventually returns to God: religion is always there, conscious or otherwise.

Religious techniques help us to avoid the worldly traps.
Science on the other hand, can only reveal more details about the objective and transient material world where no values can be found, burying its believers deeper in materialism - what a waste of time!

Many people (of a surprisingly diverse sets of beliefs and conclusions) have already voiced this article to be of no merit. I agree with that sentiment. However several elements within the article I see pop up again and again within popular argument against religous perspectives (as well as now political perspectives being defeated by the magority of voters).

Perhaps we should take a hard critical look at these ideas so that as a whole we don't fall into their perspectives when trying to explain away people we don't agree with as being "too dumb, or to primitive" to agree with us, and then look for anything close to proof to support it.

That is essentially what this article is. The fight against SSM, abortion, and assisted suicide; is all explained in a manner to say why we are too prehistoric to accept the "right and smart" facts of the world. If you are observant you've probabley seen this kind of argument come to light conviently to drop a person's opponents down a few notches, by explain the rational reasons they are too dumb to get it. I've see simular arguments around politics a few times. Around religion constantly. And more often then it ever should be, also around our ancestors. (Sometimes even applied to people just a few generations ago.)

Three points of critism for this article.

1). There is no evidance I've come across to suggest we are smarter and more evolved then mankind has been in any era in the past. Our tools have changed, our technology has changed. And some elements of ancient civilizations impress us so much because we don't understand how they accomplished those feats. With or without modern technology. Besides weren't they all support to be dumber then we the modern man is? There is no evidance that we are any smarter or dumber then our ancestors were. Mankind has remained mostly the same throughout known history. With the exception of farming techniques, or wide spread manufactured technology. Mankind is the same as it was on the earliest written records in history. Wisdom from long age still applies today and holds up merrit as wisdom from great thinkers of the distant past.

2). It is never a good idea to count one element of the brain as useless and in the way. We are still learning a lot about the brain and how it works, and much of our understanding of the brain comes from head injuries where we've observed changes. Showing geography on the brain where key elements lie and why they are important (even if we don't understand how they work).

3). The reality of the world does not fit in nice neat little scientific understandings. We've made progress but if you open your eyes, you'll see more than then enough unexplained phenomena that science hasn't figured out. Religous insight might be more then the given credit as ancient and obsolete ideas of people long long ago. It's expecially bad to generalize all religion together when trying to refute specific religions.

As a general rule, generalizing vastly different ideas as the same thing is a bad idea.

I want to put the global warming backers back in their box and completely stop them in their tracks in the hope that these clowns will get on with some other misleading agenda.
My point is as follows:
If we have caused this, so called, 'global warming', no wait it's not called that anymore because the idiots were proven wrong, then why are there well preserved human and animal examples being exposed as the ice and snow melts. These examples are quoted as being 'thousands of years old'. Is the penny dropping yet? That's right these animals and people were once alive 'thousands of years ago' when they were on the surface, which is where they died. Now if that was ground zero thousands of years ago, what we have witnessed over the past few hundred years is an accumulation of ice and snow falling on them over time and burying them. We are going through a cyclical phase which is normal and has been so for millions of years.
So you global warming/climate change freaks, shut up. I have been badgered from here to eternity and back again by you guys, for proof. Well Nya Nya, there's your proof. Now you guys get off your ignorant asses and do some fact checking yourselves. It's easy, just go back and look at the recent news and TV articles.

ALTRAV - I read your post, then substituted 'global warming' references with the word religion. Made sense.

As for global warming, whether it's real or not, it is a wise thing for we humans to explore other forms of energy.

' Science doesn't give a damn for your perversity and closed mind. It ignores you and that pisses you off, doesn't it?'

No Pogi its the truth and you having to shut your eyes to the obvious that obviously ps you off. Your pseudo fake science is a joke.

//Your pseudo fake science is a joke.//

... That runner doesn't get.

Maybe you should pray for the continued advancement of 'pseudo fake science' so that you can live a longer, healthier life to preach to us what a crock all this science is whilst empirically falsifying your own hypothesis.

Oh Toni

I thought I was the one ps off! The something from nothing brigade are pitiful. I wonder why is it that the God, creationist worship upsets them so much. Obviously they ignore that many scientific breakthroughs have been made in the past by those who accept the obvious. The 22000th revision of the evolution tale has produced nothing but arrogant men who are in complete denial of the obvious. Meanwhile true science will demand observation and trial (you know the kind evolution has failed on at every turn).