'Hey runner,
China apparently killed 50 million unborn during the one-child policy.'

that's right Armchair, what would you expect from a god denying Government. Probably only North Korea another god denying regime would equal their wickedness.

JB: <Do you deny the terrible history of Christianity. The first Order of Business after the Nicene Conference was to eliminate (Murder) any Christian Sect that didn't fall into line with the Pauline Christian Doctrine.>

Do you deny the above happened runner?

Christianity has a history of killing those who don't believe in the present Doctrine of whoever has the power at the time. EG; The Religious Wars of the 13th. to the 15th. Centuries. Caused by Protestants, I believe. The elimination of males in the Americas by the Spanish & Portuguese then married the widows to make them Christian.

Or, is you answer to that? "I don't want to know that."

OzSpen, Saturday, 28 March 2020 8:14:11 PM writes: "...which is pretty amazing, considering that the brain makes up only about 2% of the body weight of an average man)","

Could we extrapolate your estimation to apply to all humankind, thus including the other 50% of the genus Homo on Earth?

Or does the feminine create a statistic that embarrasses and confounds the male statistic?

Please don't hide behind the worthless supposition that "man" is presumed to include "wo-man". That kind of sophistry lost any value with the murder of Hypatia in ancient Alexandria, and probably centuries before even that if the history was available to the enquirer.

To Pogi

Mankind includes women as well as men. Shortening it to say man or men instead for mankind is a common usage of the term.

Why make a fuss about it? Do women need more attention in what we say because no one knows what's being talked about? Do we need to seperate populations and demographics as often as we can and get still say we're fighting steryotypes at the same time? Or is it just because. No other reason then "just because."

When someone makes a fuss out of nothing I have to ask "what's the point?" Followed shortly by asking if the point is worth it or not. Sometimes there's a point, often there's hypocritical reasoning used just to look good or make the other person look bad. Occasionally there is no point at all.

I promised to analyze the comments: In short, they are all over the place, mostly arguing with each other. But the majority are clearly for the existence of a god than are against it. This result is at odds with the general population in Australia where less than a quarter believe that there is a god.

This tells us something about the readers and comment makers of On Line Opinion. I suspect they are older which is consistent with the younger generation being less committed to religion (Pew Research). I suspect that they also tend to vote for the conservative coalition, because religious people are more conservative .

A sample of the comments illustrates supports this conclusion:

• One respondent states: “God is real. There is evidence of Him being real.” (unfortunately, this commentator did not provide the evidence.)

• Another refers the reader to this real god website: http://www.realgod.org/ , which is supposed to show that god is real.

• “What you have written in this piece demonstrates you refuse God’s answer”.

• “Why don't you take the call of the Scriptures seriously in its assessment of the nature of human beings and their need of a Saviour?”

• “In a one line answer to the question, simple: -No”

• “It is a question of how did we get to be here? In all the thinking of people, there have only ever been 2 answers arrived at:

• We were created by an agency outside of what we see about us.
• We evolved by chance processes.”

This response appears to reflect the belief that we had to have a creator to make the world. Alternately that we evolved the way most scientists believe, by the big bang and evolution. I believe the argument for evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is unanswerable.

So there we are: most comments support a belief in Go

PeterBo,

<<I believe the argument for evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is unanswerable. >>

Yet you supplied not a skerrick of evidence to support your assertion.

However, Australian molecular biologist, Dr Michael Denton, refuted your view with his landmark 1985 book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, in which this reviewer summarised the evidence presented by Denton, http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho18.htm.

Thirty years later in 2016 he published a follow-up book, Evolution, Still a Theory in Crisis, http://www.discovery.org/b/still-a-theory-in-crisis/. One reviewer of this book stated:

"Based on a great variety of indisputable facts from biology and paleontology, Michael Denton presents in his new book a highly competent and very thoughtful critique of the neo-Darwinian paradigm. His arguments convincingly suggest that modern biology prematurely dispensed with the notions of typology, essentialism, structuralism, and laws of biological form as promising alternative approaches to the origin of biological complexity and diversity. His affirmation of common descent with modification also demonstrates that well-founded doubts concerning the capabilities of the neo-Darwinian mechanism cannot be easily dismissed as anti-evolution propaganda, but should rather be welcomed even by neo-Darwinists as heuristically fruitful.
Günter Bechly, PhD, Paleontologist", http://www.discovery.org/b/still-a-theory-in-crisis/.