Posted by dirt No, you did not cite the bible to prove an argument. But your whole outlook on the subject is based of your faith. Without Christianity, this argument would not exist.

As both a Christian and a Scientist I am offended by this statement. In fact my argument is not based solely on my faith, but it is my faith that has been and continues to be strengthened by Science. For example, Geneticists have discovered that every male on earth are direct descendants of one man, which Science refers to as "Scientific Adam", Geologists have confirmed that there was a Global flood about 6000 years ago, the fact that there is nothing in the fossil record that shows Human Beings were ever anything other than Human Beings. The myth that we share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzee's has been exposed. The fact that the fossil record suddenly appears all at once which Science refers to as The Cambrian Explosion, and has baffled Evolutionists since Evolution was invented. The fact that we are Scientifically alone in the Universe,(77,000 years away from the closest star at light speed). The fact that over 65% of all things carbon dated return an age of less than 10,000 years, and are subsequently discarded because they do not fit with what the "expectation" is. The fact that I have seen with my very own eyes so called "scientists" change the results of experiments to fit their hypothesis. The fact that there is absolutely nothing scientifically that suggests that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Yet you cannot watch the "Science" Channel for more than 20 minutes without having this indoctrination forced down your throat. The fact that I have watched many Good Scientists be discredited for speaking out against Evolution. And there are many Scientists that keep their mouths shut for fear of losing their job, even though there Science is solid. etc... This list goes on and on. Look there is no place in Science for ego, and all too often true Science is cast aside by preconceived notions and the hubris of the "scientific" community.

Posted by dirt I know that the Pyramids were built, I can see picture of them. It has nothing to do with faith. Man builds things, so by reason, it is obvious that the Egyptians built them. Just how man writes books, and the bible, like all other books, were written by men. If the bible is the word of god, then why do texts contrary to the bible exist, written by disciples of Jesus? http://en.wikipedi...ag_Hammadi_library

You can see the Pyramids so you know they exist. And reason tells you they must have been built by the Egyptians, a fair assumption, except for one thing, Science does not agree that the Pyramids were built by the Egyptians, in fact many Scientists agree that the Pyramids seem to have been reused by the Egyptians, and that they may date as far back as 11,000 B.C.E.

There is not one gnostic gospel that was written by a disciple of Jesus. The earliest of which dates to between 90 and 100 C.E. the rest of which date between 300 C.E. and 500 C.E. Good try but I have read every apocryphal text and not one of them is canonical.

Posted by Cerealx59 As both a Christian and a Scientist I am offended by this statement.

A scientist? Tell me what makes you a scientist? What do you do that is science related. I'm not a scientist, nor do I pretend to be.

In fact my argument is not based solely on my faith, but it is my faith that has been and continues to be strengthened by Science.

As it should be. But to sit there and devalue others ways of thinking based off faith got us into the mess we are in right now.

For example, Geneticists have discovered that every male on earth are direct descendants of one man, which Science refers to as "Scientific Adam"

I call bullshit. Give me the facts on that one.

Geologists have confirmed that there was a Global flood about 6000 years ago

"While some people hold the belief there was a worldwide flood, flood geology itself has been unequivocally rejected by mainstream geologists, biologists, and historians, many of whom consider it pseudoscience.[25] Though at one time even prominent workers in biblical archaeology were willing to argue support for flood geology,[26][27] this view is no longer widely held.[28]" -Wikipedia

Please don't site your beliefs as scientific fact. Just state them for what they are.

the fact that there is nothing in the fossil record that shows Human Beings were ever anything other than Human Beings. The myth that we share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzee's has been exposed.

I want to see facts. Please don't make blanket statement without siting resources.

The fact that the fossil record suddenly appears all at once which Science refers to as The Cambrian Explosion, and has baffled Evolutionists since Evolution was invented.

Two points: One, So it can't be explained. How does that mean that they were intelligently designed? We have not discovered what causes gravity, does that mean that a) there is no such thing or b) god did it? Really.

The fact that we are Scientifically alone in the Universe,(77,000 years away from the closest star at light speed).

I fail to see what that has to do with intelligent design. As tekriter stated, there are more black holes than livable planets, and as such god must really like black holes.

The fact that over 65% of all things carbon dated return an age of less than 10,000 years, and are subsequently discarded because they do not fit with what the "expectation" is.

You don't know how carbon dating works do you. It only works between certain dates. So if you date something that is not grouped by other classifications you won't get an accurate read.

The fact that I have seen with my very own eyes so called "scientists" change the results of experiments to fit their hypothesis.

Tell me more about this. Because you are beginning to sound like a fanatic to me.

The fact that there is absolutely nothing scientifically that suggests that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Nothing? Nothing at all? Then why do people think it is that old?

http://www.nature....full/409175A0.html

Yet you cannot watch the "Science" Channel for more than 20 minutes without having this indoctrination forced down your throat.

And I cannot listen to your rants without feeling like you think I'm a heathen. What is your point.

The fact that I have watched many Good Scientists be discredited for speaking out against Evolution. And there are many Scientists that keep their mouths shut for fear of losing their job, even though there Science is solid.

Please. Tell me more. It seems like you have all of this personal experience.

etc... This list goes on and on. Look there is no place in Science for ego, and all too often true Science is cast aside by preconceived notions and the hubris of the "scientific" community.

That bullshit. Science is on of the major beliefs that's open to debate. If you can give a good reason for something to be wrong, then people will take a second look. For instance, A good friend of mine was accepted(she did not go for some reason, mostly dyslexia) into MIT because she had a really good theory that the number 0 is not based in reality. I don't remember what her point was, but my point it that scientists want challenge. But faith based science is not true science. I'm not an atheist. I know there are things that science cannot explain. But at every turn, the truth that I see matches with science. I have worked with the energies that make up all existence(I'm not some psycho who has in inflated sense of self). The way I feel about the subject is that unless you are a scientist, leave science to them. They will work out their own truths at the end. At the same time, we should focus on our faith and the betterment of humanity. Instead of arguing with people who will not and should not change their view. And at some point of real study, we will all come to the same place.

You can see the Pyramids so you know they exist. And reason tells you they must have been built by the Egyptians, a fair assumption, except for one thing, Science does not agree that the Pyramids were built by the Egyptians, in fact many Scientists agree that the Pyramids seem to have been reused by the Egyptians, and that they may date as far back as 11,000 B.C.E.

First I have heard of this.

There is not one gnostic gospel that was written by a disciple of Jesus. The earliest of which dates to between 90 and 100 C.E. the rest of which date between 300 C.E. and 500 C.E. Good try but I have read every apocryphal text and not one of them is canonical.

Note, you mean written down. The bible was not "written down" until 40 AD. Being that the Church burned numerous texts, of course the earliest dates would not be out till much later. A lot of texts went into hiding. And of course these texts would not be canonized, as they speak a different message than that which was put in the bible.

But being that you are willing to openly lie: http://en.wikipedi...Thomas_the_Apostle

So are you telling me Thomas was not a Disciple?

Guys, this one is easy. Intelligent Design is a scientific theory you say? Well, as science goes, Laws beat Theories. Therefore...

http://en.wikipedi..._of_thermodynamics

for the win.

Read the rulebook. It's pretty clear.

“The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.”

So no, nobody pulled the universe out of their ass in six days.

That was easy. Now, feel free to argue evolution vrs ID in a scientific context without having to worry about explaining creation of anything from nothing. Because that doesn't happen.

Posted by underdark Guys, this one is easy. Intelligent Design is a scientific theory you say? Well, as science goes, Laws beat Theories. Therefore... http://en.wikipedi..._of_thermodynamics for the win. Read the rulebook. It's pretty clear. “The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.” So no, nobody pulled the universe out of their ass in six days. That was easy. Now, feel free to argue evolution vrs ID in a scientific context without having to worry about explaining creation of anything from nothing. Because that doesn't happen.

Thank you! Underdark wins the argument flat out.

Posted by Cerealx59 total uneducated bullshit

Stop even acknowledging this guy's posts. Jesus Fucking Christ. I'm astounded that the attendants let him use a computer.

It makes me weep to read his posts.

Posted by dirt A scientist? Tell me what makes you a scientist? What do you do that is science related. I'm not a scientist, nor do I pretend to be.

I earned my A.A. from the University of Minnesota in 2001, In 2004 I earned my B.A. from Macalester College in St Paul with a major in Environmental Studies, and a minor in Earth Science. Also in 2004, I Interned with the Mn. Department of Natural Resources, where the focus was the conservation of the local Walleye population. I completed my Graduate Study at Minnesota State University (Mankato} in 2007. I currently work for a large communications company in St Paul, Mn, where, among other things, I study the effects of local environmental changes on our communications infrastructure.

Posted by dirt I call bullshit. Give me the facts on that one.

You can call whatever you want, it does not change the facts.
http://en.wikipedi...Y-chromosomal_Adam

Posted by dirt I want to see facts. Please don't make blanket statement without siting resources.

I will cite you some resources.
"It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil ‘group’ can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another. The ancestor-descendant relationship may only be assumed to have existed in the absence of evidence indicating otherwise . . . The history of comparative biology teaches us that the search for ancestors is doomed to ultimate failure, thus, with respect to its principal objective, this search is an exercise in futility. Increased knowledge of suggested ‘ancestors’ usually shows them to be too specialized to have been direct ancestors of anything else . . . In contrast to what is usually stated, therefore, a more complete sample of the fossil record in itself would only complicate the problem of assessing the interrelationship of the fossil species." (Nelson, Gareth V., "Origin and Diversification of Teleostean Fishes," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, pp. 22-23.)
"From 1860 onward the more distant fossil record became a big issue, and over the next two decades discoveries were made that at first seemed to give support to the theory particularly the claimed discovery of a well-ordered sequence of fossil horse' dating back about 45 million years. Successes like this continue to be emphasized both to students and the public, but usually without the greater failures being mentioned. Horses according to the theory should be connected to other orders of mammals, which common mammalian stock should be connected to reptiles, and so on backward through the record. Horses should thus be connected to monkeys and apes, to whales and dolphins, rabbits, bears. ...But such connections have not been found. Each mammalian order can be traced backward for about 60 million years and then, with only one exception the orders vanish without connections to anything at all. The exception is an order of small insect-eating mammal that has been traced backward more than 65 million years..." (Hoyle, Fred, Mathematics of Evolution, p.107.)
The fossil record of evolutionary change within single evolutionary lineages is very poor. If evolution is true, species originate through changes of ancestral species: one might expect to be able to see this in the fossil record. In fact it can rarely be seen. In 1859 Darwin could not cite a single example." (Ridley, Mark, The Problems of Evolution, p. 11.)
"Two major reasons for the existence of so many divergent theories on the origin of the vertebrates are the significant difference in morphology between vertebrates and the invertebrate phyla and the complete lack of any intermediate forms in the fossil record." (Storer, Tracy I., et al., General Zoology, p. 634.)
"[T]here are no fossils leading to primitive chordates or linking them with the vertebrates to which they must have given rise. The latter showed up possessing such advances as a brain case, specialized sense organs, and calcified bones." (Wesson, Robert, Beyond Natural Selection, p. 41.)
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information..." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50, p. 25.) etc...

Posted by dirt Two points: One, So it can't be explained. How does that mean that they were intelligently designed? We have not discovered what causes gravity, does that mean that a) there is no such thing or b) god did it? Really.

No. It means it cannot be explained.

Posted by dirt I fail to see what that has to do with intelligent design. As tekriter stated, there are more black holes than livable planets, and as such god must really like black holes.

Actually, Black Holes are still very much theory, and are disputed by many physicists.
http://www.guardia...exploration.uknews
http://www.rense.c...eral63/baholes.htm
http://www.newscie...n-black-holes.html

Posted by dirt You don't know how carbon dating works do you. It only works between certain dates. So if you date something that is not grouped by other classifications you won't get an accurate read.

Straight from one of my old text books.

Carbon is a naturally abundant element found in the atmosphere, in the earth, in the oceans, and in every living creature. C-12 is by far the most common isotope, while only about one in a trillion carbon atoms is C-14. C-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere when nitrogen-14 (N-14) is altered through the effects of cosmic radiation bombardment (a proton is displaced by a neutron effectively changing the nitrogen atom into a carbon isotope). The new isotope is called "radiocarbon" because it is radioactive, though it is not dangerous. It is naturally unstable and so it will spontaneously decay back into N-14 after a period of time. It takes about 5,730 years for half of a sample of radiocarbon to decay back into nitrogen. It takes another 5,730 for half of the remainder to decay, and then another 5,730 for half of what's left then to decay and so on. The period of time that it takes for half of a sample to decay is called a "half-life."

Radiocarbon oxidizes (that is, it combines with oxygen) and enters the biosphere through natural processes like breathing and eating. Plants and animals naturally incorporate both the abundant C-12 isotope and the much rarer radiocarbon isotope into their tissues in about the same proportions as the two occur in the atmosphere during their lifetimes. When a creature dies, it ceases to consume more radiocarbon while the C-14 already in its body continues to decay back into nitrogen. So, if we find the remains of a dead creature whose C-12 to C-14 ratio is half of what it's supposed to be (that is, one C-14 atom for every two trillion C-12 atoms instead of one in every trillion) we can assume the creature has been dead for about 5,730 years (since half of the radiocarbon is missing, it takes about 5,730 years for half of it to decay back into nitrogen). If the ratio is a quarter of what it should be (one in every four trillion) we can assume the creature has been dead for 11,460 year (two half-lives). After about 10 half-lives, the amount of radiocarbon left becomes too miniscule to measure and so this technique isn't useful for dating specimens which died more than 60,000 years ago. Another limitation is that this technique can only be applied to organic material such as bone, flesh, or wood. It can't be used to date rocks directly.

Carbon Dating - The Premise
Carbon dating is a dating technique predicated upon three things:

* The rate at which the unstable radioactive C-14 isotope decays into the stable non-radioactive N-14 isotope,
* The ratio of C-12 to C-14 found in a given specimen,
* And the ratio C-12 to C-14 found in the atmosphere at the time of the specimen's death.

Carbon Dating - The Controversy
Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.1 We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death). And yet we know that "radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying,"2 which means it hasn't yet reached equilibrium, which means the ratio is higher today than it was in the unobservable past. We also know that the ratio decreased during the industrial revolution due to the dramatic increase of CO2 produced by factories. This man-made fluctuation wasn't a natural occurrence, but it demonstrates the fact that fluctuation is possible and that a period of natural upheaval upon the earth could greatly affect the ratio. Volcanoes spew out CO2 which could just as effectively decrease the ratio. Specimens which lived and died during a period of intense volcanism would appear older than they really are if they were dated using this technique. The ratio can further be affected by C-14 production rates in the atmosphere, which in turn is affected by the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere. The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere is itself affected by things like the earth's magnetic field which deflects cosmic rays. Precise measurements taken over the last 140 years have shown a steady decay in the strength of the earth's magnetic field. This means there's been a steady increase in radiocarbon production (which would increase the ratio).

Posted by dirt Nothing? Nothing at all? Then why do people think it is that old? http://www.nature....full/409175A0.html

3 words, "Accepted Scientific Theory". A very small vein of Zircon, and some deep space meteorites, may date to that age does not mean that the Earth does. Also the dating of the Zircon has been disputed because it is dependent on Radiometric Dating, which as previously discussed, is controversial to say the least.

Posted by dirt And I cannot listen to your rants without feeling like you think I'm a heathen. What is your point.

I really do not think you are a "heathen". And I don't hold any malicious feelings towards you or anyone else for that matter. My original point, was that we should agree to disagree. I have had this very conversation many times among my friends, and in fact I am the only one that is a Christian, and the only one that is a Creationist. Other peoples beliefs do not bother me, and do not affect my own beliefs. I only make an attempt as to explain why I believe what I believe.

Posted by dirt Please. Tell me more. It seems like you have all of this personal experience.

These experiences belong to former colleagues and friends who's personal stories will remain personal, until I hear different from them. Sorry.

Posted by dirt Note, you mean written down. The bible was not "written down" until 40 AD. Being that the Church burned numerous texts, of course the earliest dates would not be out till much later. A lot of texts went into hiding. And of course these texts would not be canonized, as they speak a different message than that which was put in the bible. But being that you are willing to openly lie: http://en.wikipedi...Thomas_the_Apostle So are you telling me Thomas was not a Disciple?

Sorry, but you are very misinformed here. Yes, some of The Bible was not written down till 40 C.E., which is the approximate date of the crucifixion of Christ, and John may not have written Revelation till as late as 80 C.E., however much of The Bible was written down much earlier, for instance the book of Isaiah was written in 698 B.C.E.. And people in Christ's time carried the old testament for centuries, much like some now carry The Bible.

I do not understand why you would accuse me of lying, it is simply not the case. Yes Thomas was a disciple of Christ, however he did not author The Gospel of Thomas. Although some argue that this "gospel" was written between 60 C.E. and 100 C.E. the earliest document we have of this writing was written in or around 200 C.E. In the same vein The Gospel of Mary Magdeline" was written around 140 C.E., long after her death.

Again, my original point was simply to agree to disagree. Anyways I'm about to go on vacation, which will limit my internet access till after next week. So I will see you guys then. God Bless.

Posted by MutantMandias Stop even acknowledging this guy's posts. Jesus Fucking Christ. I'm astounded that the attendants let him use a computer. It makes me weep to read his posts.

Sorry, I was under the belief that this forum is titled "Religious Discussion", not "The Forum to Bash Religious People", and that open debate regarding religion and religious beliefs was welcomed. I guess I was wrong.

Talk about being close minded.

Posted by Cerealx59 Sorry, I was under the belief that this forum is titled "Religious Discussion", not "The Forum to Bash Religious People", and that open debate regarding religion and religious beliefs was welcomed. I guess I was wrong. Talk about being close minded.

I am not bashing anything religious. I am bashing your unabashed ignorance.

Posted by MutantMandias I am not bashing anything religious. I am bashing your unabashed ignorance.

And by "unabashed ignorance" you mean my religious beliefs, because that is what I have offered here, in this forum about religion. If you have anything religious to discuss, I look forward to hearing it.

Posted by Cerealx59 And by "unabashed ignorance" you mean my religious beliefs, because that is what I have offered here, in this forum about religion. If you have anything religious to discuss, I look forward to hearing it.

No, I refer to you saying things like

Posted by Cerealx59 77,000 years away from the closest star at light speed

Posted by Cerealx59 so-called "scientists" were to frustrated by the FACT that they could not PROVE their theories using the Scientific method

Posted by Cerealx59 Real Science has proven an origin point in our universe. And an action that sprung from that origin point; commonly referred to as the "big bang". However "science" has not provided us with the cause of said origin action. Now if every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then there had to have been an action that caused the reaction that we know as the "big bang". (This is not rocket science people)

Really. How did you graduate?


And..

Posted by Cerealx59 I believe in it for what it is; a collection of oral histories and traditions that were passed through time and eventually written on tablets and parchments

That last one sounds a lot like Penthouse Forum. With less emphasis on the oral part.

Nevermind.

I refer to my previous statement.

Posted by MutantMandias Stop even acknowledging this guy's posts.

Posted by MutantMandias Stop even acknowledging this guy's posts. Jesus Fucking Christ. I'm astounded that the attendants let him use a computer. It makes me weep to read his posts.

I think you have a point.

I wish I was smart enough to have gone to college. But if I, someone who is generally ignorant, can see faults in his logic, something has to be wrong.

Posted by Cerealx59 Sorry, I was under the belief that this forum is titled "Religious Discussion", not "The Forum to Bash Religious People", and that open debate regarding religion and religious beliefs was welcomed. I guess I was wrong. Talk about being close minded.

It's easy to defend your faith to believers. This is much more fun ;)

He was not defending his faith. He was spouting absolute falsehoods and lies.

I'd let him have his faith, since he seemingly has nothing else.

Posted by MutantMandias He was not defending his faith. He was spouting absolute falsehoods and lies. I'd let him have his faith, since he seemingly has nothing else.

Knock it off. He is defending his beliefs just as you are defending yours. We could all call different belief systems "absolute falsehoods and lies," but what's the point? Let's have some respect.

Posted by Cerealx59 Sorry, I was under the belief that this forum is titled "Religious Discussion", not "The Forum to Bash Religious People", and that open debate regarding religion and religious beliefs was welcomed. I guess I was wrong. Talk about being close minded.

Cerealx, I've learned the same thing about this forum over the past few years. It seems the majority of people here enjoying bashing opposite beliefs, especially Christianity (no surprise). I've come to realize that if someone on UER is truly interested in someone else's beliefs they will talk to that person directly. They probably won't join this board. I know; call me jaded!

Posted by katwoman Knock it off. He is defending his beliefs just as you are defending yours. We could all call different belief systems "absolute falsehoods and lies," but what's the point? Let's have some respect.

I am really trying not to keep fires burning here. I have stopped from replying in this thread more times than I can count.

No. I was not attacking "beliefs." I was attacking lies about facts. This is not as big a deal as you are making it, but he was stating absolute falsehoods about facts.

Like, for example, the nearest star is 4.2 light years away, not 77,000.

And the scientific method, by the very nature of it's philosophical underpinnings of epistemology, never had intention of "proving" theories, since that is not possible, and no scientist has ever gotten frustrated about that.

And, when referring to the Big Bang theory (which he falsely says has been "proven"), it is beyond meaningless to talk about Newton's 2nd Law of Motion. Not even the 4 Fundamental Forces existed in the immediate Big Bang environment, according to the theory, and besides, Newton's Laws are not even Laws at all. They are approximate rules of modeling phenomena, and they do not hold up to precise investigation.

Posted by Cerealx59 Sorry, I was under the belief that this forum is titled "Religious Discussion", not "The Forum to Bash Religious People".

It should be, thats why I dont really comment here. Science is flawless and religion is always wrong, not to mention something only morons cling to, at least thats the general idea I get from reading on here.

Posted by Soldat222 It should be, thats why I dont really comment here. Science is flawless and religion is always wrong, not to mention something only morons cling to, at least thats the general idea I get from reading on here.

Not at all. Have all the religion you want. The key word here is YOU. I for one would like no part of it.

I would ask that it meander the hell right outta my taxpayer supported schools. And if pols on both sides of the aisle would please quit using it to make public policy I would really appreciate it. And the whole 501c3 thing? Yeah, if you would all just back the fuck away and quit using that my biggest complaint would be gone.

The club handbook clearly states that the government shall make no law establishing a religion. The courts have determined that this means supporting one over the others. So everyone that wants an invisible friend SHOULD have one. It's cool. I really don't care. Until it costs me money, interferes with my personal liberties, or results in someone getting killed. Even $cilons, who I hate for all sorts of good reasons, should be able to be $cilons. As long as the get off the tax-free tit.

So no, I don't think the believers are stupid. And science isn't always right...yet. But guys there are reasons that many people feel that way about y'all. If I have to point out the twits that make you look bad, then you're not paying attention.

I understand you dont want any religion, but the fact is on this forum the most popular thing to do to those who dare defend religion is insult them. Even the language that you use, such a terming somebodies belief in a God or Gods as having an "invisible friend" is degrading towards them. It makes it sound as though they are nothing but kids or nuts, and implies their inferiority to you and your beliefs.

I would ask to have alot of shit out of my taxpayer supported schools, such as all the no tolerance shit towards fighting or any aggression, DARE class, and political correctness, but its still there.

I also dont see problem with 501c3. Tons of organizations qualify for tax exemptions, why is it a big problem religions do?

I just ate a tasty piece of Tyrannosaurus Rex.

It was yummy.