I am having strong problems with 1, 2 and 4. 1 & 2 are totally false and a supposed scientist must have real emotional issues to even think about those items. Given the direction the Christianity is headed today only a deeply troubled person would think it is the source of morals.

I saw the article online too, but didn't want to spend too much time thinking about it, just shook my head a bit and kept scrolling. I didn't have the patience to address it as fully as you did, but it was an interesting rebuttal, and I agree with you.

It seems that even the most logical and truth seeking individuals can make some room in their minds for something they can rely on for comfort during difficult times.

The various ways she went about justifying her (return to?) belief shows (to me anyway) that she realizes this is not a natural or science based religion she's turning to, but something she needs to explain to her own brain as plausible, in order to believe it even just in her heart, so to speak.

I'm always happy to give lots of space to folks who need to rely on a faith of some kind to get them through difficulties, but I object when people want to bring others on board their religion train too. Perhaps she wants company in her faith by coaxing fellow scientists to believe as she does?

Personally, I am happier dealing with loss, change, social problems, with realism and an understanding of natural consequences. I don't see what Jesus (whether he was a real person or not) has to do with the spinning orbs in the cosmos.

I tend to think whether there was an actual Jesus who was mythologized or it's all a myth, a combination of prior mythological deities, there was a purpose for the story in the time and place it was composed, but it has little to do with our modern world especially what we know now that they didn't know then.

For an astrophysicist to say "Genesis is consistent with science" is to speak outside her area of expertise and to be relatively ignorant of the implications of the actual claims in the Genesis account. And that's just one of her points.

The bottom line is that if someone is willing to (or desperately needs to) embrace assertions without evidence, they will do it despite their day job requiring that they avoid that sort of credulity.

I couldn't read past the list of five reasons because they just seem too flimsy on the face of it, but Mr. Hutchison's words I can endorse enthusiastically...

"There’s nothing more sacred than the truth."

Amen to that!

Hi Hominid welcome back. Many changes. I have 5 groups now lol.

Hello and welcome back