This was posted 7 years 10 months 19 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

$0 eBook: A Modest Genius - The Story of Darwin’s Life and How His Ideas Changed Everything

1100
$0 eBook: A Modest Genius - The Story of Darwin’s Life and How His Ideas Changed EverythingAffiliate
Go to Deal
Cashback
grababargain on 12/02/2017 - 18:03 amazon.com (1239 clicks)
Last edited 12/02/2017 - 18:05
This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

US:
AU:
By Hanne Strager, 232 pages, published Nov 15, 2016

Amazon's Description:

Part biography, part popular science, A Modest Genius provides a lively, engaging account of Darwin’s life and the events that inspired his groundbreaking theory. Science writer and biologist Hanne Strager brings Darwin to life while offering the essential elements of evolution and how they affect us today.

Much has been written on Darwin’s life, his groundbreaking work, and the influence he has had on modern scientific thought and advancements, but most books assume a certain level of scientific knowledge. A Modest Genius changes that, offering an accessible, easy-to-understand discussion of Darwin’s work.

Readers follow Darwin from his early years through his travels. Hanne Strager explains how Darwin assembled the pieces of a fascinating puzzle while also describing the fundamental principles of evolution.

Darwin’s theory, by necessity, was incomplete when he proposed it. He lacked modern knowledge of the fossil record, DNA and genetics. Strager explains how advances in these and other scientific areas expanded on Darwin’s original work. She also discusses the ongoing conflict between religion and evolution, including the famous Scopes Monkey Trial and the battle Darwin himself fought between faith and intellect.

Bold, exciting, and easily understood, A Modest Genius offers an opportunity to understand one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs of the modern age.

eBook is free at time of posting. Please check price before buying.

Price History at C CamelCamelCamel.
Books & Magazines

Related Stores

Amazon Cloud Reader
Amazon Cloud Reader

closed Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 18:08
    +5

    Will this make me feel euphoric and more intelligent than others?

    • pencilman on 12/02/2017 - 18:13
      +6

      Don't you already feel like that being an Ozbargainer?
      Especially after picking this up for $0

    • King Tightarse on 12/02/2017 - 18:42
      +4

      Not if you are Abororiginal Australian.
      Darwin held some extremely controversial views about their evolution and intelligence.

      • belongsinforums on 12/02/2017 - 18:46
        +3

        Luckily I'm not abororiginal

      • chyawala on 12/02/2017 - 21:52

        I believe he ranked fifty nationalities on their evolution, and Irish was last. I don't know, probably because of the monkey relatives I have.

      • EightImmortals on 13/02/2017 - 07:26

        Yup, it did work out too well for Jewish Germans either.

  • thelastnoob on 12/02/2017 - 18:20
    -3

    I wonder if Darwin unlike scientists today knew much about the origin of a human life. Does anyone know his opinions on this?

    • King Tightarse on 12/02/2017 - 18:50
      +6

      Perhaps read the book? It's free!

    • bchliu on 12/02/2017 - 19:37
      +5

      The thing I get annoyed about the most is the amount of conspiracy BS that people can come up with about past scientist (Tesla, Galileo, Einstein etc). Like as if Tesla knew all the secrets to break 300 years of physics and produce unlimited perpetual energy but he died too early and took the secrets to his grave. Darwin wrote his ideas in many publications and if there were revolutionary ideas, he would have found some way of publishing it - or would have been picked up already by his many successors to his Evolution by natural selection.

    • hugh on 12/02/2017 - 19:46
      +3

      noob by name…

      • thelastnoob on 12/02/2017 - 21:28

        Yes sure I'll have a look at the book just amazed many Darwinists say the life inside a woman is not a human and some even say not alive
        So it's quite interesting for people to say what happened 14 billions of years ago yet have no idea what happens millions of times a year

        So many of these people anti science

        • ilovepizza on 12/02/2017 - 22:21
          +4

          what does that have to do with being "darwinist"?? you may as well have said "just amazed many tomato eaters say the life inside a woman is not a human and some even say not alive"

          When you look at something in space that is 14 billion light years away, you are literally looking back in time 14 billion years, as it takes light 1 year to travel 1 light year.

          Sounds like you don't even accept evolution. Creationist?????

          Endogenous Retroviruses in apes show we share a common ancestor with the other apes. Humans and chimps share 99.9% of their ERV's, a little less with the other apes in the order that scientists already knew. Humans have about 200,000 ERV elements in their DNA. In humans and the other apes they are in the exact same location with identical mutations. This can only be if they share a common ancestor as ERV's are from retrovirus insertions when they accidentally insert their DNA into a germ cell where it gets passed onto the hosts offspring and their offspring forever. To share a single ERV in the same location as another single individual is a 1 in 3 billion chance as there are 3 billion locations they can insert it into.

        • knackers on 13/02/2017 - 13:42

          @thelastnoob: "unscientific stance"??! says the guy peddling, "poof, magic did it".

        • thelastnoob on 13/02/2017 - 14:12
          -1

          @knackers:
          no you guys have said poof time and nothing did it all
          personhood is not scientific

        • knackers on 13/02/2017 - 14:23

          @thelastnoob: To insert a magic dude at the beginning does nothing to appease your concern. You resign yourself to a game of infinite regress.

          Simple rule to follow - simplicity always precedes complexity. Inserting a god before the big bang is to insert an infinitely more complex entity at the beginning, this violates everything we observe in nature.

        • thelastnoob on 13/02/2017 - 15:19

          @knackers:
          The big bang itself violates plenty of scientific laws
          DNA variation was already present it was not coded more and more over time

        • knackers on 13/02/2017 - 16:07
          +1

          @thelastnoob: I hope you are the last knob

    • The Wololo Wombat on 13/02/2017 - 10:30
      +2

      While the evolution of life and the orgin of life deal with similar philosophical questions, they are completely different branches of science.

      • thelastnoob on 13/02/2017 - 10:45
        -4

        It shows that vast majority of atheists/darwinists are happy to abandon science when it comes to this issue which therefore shows how biased and blinded they are. There is no real reflection or questioning of their world view which is anti science to accept things and not be open minded.

        • The Wololo Wombat on 13/02/2017 - 11:25
          +5

          Let me preface my reply by saying that I am a Christian with a science degree

          You've called atheists blinded by their worldview and suggested they be open minded. However, if you going to open their mind, you have to bring evidence. There's no inherent value in being open-minded to something that has no evidential backing. For a scientist, to suggest that life originated in a 'primordial soup' or was extraterrestrial in origin is much more reasonable than 'God created it, and that's that', as other explanations can be tested.

          If God did create life (and I believe he has) there will be evidence. If you are to change the mind of a scientist, you will have to use very strong evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

        • thelastnoob on 13/02/2017 - 11:46
          -1

          @The Wololo Wombat:
          Plenty of evidence such as life cannot come from non life, time space and matter cannot create itself especially from nothing, dna code cannot write itself and code for all functionality, machinery built into cells to perform complex functions.

          Also in my example in regards to human life there is billions of examples of live evidence with millions of new evidence generated every day. I do not need to prove origin of human life since science has done so yet this is being ignored. Scientists need to be open minded to proven science (origin of human life) and also open to examining evolutions many flaws. Why don't they scrutinize their own beliefs/worldview while they falsely claim to follow scientific principles.

        • EightImmortals on 13/02/2017 - 13:03
          +1

          @The Wololo Wombat:

          Don't you mean "If you are to change the mind of an atheist..?"

          There are plenty of scientists who have all kids of different worldviews you know. :)

    • Elwes on 13/02/2017 - 12:33

      Darwin's second most famous book is The Descent of Man. It's also free!
      http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_T…

    • philmarcracken on 12/02/2017 - 19:20
      +2

      Religion will not survive the internet.

      • StingyBritches on 12/02/2017 - 19:42
        +6

        Thank God!

      • King Tightarse on 12/02/2017 - 20:27
        +8

        Catholicism won't survive pedo priests.

        • bargainparker on 12/02/2017 - 21:06
          +2

          There are other religious companies doing the same.

        • King Tightarse on 12/02/2017 - 21:12
          +2

          @bargainparker:
          It's shocking whenever it happens but "brand Catholic" is irreparably damaged from this IMHO. It doesn't get much more evil than systematically rooting children.
          Might as well sell up all those fine properties and call it quits.

        • bargainparker on 12/02/2017 - 21:49
          +1

          @King Tightarse:

          it aint gonna happen any time soon.

        • dannyhc on 13/02/2017 - 03:00
          -1

          Richard Dawkins defended "mild pedophilia" a man who can't believe that his unbelief is a religion just as we all are religious.

      • toasty on 12/02/2017 - 21:05
        +2

        The internet has been around for a while now and so far apart from distributing porn, it also seems to spread all kinds of religious beliefs.

        Here are some Google trends you inspired me to look up. I found the highest regions for Atheism very interesting.

      • Diji1 on 12/02/2017 - 21:14

        Why? The internet doesn't change people's views.

        • bchliu on 12/02/2017 - 23:19

          Of course it doesnt. It just brings "Fake News" if people choose not to believe any evidence presented to them. No different from 2000 years of Creationists and Flat-Earthists.

      • RefusdClassification on 13/02/2017 - 01:11

        "Religion will not survive the internet." Very untrue. Islam is thriving. By 2020 over half the children born will be Muslims. By 2050 most Western European countries will have Muslim majorities. Only Christianity, in Caucasian countries, is dying out, and has been doing so since at least the 60s. All other religions are doing will.

        Religion actually improved evolutionary fitness, and atheism retards it. Why? Because religious fundamentalists are extremely fertile, and atheists are barren/impotent. In Austria for instance, women who identify as atheists only have 0.8 children (a race needs a birthrate of 2.1 children per women to just maintain it's numbers, atheists aren't managing even half of that).

        • philmarcracken on 13/02/2017 - 01:16
          +1

          Evolution and the process natural selection are only there for the entire race to survive. It doesn't care what you believe in.

        • Ghosteye on 13/02/2017 - 09:12

          Are you for real?

        • The Wololo Wombat on 13/02/2017 - 11:28
          +1

          His facts are actually correct. It's a fair point to make! If you extrapolate the data…. just saying…

        • The Wololo Wombat on 13/02/2017 - 11:30

          @The Wololo Wombat: Though a (faulty) premise is that religion is inherited.

  • Hyena on 12/02/2017 - 21:51
    +8

    This brings balance to the force after the free bibles "deal"

    • toasty on 12/02/2017 - 22:59
      +2

      I'm guessing our OP posted the deal for exactly this reason.

  • brococonut on 12/02/2017 - 22:47
    -5

    I think that is funny that people have problems with the bible which has a lot of accurate history.

    I think there is some truth in Darwins theories. As to think I came from a monkey, I think that is funny.

    I still might read it to understand why he thought the way he did.

    • String name on 12/02/2017 - 23:10
      +8

      We didn't "come" from monkeys. We share a common ancestor.

    • bchliu on 12/02/2017 - 23:20
      +3

      With logic like that, I can certainly see some Monkey Ancestry in you. LOL

      • thelastnoob on 12/02/2017 - 23:42
        -2

        There is logic that you need plenty of miracles without a miracle giver with evolution. Not only are certain scientific laws against it but also the odds and not just by a small margin.

        • bchliu on 12/02/2017 - 23:49
          +5

          You've obviously not read Darwin or Dawkins. No matter how low the odds are, if you keep doing something enough times, then it will happen according to laws of statistics. In this case, the billions of years of Earth history has had many goes of creation. It only needed to succeed once for protein chains to be created from less complex ones and a reproduceable component of life is created. It does not take a miracle: people win the lotto every week with a stupidly small probability too. Does not make it a divine intervention miracle.

        • King Tightarse on 12/02/2017 - 23:57
          +2

          @bchliu:
          Well said!

        • thelastnoob on 13/02/2017 - 00:13

          superficial and misleading answer
          You state that anything is possible according to laws of statistics given time but that is patently absurd and deceptive

          Lottery winners are very common and occurs often so poor and weak comparison

          There are plenty of miracles that need to occur not just the one but this is not a good venue for rigorous debate although that said I'm happy to debate anyone on the origin of human life and to some degree evolution over the phone or via the web.

        • RefusdClassification on 13/02/2017 - 01:16
          +1

          What about entropy? Disorder/randomness is supposed to increase over time. Whereas life has become increasingly complex, from just a soup of amino acids, to mammals with lots of specialized tissues, and specialized organells within each cell.

          If I toss of bunch of trash into my garbage bin, then look into the bin 1 month later, it won't have transformed into a supercomputer or a Pre-raphaelite painting. The organic components will have broken down further, and the inorganic components will be still junk.

        • thelastnoob on 13/02/2017 - 02:46

          @Thaal Sinestro:
          Evolution is really virtually literally the fairy tale where the frog turns into a prince given enough time.

        • bchliu on 13/02/2017 - 06:48
          +1

          @Thaal Sinestro: The Entropy argument fails and has been proven time and time again. The Earth is not a closed system per se because energy is constantly coming in via the Sun fr the last few billion years, and even Cosmic background radiation left over from the big bang. There is more than enough energy from this to do so.

          The argument of throwing trash into the garbage bin shows you do not understand evolution: It took millions of years to go from one stage to another, having tried it many trillions of times. We are talking molecular reproduction initially in the form of carbon chemistry chains. Not a supercomputer with complex electronics. If you wash enough hydrocarbons together many many times over the course of billions of years, you will start to get something interesting happening by chance and the evolution of build up from previous generations. Computers do not appear out of nowhere as much as Mankind never appeared out of nowhere. It takes millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations to change.

        • bchliu on 13/02/2017 - 07:02
          +1

          @thelastnoob: Nope. I've never said "anything is possible" - because there are still physical laws within the universe that reality sticks to. Just saying that if you do something enough times, then it will happen. My lottery example actually does apply - not because they "occur often" but because millions of people participate in it. That goes to show your weak understanding of probability and statistics. If you have 6 people rolling a 6 sided dice at one time, there is a very good chance that one of them will roll a 6. If you have 12 people simultaneously rolling the same 6 sided dice, then the odds will increase.
          Molecular evolution does not just roll the dice once every year. Because it is so small and so many in the world (10^x many molecules?), they can and will bump into each other to form something more complex. Until they form something that reproduces itself to become simple bases of life (RNA and then DNA). Give it some energy from the Sun, lightning from the clouds and geothermal from the Earth, you got plenty of energy to keep evolving itself.

          Your "Miracles" on the other hand are a lazy interpretation of people who do not understand what was going on at the time. Have you seen any "Modern" miracles these days that scientists have really failed at explaining? Moreover, a lot of biblical "miracles" are quite laughable in modern society. I mean, if a married teenage girl said she was pregnant but she was still a virgin, would any one believe her these days? Sure, they would get out the Obstetrician equipment and check on her to see if she was telling the truth. But you guys rather believe a 2000 year old book that tells you that without any evidence?

        • bchliu on 13/02/2017 - 07:12
          +1

          @thelastnoob: BTW.. in reference to my "Virgin birth" miracle reference - it's been proven that the Catholic church screwed up on translation. The Aramaic to Greek references was "Maiden", which could mean a married woman as well as a virgin. They took it literally as a "Virgin" which made up the whole miracle BS - because of translation errors between three or more languages. LOL.. Catholic church has stuck to this as divine proof because it tells their story better. haha

        • bchliu on 13/02/2017 - 07:14
          +2

          @thelastnoob:

          Evolution is really virtually literally the fairy tale where the frog turns into a prince given enough time.

          Evolution never said one frog, with enough time. It talks about millions of generations of frogs before it evolves to the next stage. Why argue something that you have NFI about? If you are going to argue against evolution, then at least learn it before you do instead of embarrassing yourself with half-arsed facts and knowledge.

        • EightImmortals on 13/02/2017 - 09:25

          @bchliu: So…magic rocks then?

        • thelastnoob on 13/02/2017 - 09:50

          @bchliu:
          The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:

          that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)
usable energy is running out
information tends to get scrambled
order tends towards disorder
a random jumble won’t organize itself

          It also depends on the type of system:

          An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down— see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.
A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.
An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

    … there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. …  There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.1

          Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization, covered in Question 2 below. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

          The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

          It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

          To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

          I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.

          http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers…

          Also your lottery example should be a minimum of every lottery player winning the lotto on the same game. Even that is potentially possible even though unlikely unlike life coming from non life which is a miracle since it needs to break scientific law. Lotto is very basic with only 6 numbers out of 40.

  • bringbring on 13/02/2017 - 04:10
    +1

    Theres an interesting doco by Bill Bailey on another scientist, Alfred Wallace, who independently came up with the theory of natural selection. While still off in SE asia, he sent Darwin a letter asking for his opinion on the idea. As Darwin left the theory unpublished for 20 years, he freaked out about getting scooped and submitted the work with both their names (without asking Wallace's permission)! Unfortunately history has forgotten about poor old Wallace.

    • Kangal on 13/02/2017 - 08:57
      +1

      Is Darwin the Edison, to Wallace's Tesla?

    • EightImmortals on 13/02/2017 - 09:37

      Yeah saw that doco as well. Also, it's well known that the seeds for Darwin's ideas were firmly implanted by his grandfather, Erasmus. So I don't believe it was the 'Eureka!' moment it often gets portrayed as.

  • LuthLexor on 13/02/2017 - 13:38

    Is creationism really a thing in Australia? I've been an Aussie Christian for 10 years now, and only ever personally come across three in person, and two of those were over 50.

    • knackers on 13/02/2017 - 14:42

      The internet has given rise to a new wave of flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers and creationists. These people believe they're privy to information that no one else has. They seem incapable of filtering fact from fiction.

      • brococonut on 13/02/2017 - 16:12

        It is true that proving fact from fiction is hard thing.

        I think someone created the earth. How long it took is another debate that can be talked about. I also think God made the earth and he is big then why not think that he can do it quickly.

        Evolution to survive is possible where adaption occurs in a species. I believe that happens on a micro scale.

        • knackers on 13/02/2017 - 16:17

          Wrong, gravity created the elements and the earth. And there is no such distinction between micro and macro evolution, it is just evolution.

        • thelastnoob on 13/02/2017 - 16:29

          @knackers:
          That's speculation and it's unprovable and untestable

        • knackers on 13/02/2017 - 16:41

          @thelastnoob: Gravity? Untestable? How about I design a little test for ya?

        • thelastnoob on 13/02/2017 - 16:46

          @knackers:
          sure show me gravity creating the elements and the earth

        • knackers on 13/02/2017 - 16:49

          @thelastnoob: Look to the sky, the sun is a fusion reactor. It is fusing hydrogen and helium atoms to create heavier elements. Did you go to high school?

        • thelastnoob on 13/02/2017 - 16:55

          @knackers:
          sorry you have just proven gravity created the elements and the earth (just kidding would appreciate a link saying this)
          since you are well educated please tell me when a human life begins?

        • knackers on 13/02/2017 - 17:13

          @thelastnoob: Not sure what this has to do with evolution. Go to your local General Practitioner and ask him/her for a referral to a fetal specialist.

        • thelastnoob on 13/02/2017 - 17:16

          @knackers:
          how about you try not to ignore my question above which was a scientific proven link that 'gravity created the elements and the earth'

          relevance was you can say with confidence what happened 14 billion years ago and parrot the false fairytale yet when i ask you a simple question regarding human biology you suddenly defer

        • knackers on 13/02/2017 - 17:30

          @thelastnoob: Google "formation of stars", "supernova event" and the "cosmic evolution of celestial bodies". We're lucky enough to have Hubble telescope photos of these celestial bodies at different stages of formation.

        • thelastnoob on 13/02/2017 - 18:00
          -1

          @knackers:
          i dont think it justifies what you said
          this stuff is unprovable and never observed. there are no real repeatable tests but there is a lot of speculation
          many unanswered questions such as why some bodies spin the opposite way against the law of momentum

          http://creation.com/stars-dont-form-naturally
          http://creation.com/closer-look-at-star-formation
          http://creation.com/stellar-evolution-and-the-problem-of-the…

        • knackers on 13/02/2017 - 18:40

          @thelastnoob: let me get this straight.. "I don't believe in gravity or star formation(despite the hubble photos) …so therefore god must've created a female from a man's rib (for which i cannot provide any evidence)".

          Good luck getting through life, you're going to be taken advantage of.

        • thelastnoob on 13/02/2017 - 18:53

          @knackers:
          Gravity is real and provable and testable
          Star formation is not proven see the links I sent
          Dark matter and dark energy are unproven never observed
          At least I know when human life begins

        • knackers on 13/02/2017 - 19:10
          -1

          @thelastnoob: I'm glad you're finally conceding gravity is real. Star formation happens when clouds of hydrogen clump together, the clumping process is due to gravity.

          Stop filtering your searches through creation.com, you're going to rob yourself from a more robust and comprehensive understanding of reality.

        • brococonut on 19/02/2017 - 22:30

          So I agree there is gravity but where did the balance of energy. There is a need to have equal and opposite energy to create things. Explain this. There is an energy there before gravity where did it come from?

          The hubble telescope shows some things but does not explain where the energy came before things happenned.

      • dannyhc on 15/02/2017 - 08:34

        Yeah Flat Earth I mean really if you could see photos and real science experiments that prove that it is in fact flat and always has been and the Joke been on you for centuries. Once you realise you've been lied to your whole life with what the system of Satan teaches whose only goal is that your soul continues it's natural trajectory of being placed in eternal punishment. Then really why would you believe anything that the system teaches? Go check out Joshua Nowicki photos, read a King James Bible, and wake up.

        • knackers on 15/02/2017 - 13:46

          are you mentally retarded?

        • dannyhc on 15/02/2017 - 15:04

          no but thanks for your concern, however someone who is legitimately cursed with retardation will have a better shot at eternal security than you ever will.. 2Tim.3 1.[7] Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

        • King Tightarse on 15/02/2017 - 16:47

          @knackers:
          Sweet trolling. Can't belive he even managed to type this out without thinking he had gone too far.
          Amazing

        • knackers on 15/02/2017 - 19:50

          @dannyhc: Eternityyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy… can you imagine the first 100,000 yrs..and the next 1 billion yrs.. sounds like hell to me. I rather live a fulfilled life here on earth, the only life I know. It's finite nature makes it profoundly more valuable. Eternal bliss is an oxymoron.

        • dannyhc on 15/02/2017 - 20:22

          Scrubbing toilets in Heavens mansions is far better than suffering the whole body on Fire for all eternity. Your life on earth is filled with suffering also in case you hadn't noticed, it's a complex degrading process called death, one day making it to the toilet on time will become a milestone for you. Your pride and dignity will be stripped from you and you'll become a shadow of your former self. Jesus is angry with the wicked every day, this world only has the message of lollipops and rainbows the truth sets you free. Prov.26 [28] A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin.

        • knackers on 15/02/2017 - 23:10

          @dannyhc: You poor thing.. you really believe in the worst fairytale ever told.

    • EightImmortals on 13/02/2017 - 19:03

      heh, one of the worlds leading creation mobs is Australian..I wonder if they're still around?

      (yep, they are: http://creation.com/creation-magazine )

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join