I have recently met this wonderful girl who is literally the same person as me. We like all the same things, and think the same things and fit together like bread and butter. However...she is an atheist. Now this personally doesnt bother me, as I love discussing with people from other viewpoints. Most of my friends are atheist or agnostic as well due to the field im in.

I know many people who are successful Christians married to atheists (My grandfather for example, is a diehard christian, while my grandmother is an atheist). But I just want to make sure its not a sin. I dont feel any conviction, and instead almost feel a "go ahead" in my gut. But that may very well be my own hopes. Can anyone answer this?

The commandment 1 Timothy 2:9 is just sorta thrown in there:

> ... the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, (NRSV)

1 Peter 3:3 is just one commandment in a longer chapter about how women should obey their husbands:

> (Women,) do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing; (NRSV)

Some translations will translate braiding as elaborate hairstyles. As a Christian girl I am wondering whether or not this commandment still aplies.

No, this is not clickbait, an evolutionary biologist truly did claim that phylogenetics is a pseudoscience in this 2015 paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273113643_Structuralism_in_Phylogenetic_Systematics

>"Phylogenetics projects an aura of the exactitude and certainty of mathematics. It is, however, not consistent because its apparently fundamental patterns are generated only by sister-group analysis."

>..."It rejects empiricism in rejecting or at least relegating non-phylogenetically informative data and in relying on unnameable “shared ancestors” as hidden causes."

>"The "tree" of life has no scientific realism or theoretic substance* (i.e., cladograms are non-haecceitistic) because nodes are not diagnosably named, and the dendrogram is just a visual aid for often complex evidential patterns of nested exemplars. The introduction of other, less certain data or theories (e.g., from morphometrics, fossils, cytology, biogeography, chemistry, development) as additional evidence for scientific induction of evolutionary process involving descent with modification of taxa would collapse the pattern-based statistical certainty of molecular cladograms. Thus, in cladistics, all data outside the data set that are relevant to macroevolutionary theory are “mapped” on the dendrogram or in some other way relegated to the fundamental structure of the cladogram. *This is not science."

Now, obviously, this is completely ridicilous. What do they mean by "the nodes are not named"? Do they expect them to come with a little nametag? And yeah, just because the dendrogram removes some data doesn't mean it isnt scientific. If it tried to represent all data, it would just be a giant şist of numbers.

In Leviticus 20:9, it states: (NRSV)

>All who curse (their) father or mother shall be put to death; having cursed (their) father or mother, their blood is upon them.

Like, couldn't tou try spanking them first?

To me, there is NO WAY to justify this passage.

A similar passage exists in Exodus 21:15

Exodus 21:15 states: (NRSV)

>Whoever strikes (their) father or mother shall be put to death.

There is also no way to defend this passage IMO. You could try putting them in house arrest first.

These are u/EyedPeace 's arguments against evolution Click here. Here is my paraphrase of his arguments:

1. Even though the LTEE has been running for so 75K generations, and millions of mutations have occurred A) no new complex systems, B) no new protein folding patterns, C) new protein functions have emerged.

• 2. In the LTEE, A) we see the majority of mutations have degraded the genome. B) We even see the bacteria have lost their flagellum.
• 3. Take a look at how antibiotic resistance develops, A) Bacteria are resistant because their transport proteins or enzyme activities are eliminated.
• 4. Take a look at how resistance to viruses develops. A) Through mutations that eliminate key proteins, which is why viruses can no longer attach and enter the cell.

For argument 1A, Im not sure what you mean by "complex". If you mean irreducibly complex, then you are wrong. The ability to digest citrate in aerobic conditions meets Behe's definitions of irred comp. Source: Here

For argument 1B, I am not sure what you mean by "new fold pattern".

For argument 1C, this is probably false. This source found several *possible* instances of de novo gene birth. (We are not sure yet).

For argument 2A, this is straight-up false. Dr. Lenski himself explaining the mutations.

For argument 2B, keep in mind the bacteria didn't have to search hard for their food, and thus didnt require a flagellum.

For argument 3A, Here is a creationist channel making that same argument and Dan Stern Cardinale refuting it.

Finally for argument 4A, while some do that, others don't.

I dont get the appeal in admitting that I am fundamentalky broken from birth and that somebody else needs to help me. How is Joshua of Bethelhem Nazareth going to help me anyway? Especially not when the alleged reason that I needhelp is because of a fable that involves golem spells like in Pinocchio, magically enchanted fruit like in Snow White, and talking snakes like in The Jungle Book.

I dont fet the appeal in admitting that I am fundamentalky broken from birth and that somebody else needs to help me. How is Joshua of Bethelhem Nazareth going to help me anyway? Especially not when the alleged reason that I needhelp is because of a fable that involves golem spells like in Pinocchio, magically enchanted fruit like in Snow White, and talking snakes like in The Jungle Book.

Also, people do not raise from the dead. Period. After 3 days a lot of his cells would have decomposed.