Comments of chapter undefined of See, You Are In A Different World

OK, so, yea, no. Nice effort trying to conciliante science and religion, but still no. I don't know where to start. As such, I will begin by apologizing. I am a soffist and love debate by nature. I am also an engineer student and a science enthusiasts. I am also Chistian. First, the Creation according to the Bible can't be said to be a theory. This is purely a linguistic argument, but you see, Christian, at least some (The Creation is part of the Book of Genesis, which does not hold an important place in Chistian culture. It is from the Old Testament and basically we have that in common with the Torah) belive that the Creation is absolute truth. For it to be a theory, it means that it may be true and we will try to check if it is. Basically no one see the Creation as a theory, from Christians to scientist, as there is absolutely nothing that could hint at it being true, going from earth age compared to the scripture that make it too young (forgot actual number, but Bible does give like 6000 years to the Earth?). We have countless evidence that Earth is way older. Now, for linking the seven days to phenomenon, this is pure sofistry, and a soffist is speaking. First day, you are right. Considering the eventuality of a Big Bang, then we would have a super massive singularity such that light will not escape from it, and as such, the surroundings would be absent of light and counsided as 'dark'. But the rest, damn. Sun and star formed before earth, which does not goes by the book. Oceans and atmosphere formed roughly (oceans may be later than atmosphere, water from comète and so on) at the same time as earth, although under different forms and compositions. Once again, disagreeing with the Bible. After billions of years, when atmosphere and oceans stabilized, somehow life apperad. Starting from unicellular organisms in the oceans. Bible said plant first, but remember that under the theory that there is an unique primal ancestor, wa and plants are family, so truth is bactéries and aquatic life forms came before plants. Then, your greatest offence, the one that made me write this comment, was when you basically said 'humans are made of atoms, and mud is made of atoms, so we can make humans with mud'. Damn. Let us stay onjective. So you now, there are 230+ atoms. Mud do not contain them all. For example mud does not contain carbon (except if there are leaves or insect in it, but that's not mud), and while this does not seems to be too bad, we are carbonated life forms, basically you can't make a human without carbon, it is like the foundations of our bodies. So mud can't make humans on the atomic scale. I don't know much about quantic physics, but I know that the string theory is basically saying that all atoms have an unique common denominator, few degrees down the line. So if you have unlimited powers and if string theory is true, then you can indeed make human from mud. Sting theory is too slimsy, so this cannot be taken into account, and no, 'what if' does not work in scientific conversations. That was all. I vented my indignation. I am aware that a book does not necessarily reflect it's writers view, so do not feel offended. Although I myself do not write, I am a reader, and as will say some words as such. Long Prologues are boring, especially if you try to start by abstract concepts. I do not see how that take it's place in the story, as it clearly isn't and info dump, so Yea, Prologues are a no-no, or at least, I belive they should act as a first person (basically MC view) synopsis. In a detective novel, the prologue is some time a description of the novel's crime from the victim, acting as a teaser for the reader. This may be harsh, but what I mean is don't write long and boring controversial stuff (don't touch religions, tricky subject) that is unrelated to the story

wewewe

See this! I just gifted the story: Balloon

See this! I just gifted the story: Balloon

Intriguing

Thx for the chap

Good book