Same difference.

Yesterday I managed to make my greenhouse not green. It took some time to clear all the algae from the panels but now it lets light inside far more effectively than it used to. Just in time too – today the entire thing has been well rinsed with rain. It did leave me knackered but looking at it now, it was worth it.

Back to the theoretical stuff. This is not coming out in order because I don’t have it ordered in my mind. That’s part of the reason for this digression. Another part is for you folk to tell me which bits I have wrong. Thanks for all the corrections so far – the bits I have wrong are most likely the reason I have never managed to fit this all together.

It’s not like a book, It’s more like a thesis. Get all the ideas and part-ideas sorted out individually then see if they can fit together. Here, then, is another bit.

We have established that the universe is a pretty damn strange place. It started out very strange indeed and has become even stranger since. Things happen that should not happen. Gravity appears linked to matter we cannot see, even though the amount of gravity involved suggests something very big indeed. Then there is that eternal and probably eternally unanswerable question of where all that stuff in the sky came from.

Religion says it was deliberately created. Science says it just happened. There is no real difference between those two statements other than to compare it to a piece of ordnance that was deliberately exploded, or the same piece of ordnance that was left to become unstable and explode spontaneously.

It’s not a perfect analogy – the bomb in question would have had to be created by someone, and science does not accept that any intelligent entity was involved in the Big Bang.

It’s not the spontaneous creation of all matter in the universe in an instant that divides science and religion. It’s simply a question of who lit the fuse.

Then there is the eternal evolution vs. perfect creation argument. Evolution is not the issue. The age of the earth is the issue. Why not go after geology or astrophysics, both of which set the age of the earth and solar system in the billions of years? Why only evolution? Evolution is just the easy target. It is a theory with holes in it and will always have holes in it unless someone happens across layers of rock strata with perfectly preserved transitional forms, one above the other. Plate tectonics, geological faults, migration of evolving species and many other factors mean that that is unlikely to ever happen – and it would not convince the creationists even if it did.

Plate tectonics is also denied by creationism for the same reason – they do not accept that enough time has passed for the continents to have moved all that much. That they are moving now is undeniable. It’s measurable. The rate of movement means they haven’t moved very far in 6000 years.

I have had this discussion with the Jehovah’s Witnesses who call sometimes. I used to give them copies of New Scientist in exchange for the magazines they gave me, but I stopped buying New Scientist a long time ago, since what it now contains is often based more on faith than the Watchtower. They claim that their version of 6000 years only applies to Earth, and the billions of years of the Universe is of no concern to them. But that is a problem.

Did God create the entire universe then just sit and stare at it for billions of years before remembering ‘Oh! I haven’t created Earth! That was the whole point of all this’. So then he creates an Earth that appears to be billions of years old and fills the ground with fossils of all the things he intended to make but has no time now. That does not make sense to me.

The 6000 years is the number of a man. There are no dates in the Bible. We can pretty accurately date Christ to roughly 2000 years ago because that’s when the Romans were in that part of the world. They kept records of everything, even the number of nails used. They do not have a record of Christ but then to them he was just another nailed-up guy among thousands.

Genesis, though, is a short summary of a very long timespan indeed. It goes from the creation of everything right through Adam’s membership of Eden being revoked, up to a world where angels have been diddling with the daughters of men and a world so full of wicked people that Noah had to build a boat to save a few from the flood.

Back then, according to Genesis, people lived for hundreds of years. Eventually God had enough of us hanging around for centuries and placed a limit of 120 years on us. Before that there were people living almost a thousand years. Now that part does make sense.

Adam had no navel. A mistake shown in many a portrait, including the ‘Pull my finger’ one  on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel. He was not born, he was made. Eve had no navel either. Both were made to be immortal and were in this place called Eden which was not the whole Earth, but a small part of it. Between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, as I recall.

Interesting aside – Science places the origin of modern humans in north east Africa, not all that far from where the Bible puts Eden. If science had placed the origin of humanity in, say, Peru, then it would defy creationism. But it doesn’t.

Back to Adam. He was immortal while in Eden. Seasons did not change there – he didn’t need clothing so it certainly wasn’t like Scotland. He would have not counted years. As an immortal in an unchanging perfect environment, why would he? How could he, he had not yet eaten of the Tree of Knowledge so could he even write or add up? What would he write, and to whom?

So you have religion inside Eden and science outside it. Huge lizards develop and die out. Massive dragonflies and scorpions roam the land. Adam knows nothing of this. What can be happening? God has only made one man, he can let the life on the rest of the Earth develop as it chooses. It’s an interesting spectacle but of no consequence to his chosen favourites.

Adam and Eve would not have aged until they were expelled from Eden and even then, Adam lived for a few hundred years (I’ll look it up when I dig my Bibles out of the pile of books). I once read a paper by a theologian who plotted the ages of the Biblical characters. They all lived a long time at first but the ages followed an exponential decline before flatlining at an average of about 70 and maximun of 120. Exactly what you would expect if an immortal lost his immortality and his children interbred with mortals.

Let’s play Devil’s advocate. I like that game.

If Eden was real, it’s still there. I explain why you can’t find it with the ‘Hiding’ in ‘Jessica’s Trap’. Let’s assume it was real. Adam could have been in there for a million years before God ripped out a rib and made Eve. He must have made reproductive parts at some point too because Adam had little use for one when he was first made. It would have just been a thing that got snagged on brambles.

Adam and Eve could have then been in Eden for millions more years while God experimented with letting life run its own course on the rest of the planet. He would have seen the dinosaurs get too big and too troublesome and wiped therm out with a well-aimed rock. He would have seen the apes starting to develop along human lines and might not have liked that very much. Another rock? No, he had a better idea.

He sent Serpent (not Satan, his time came later) to tempt Eve into eating from the Tree of Knowledge (a sort of primordial Internet) and that gave him a reason to send his perfect humans out into the rest of the world and wipe out these damn Neanderthals that threatened to spoil his plan. The rest of the Bible makes clear that this was the plan all along, that God knew perfectly well what was coming and that can only be because God planned it that way.

Then we have war in Heaven. Why? Well, suppose God had let the angels play around on the rest of the planet while he concentrated on Eden. Now he’s sending Adam and Eve to sort out their proto-humans and the angels aren’t happy. Some rebel. One in particular tries to claim dominance over the world he used to be allowed to play in. This one causes so much trouble that God eventually says ‘Okay, I will let you have dominance for a while, then I am going to kill you and your followers’.

The angel, Lucifer (or Azazael in Enoch), agrees because angels are not really all that much brighter than humans and he thinks that in a few thousand years he will find a way to win. No chance. Any created thing can be disabled by its creator. It’s like your vaccuum cleaner thinking ‘One day he will forget to pull out the plug and then the carpet is mine’.

Adam’s age in the Bible can only refer to the years after he was booted out of Eden. Immortals do not count years. The 6000 years (based on an edited Bible too, since the early Church left out a good few books under Constantine) can only apply to the time Adam left Eden.

As for evolution, surely any God would give his life-creation the ability to adapt and change as its environment changed? Then there are the animals. Adam named all the animals in Eden but not one of those animals was booted out with him. The ones out here are not the ones that were in there. We can have no idea what animals were in there.

Well, except the snake. Who was damned to crawl on his belly and have no limbs. To which he would have responded ‘Um… I’m a snake already.’

The cat is not yet among the pigeons with this one. So far the cat has only sent the pigeons a few nasty notes. It will, no doubt, be enough to get some blood pressures rising.



43 thoughts on “Same difference.

  1. I have a problem with evolution theory, either one species gives birth to a completely different species and I’m not aware of it having happened in recent years (Which it would if it was an ongoing thing). Or evolution is a gradual process, but if this is the case, where are all the missing links as it were?

    We still have fish, which supposedly evolved into reptiles, and we still have reptiles which supposedly evolved into birds etc. As these creatures exist still in their own right, does it also not stand to reason that those intermediate species (Missing links) should also exist?

    Genetics also works in reverse too, (Having had some experience of livestock) If I buy some Loman Brown chickens (Battery hens), which are a 3 way hybrid cross, and try to breed from them, then technically they should breed to type (ie breed other Loman Brown hens) but they don’t, the progeny are all shapes, sizes and colours.

    Basically you get genetic throwbacks to the original “Jungle fowl” from which they’re derived. So why don’t reptiles for example give birth to fish or any of the intermediate species in between?


    • “We still have fish, which supposedly evolved into reptiles, and we still have reptiles which supposedly evolved into birds etc.”

      No. “Fish” did not evolve into Reptiles. Not ALL fish evolved into reptiles. “A” Fish evolved into a reptile, which eventually evolved into all modern reptiles.

      Many missing links do or did exists, we have fossils of several proto birds, archeopteryx (sp?) and others, there are proto amphibians walking around brackish water around the world, fishes with basic legs. (

      Evolution is a gradual process, one species does not give birth to another, one particular example of one species gives birth to a mutant offspring, if that mutation gives some kind of advantage (in terms of food gathering, or fighting for a mate) – then that particular offspring may well live to breed and pass on it’s mutant genes to many offspring of it’s own. It’s offspring -could- eventually out-compete the ‘original’ species and replace it, or it may co-exist. At some point down the chain the two lines become separate species when they are no longer genetically close enough to produce viable offspring together.

      It’s pretty unlikely a reptile would give birth to a fish because there is a huge amount of genetic gap between a modern reptile and it’s last fish ancestor.


        • I get the genetic mutation thing, but what you’re describing is “Adaption” not “Evolution”, there’s a big difference.

          We use the term “Species” (quite wrongly in my view) when in reality we mean either breed or family. For example, chickens and geese are all birds, but they can’t inter-breed.

          In Texas, they cross bred “Hereford” cattle with the local “Texas Longhorns” because the Hereford is the breed of cattle that can go the longest without water. The Longhorns on the other hand can happily live off the scrubland vegitation that a pure bred Hereford would just die off. That doesn’t ofcourse mean that those desired genes are passed to *ALL* progeny. But although this cross has the beneficial genes required for the terrain, they are not a separate species.


          • Evolution requires the development of a new species that cannot interbreed with its orginator.

            The ‘Pepper Moth’ story brought up by amateur evolutionists is not evolution at all.


            • Speciation certainly requires non-interbreeding capability.

              The ‘adaption’ Budvar talks about is just semantics – evolution is the process of survival of the fittest, a fit making mutation is evolution – just one step maybe but evolution in the strictest meaning of the word. Yes it takes several steps over a very long time (usually a long time) for full speciation to occur but that doesn’t mean the individual steps to get there are not evolution in action, of course they are.

              I’d argue the Pepper moth is precisely evolution in action – sure they haven’t split into separate species yet but given enough time they probably will. The fittest (most appropriately coloured) are statistically more likely to survive to pass on their genes to the next generation. You can’t logically argue that is not “survival of the fittest” in action ?


              • The pepper moth won’t split into separate species now, because the environmental pressure that favoured the black ones is no more.

                However, I agree that if the Midlands had remained covered in industrial soot, there would have been a physical separation between the moths there and those in non-sooty parts of the country, and that could have led to speciation.

                But it didn’t happen, so it’s not proof.


  2. According to God, who often pops over for coffee (As he patiently explains, BC is Gods own country- ergo why shouldn’t he live here), the Universe is a bit of a complex accident involving some firmament, half a bottle of Uisgebeatha and 20 Rothmans, and the bit with Adam, Eve and the snake is an allegorical in-joke.

    When I pointed out that the whiskey and cigarettes couldn’t have possibly existed at moment of creation, being inventions of humans, he asserted that since he’s the supreme being the normal rules of causality don’t apply.


  3. Creationism says that God made aardvarks and goats and cows and sheep and chickens and pigs and pandas and lettuces and anchovies and pit vipers and fire ants and asparagus etc etc.

    Science says the universe exploded from a point in space and eventually coalesced into what astronomers see today, and on our planet at least eventually life spontaneously started (possibly arriving by comet) which eventually evolved into the plethora of life we see today.

    If we gloss over who/what created the pre-packed universe, all ready to go – (in case of emergency break glass for a new universe) – of the two options I find the second far more impressive. A Smart god (or the 11th dimensional alien, whatever) wouldn’t want to sit there and fiddle about making all the different types of weevil by hand. Much more sensible to build the universe with natural selection built in and let it happen naturally.

    Personally I like the idea of a universe which expands to a point then starts contracting back on itself – that answers the question where did the matter come from for the big bang – it was there from the previous contraction. Perhaps it’s been expanding and contracting ‘for ever’ – if ‘for ever’ means anything once you step outside the universe… Supposedly the measurements show the universe won’t contract but I’m not convinced yet.


  4. Firstly, apologies to anyone who has left comments for me in previous threads. Being in the flag trade, these are pretty much my busiest few weeks every four years.

    Just to correct Laurie Knight: Archaeopteryx is a fully-formed bird, with wings, feathers and avian lungs. Even some evolutionists admit this. It is probably the best known ‘transitional’ form but is no such thing. This is just one aspect which shows how shaky the Theory really is.

    If the Theory were true there would be too many intermediates in the fossil record to, erm, record. Evolutionists today have the same problem as Darwin, who knew that the scarcity of such creatures was a major drawback. Over 150 years later – the disputed intermediates have not turned up in the numbers expected and will never be found because they never existed!

    Yes, we are supposed to believe that a fish developed legs and walked onto the land. It would have to have developed all the separate parts of legs, complete with blood vessels and nerves, etc., and linked up to the brain and cardiovascular system.

    How likely is that? As the Theory works on totally random mutations, I don’t think there’s enough time in all the universe even for a fish to grow legs, never mind all the millions of other marvels which are supposed to have magically happened.

    And a change in the fish, like the beginnings of legs – wee stubbly limb-like appendages, would be an evolutionary disadvantage, so that specimen (freaky fish) would find it less likely to pass on its genes. It probably wouldn’t be able to swim properly and potential mates would be nudging each other with their fins saying, “I don’t much fancy yours”.

    Ms Knight adds, “Much more sensible to build the universe with natural selection built in and let it happen naturally.”

    Which is exactly why we have evolution and natural selection. Not ‘macro’ evolution (molecules-to-man), but the ability for the original created ‘kinds’ to spread throughout the earth by adapting to various climates and food supply.


    • XX Yes, we are supposed to believe that a fish developed legs and walked onto the land. It would have to have developed all the separate parts of legs, complete with blood vessels and nerves, etc., and linked up to the brain and cardiovascular system. XX

      O.K. Not fish, but Tadpoles appear to be able to achieve similar when they turn into French food.

      So do Catapillars.

      And THEY don’t need a billion years to do it.


    • First of all it’s Mr Knight!

      “Unlike all living birds, Archaeopteryx had a full set of teeth, a rather flat sternum (“breastbone”), a long, bony tail, gastralia (“belly ribs”), and three claws on the wing which could have still been used to grasp prey (or maybe trees). However, its feathers, wings, furcula (“wishbone”) and reduced fingers are all characteristics of modern birds.”

      So yes a long way towards becoming a bird. But dude, it had teeth. That ain’t no chicken!!

      Legs? That’s the best you can come up with? 😉 Surely the eye is a better example of irreducible complexity?

      Legs are pretty simple, especially for something munging around on the edge of water. If you don’t like the mudskipper as an intermediate then check out the walking catfish mentioned in another comment here. It doesn’t even have legs (just regular fishy fins) but it manages to perambulate. Legs are simple man!!

      For a species living in shallow, potentially disappearing water, having fins even slightly optimised for walking would be a significant life saver, when that puddle dries up.

      But of course the eye argument is also lost for you because it’s now clear how the eye evolved from basic photoreceptors, to basic photoreceptors in a shallow pit, to a deep pit, to a deep pit with a protective cover, to a deep pit with a protective cover that also works as a lens, and so on.

      It’s not irreducible at all. None of it it.

      And recent evidence shows these steps can happen surprisingly quickly, I presume you are aware of the Italian wall lizards? They’ve changed significantly in a few decades.


  5. ” It will, no doubt, be enough to get some blood pressures rising”

    Hardly. As I have said before, most of what you come ‘up with’ wouldn’t raise the heart rate of anyone who actually knows anything about the bible. For example, there is in the OT several bits that *might* *possibly* indicate a war between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals (there have even been popular books written about it I believe, M’Ludd). I don’t recall off the top of my shaven head who first suggested in *recent times* a Jessica’s Trap style Eden but they did…and I dare say one of the venerable Church Fathers had the same idea-buried somewhere in some weighty tome of ball breaking, puppy killing, wordyness.


  6. Now to reply to Mr Leg-iron. May your greenhouse produce grub worthy of your efforts.

    The two stories are staggeringly similar, where nothing becomes everything in the blinking of an eye. Sometimes evolutionists make me laugh. God spoke and the universe came into existence from nothing, but the evolutionists (because they have a duty to materialism) have to give it an initial physical presence, so they tell us that all of the matter in the entire universe was once crammed into the size of a subatomic particle.

    Hardly surprising it exploded.

    Hands up who believes this?

    But you’re right when you say it’s not just about evolution (of life). There is the evolution of the nebulae into galaxies into stars and planets and then the evolving of the earth into a habitable planet.

    “The age of the earth is the issue. Why not go after geology or astrophysics,”

    The billions of years (as I’ve often said) comes from 18th Century Scottish amateur geologist, James Hutton, who sat around gazing at landscapes and just decided one day that the processes we see shaping the land today (mainly erosion) are responsible for every geological feature, therefore it would have taken millions of years for a tiny river to carve out a huge canyon, for example.

    It’s known as Uniformitarianism. It is not at all scientific and anyway, we know there have been catastrophes, like the ‘well-aimed rock’ which allegedly wiped out the dinosaurs and the supervolcanoes, thankfully all dormant at present.

    The idea of the Theory of Evolution over billions of years was made possible, not through evidence from fossils or living things and the subsequent rational thought (considered the preserve of evolutionists and atheists by evolutionists and atheists), but off the back of an unscientific philosophy proposed as fact by an amateur who was actually a physician by profession. No comment on doctors! That would set me off on tangents for the rest of the day just from my own experience and those of friends and family.

    “Adam named all the animals in Eden but not one of those animals was booted out with him.”

    Chapter and verse, please?!

    “Back then, according to Genesis, people lived for hundreds of years. Eventually God had enough of us hanging around for centuries and placed a limit of 120 years on us. Before that there were people living almost a thousand years. Now that part does make sense.”

    It certainly does. The decline in lifespans is very scientific. Obviously the human and animal genomes were perfect in Eden, which is part of the reason there was no death or disease. On expulsion, we might assume that the mutations which produce illnesses gradually built up, so in the first thousand years, there weren’t many, but by the time the Law was given (Leviticus) people were then banned from marrying a close relative, because by this stage, there were too many things which could go wrong from inheriting the same faulty genes when offspring would be far more likely to get the perfect back-up copy from parents who were not closely related.

    After the Tower of Babel incident there was a further sharp decline in lifespans because (more science) people wandered off in different directions, speaking different languages, to repopulate the earth after the Flood, so these initially small populations became isolated/insular and there was less genetic ‘mix’ and also, as previously said, as time goes on, there is probably what John Sanford, a plant geneticist, calls ‘genetic entropy’ happening. In other words, the genome is becoming increasingly corrupted with time.

    For me it all stacks up to serious evidence for a mighty, wonderful, amazing Creator.


    • “Adam named all the animals in Eden but not one of those animals was booted out with him.”

      Chapter and verse, please?!

      Can’t tonight, it’s whisky night but I will. All that left Eden was Adam and Efve and I’m not sure Serpent was oficially booted.

      The angel with the flaming sword (Uriel?) was left to guard the gates. None shall pass.

      Either way.


  7. Just a couple of thoughts on evolution: Evidence for the theory comes from many strands of our knowledge base. Evidence in geological strata is just one such strand. However, detractors/creationists are also quick to point out the lack of evidence for intermediate forms in the rocks etc.

    Here is another strand of evidence of which I have personal experience. During the course of my work I often have to examine human chromosomes down the microscope. Humans have a total of 46 chromosomes while the Pongids (Gorillas) have 48. Sometime in our evolutionary history a common ancestor to the great apes and humans started to diverge. Please note, I am not saying that humans are descended from the great apes, only that we share a common evolutionary ancestor. Two chromosomes fused to give rise to 46 chromosomes. This branch eventually gave rise to modern man. When I examine human chromosome 2, I can still see the point of fusion manifest by the presence of a gap (fragile site) on the chromosome at the point of fusion. In apes I can place two chromosomes together and reproduce chromosome 2 in humans; the banding pattern concurs. Also the genes and the arrangement of genes are highly similar. The presence of this non-staining gap in human chromosome 2 stands as testament to our common evolutionary origins.

    Evolutionary theory has stood for over 160 years. It elegantly explains how species change over time. It is a causal mechanism and not dependent on the presence of an invisible deity, causing things to happen, by unknown means. Until something comes along, which explains our natural world better, I will continue to give credence to evolutionary theory.


    • Yeah but Christianity has stood for 2000 years so longevity of the theory is not a good argument.

      Evolution has happened and continues to happen but evolution per se is not the creatoinist’s issue.

      Their probelm is time.


  8. Have any of you read ‘Colony Earth’ by Richard Mooney?
    It is a very intelligent and lucid theory about the origins of man and the Earth as we know it today, by way of interpretation of the Bible, ancient writings, and evidence that has been found around us.
    I thoroughly recommend it!


  9. Bah!!!
    All this is a bunch of mumbled ramblings by inbred mental midgets.

    T’is well known that matings between siblings or close relatives produce deficient offspring.

    For tens of thousands of years, our ancestors were widely separated small groups of critters living in caves or small camps.

    When people got the urge to mate, they did not travel afar in dangerous country to do so.
    Not when brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, or uncles were right there close at hand.

    We are the result of thousands of generations of deficient critters.

    As for fossils, they produce babbling based on a possibly very tiny group of all the possible organisms that ever were.

    How many untold millions of fossils lie beneath thousands of feet of earth and rock and will never be discovered?

    If ‘Evolution’ is a science, does it predict which mutations will occur, or when?
    Where are it’s math formulas?

    When you consider the number of extinction events, mass and limitied, that have occurred; whatever life forms are on the Earth, are just a matter of luck and chance.

    How many of mans’ years are there in a God’s day?
    A billion?

    Does the term ‘God’s days’ have a rational meaning?

    What has happened in the 85% of the Universe’s matter that is unknown Dark Matter?

    Does untold generations of inbreeding explain many of the nannies of this world?


    • “T’is well known that matings between siblings or close relatives produce deficient offspring.”.

      Actually no it doesn’t per se’, it brings out the best of the best as well as worst of the worst. The problem lies with in breeding of those that don’t measure up to type.


  10. The problem with which people can’t grapple is the timescales.
    Four billion years is an unimaginable number of generations. If we talk “bacteria”, it’s about 70 trillion individual cell-divisions all in a row. The average bacterial genome contains between one and six million actual DNA base-pairs (some contain a lot less and reproduce even faster, but the ancestral wild and more-or-less-harmless E coli which all the journos love to hate contains just under 5 million in 4,099 genes.)

    Until socialist puritans got their teeth into humanity’s ankle, about 600 years ago, the average hominid generation time was about 12-13 years. (It’s still less than that for chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans.) I’m not saying that that’s “right” as an idea to be encouraged, but it might indicate perahps to creationists why all human remains all look like modern humans, even back to 40,000++ years or so – less than three and a half thousand generations.

    As to fossils – fossilisation is a very, very, very (extremely very) rare occurrence. Most creatures that die don’t fossilise, for they aren’t suddenly buried alive, really really really really deeply, and hard, in 5,000-foot mudslides and groundflows.

    Everything that dies on the surface or under water, decays aerobically or perhaps (if it is unlucky) anaerobically, rather fast, like in weeks or months. Nothing is left except hard body-parts if any, and these also go rather soon – in the blink of an eye – under the same conditions, like under 1 to 2,000 years. What the “British GCSE syllabuses” tell us all about fossilisation is all lies. (Read it up.) It makes it look common when it is not at all.

    There are not enough hominid skeletal fossil parts, fragments, whole bones, teeth or other bits of shrapnel to fill a school bus, even if we integrated the entire collection. Humans don’t fossilise well because they are/were clever, and if they saw a pyroclastic mudslide, they screamed…. RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.