You're entitled to your own absurd opinion on the Creation, even though Creationism is a relatively new notion and early Church Fathers didn't even take it to be a literal explanation of creation. You're entitled to judge everything by an irrational standard (thereby once again shitcanning the notion of scientism). To the extent someone is a blind adherent of scientism (which is taking science out of the realm of science and into the realm of belief) then we should all laugh at that person. However, most people who "adhere to science" do not adhere to scientism, so on the basis of points (3) and (4) Jenner is perfectly capable of doing whatever she wants to. Judge not, lest ye be judged. We'll all see what happens after we die, unless there is nothing after we die, in which case we won't. Either way, there's nothing to be gained by bitching about Jenner's life choices. They're hers to make, not yours.
Several on this very site, and RAFO is a minuscule slice of the world. I like pointing out that if their conclusion were accurate it would also be moot, because it would be preclude persuading anyone of anything since there would be no "anyone," only states in a purely material continuum. While the debate would then be as inevitable as all real events, neither it (nor anything) is SIGNIFICANT unless they are mistaken.
Aaaand an "Oldbie" defriended me on FB for making that point a couple years ago after he quoted Epicurus' definition of the Problem of Evil as if it were decisively irrefutable, and there were not an entire philosophical discipline offering multiple potential explanations. Dogmatic zealotry is a human rather than religious trait, but documenting that for "scientisms" acolytes deserves hazardous duty pay.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.