Simple Question to Creationists

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pitar's picture
ILQ, you really need to stop

ILQ, you really need to stop professing knowledge and just stick with your faith. Just tell everyone your god created all that is sentient or otherwise and you're good to go.

The holes in our knowledge can be filled now with conjured up answers or later through empirical discovery. This is the obvious thing about attaining the knowledge we seek. Time will provide. It is better to grow rich slowly.

Ilovequestions's picture
Pitar, I will try to profess

Pitar, I will try to profess knowledge (humbly) and stick with my faith at the same time. Countless people have done both, from some of the greatest philosophers/scientists of our time to many leaders :)

Pitar's picture
Regarding the Adam and Eve

Regarding the Adam and Eve seed, right. I think the traits of the various regional cultures providing stark distinctions might take a tad more than 7 millennial periods to develop but here I am professing some notion about that. Better stop now.

The Pragmatic's picture
"Simple deduction from my

ILoveQuestions

"Simple deduction from my premises, really. I believe the world used to be perfect. This includes genes."

In other words, this is your personal belief. It is not even found in the bible. Why then are you presenting it as facts?

"When the Bible was written, people had no clue about genes"

LoL, yes! I completely agree. That's exactly why it's never mentioned in any religious scriptures.

"there would be NO reason for God to explain why... His audience would've been instantly lost."

Really? So you're saying god couldn't get them to understand if he wanted to? We have the same brain as then, we were not unteachable back then. If god would just have educated them a bit, they would have learned quickly.

Leviticus 15:13?
Lets back it up a bit, to... let's go to Leviticus 14:3. It's really funny to read...

"3 and the priest hath gone out unto the outside of the camp, and the priest hath seen, and lo, the plague of leprosy hath ceased from the leper,
4 and the priest hath commanded, and he hath taken for him who is to be cleansed, t̲w̲o̲ c̲l̲e̲a̲n̲ l̲i̲v̲i̲n̲g̲ b̲i̲r̲d̲s̲,̲ a̲n̲d̲ c̲e̲d̲a̲r̲ w̲o̲o̲d̲,̲ a̲n̲d̲ s̲c̲a̲r̲l̲e̲t̲,̲ a̲n̲d̲ h̲y̲s̲s̲o̲p̲.
5 `And the priest hath commanded, and he hath s̲l̲a̲u̲g̲h̲t̲e̲r̲e̲d̲ t̲h̲e̲ o̲n̲e̲ b̲i̲r̲d̲ upon an earthen vessel, o̲v̲e̲r̲ r̲u̲n̲n̲i̲n̲g̲ w̲a̲t̲e̲r̲;
6 [as to] the living bird, he taketh it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and hath d̲i̲p̲p̲e̲d̲ t̲h̲e̲m̲ a̲n̲d̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ l̲i̲v̲i̲n̲g̲ b̲i̲r̲d̲ i̲n̲ t̲h̲e̲ b̲l̲o̲o̲d̲ o̲f̲ t̲h̲e̲ s̲l̲a̲u̲g̲h̲t̲e̲r̲e̲d̲ b̲i̲r̲d̲, over the running water,
7 and he hath s̲p̲r̲i̲n̲k̲l̲e̲d̲ o̲n̲ h̲i̲m̲ w̲h̲o̲ i̲s̲ t̲o̲ b̲e̲ c̲l̲e̲a̲n̲s̲e̲d̲ from the leprosy s̲e̲v̲e̲n̲ t̲i̲m̲e̲s̲, and hath pronounced him clean, and hath sent out the living bird on the face of the field."

"10 `And on the eighth day he taketh t̲w̲o̲ l̲a̲m̲b̲s̲, perfect ones, and o̲n̲e̲ e̲w̲e̲-̲l̲a̲m̲b̲, daughter of a year, a perfect one, and t̲h̲r̲e̲e̲ t̲e̲n̲t̲h̲ d̲e̲a̲l̲s̲ o̲f̲ f̲l̲o̲u̲r̲ [for] a present, mixed with oil, and one log of oil.
11 `And the priest who is cleansing hath caused the man who is to be cleansed to stand with them before Jehovah, at the opening of the tent of meeting,
12 and the priest hath taken the one he-lamb, and hath brought it near for a guilt-offering, also the log of oil, and hath waved them -- a wave offering before Jehovah.
13 `And he hath s̲l̲a̲u̲g̲h̲t̲e̲r̲e̲d̲ t̲h̲e̲ l̲a̲m̲b̲ in the place where he slaughtereth the sin-offering and the burnt-offering, in the holy place; for like the sin-offering the guilt-offering is to the priest; it [is] most holy.
14 `And the priest hath t̲a̲k̲e̲n̲ o̲f̲ t̲h̲e̲ b̲l̲o̲o̲d̲ of the guilt-offering, and the priest hath put o̲n̲ t̲h̲e̲ t̲i̲p̲ o̲f̲ t̲h̲e̲ r̲i̲g̲h̲t̲ e̲a̲r̲ of him who is to be cleansed, and o̲n̲ t̲h̲e̲ t̲h̲u̲m̲b̲ o̲f̲ h̲i̲s̲ r̲i̲g̲h̲t̲ h̲a̲n̲d̲, and o̲n̲ t̲h̲e̲ g̲r̲e̲a̲t̲ t̲o̲e̲ o̲f̲ h̲i̲s̲ r̲i̲g̲h̲t̲ f̲o̲o̲t̲;
15 and the priest hath taken of the log of oil, and hath poured on the left palm of the priest,
16 and the priest hath dipped his right finger in the oil which [is] on his left palm, and hath s̲p̲r̲i̲n̲k̲l̲e̲d̲ o̲f̲ t̲h̲e̲ o̲i̲l̲ w̲i̲t̲h̲ h̲i̲s̲ f̲i̲n̲g̲e̲r̲ s̲e̲v̲e̲n̲ t̲i̲m̲e̲s̲ b̲e̲f̲o̲r̲e̲ J̲e̲h̲o̲v̲a̲h̲.
17 `And of the residue of the oil which [is] on his palm, the priest putteth o̲n̲ t̲h̲e̲ t̲i̲p̲ o̲f̲ t̲h̲e̲ r̲i̲g̲h̲t̲ e̲a̲r̲ of him who is to be cleansed, and on the t̲h̲u̲m̲b̲ o̲f̲ h̲i̲s̲ r̲i̲g̲h̲t̲ h̲a̲n̲d̲, and on t̲h̲e̲ g̲r̲e̲a̲t̲ t̲o̲e̲ o̲f̲ h̲i̲s̲ r̲i̲g̲h̲t̲ f̲o̲o̲t̲, on the blood of the guilt-offering;
18 and the remnant of the oil which [is] on the palm of the priest, he putteth on the head of him who is to be cleansed, and the priest hath made atonement for him before Jehovah."

And then some more offerings, like pidgeons n' stuff. Then they clean a house, much in the same way.
The part you recommended, Leviticus 15:13:

"13 `And when he who hath the issue is clean from his issue, then he hath numbered to himself seven days for his cleansing, and hath washed his garments, and hath bathed his flesh with running water, and been clean.
14 `And on the eighth day he taketh to himself t̲w̲o̲ t̲u̲r̲t̲l̲e̲-̲d̲o̲v̲e̲s̲, or t̲w̲o̲ y̲o̲u̲n̲g̲ p̲i̲g̲e̲o̲n̲s̲, and hath come in before Jehovah unto the opening of the tent of meeting, and hath given them unto the priest;
15 and the priest hath made them, o̲n̲e̲ a̲ s̲i̲n̲-̲o̲f̲f̲e̲r̲i̲n̲g̲,̲ a̲n̲d̲ t̲h̲e̲ o̲n̲e̲ a̲ b̲u̲r̲n̲t̲-̲o̲f̲f̲e̲r̲i̲n̲g̲; and the priest hath made atonement for him before Jehovah, because of his issue."

These divine tips are just what you would expect if they were made up by superstitious bronze age people, stupid nonsense like offerings and splashing of blood 7 times, mixed with some better ideas.
It's not hard to think that they would have eventually noticed that washing and then making them go and live alone for 7 days, to be a good idea. If they came back and didn't have the sickness, it was Okay.

This is however NOT the kind of remedy you would expect the omniscient creator of the universe, would give to his people.

The Pragmatic's picture
ILQ, no justification reply

ILQ, no justification reply on blood splattering and burning of animals?

Ilovequestions's picture
@ The pragmatic

@ The pragmatic

Sorry! I got kinda busy so I couldn't respond right away. I'll go point by point.

1) "In other words, this is your personal belief. It is not even found in the bible. Why then are you presenting it as facts?"

No, the Bible makes it clear that the world was once perfect. By logical deduction, that means that genes used to be perfect, too.

2) "Really? So you're saying god couldn't get them to understand if he wanted to? We have the same brain as then, we were not unteachable back then. If god would just have educated them a bit, they would have learned quickly."

Haha, or better yet, He could've made us omniscient (all-knowing)! But He didn't.

Instead of giving them a science lesson, He just told them what they needed to know/do. I don't see the problem with that.

3) Haha, whenever non-Christians point out to the frivolity of some Old Testament customs, I just shake my head.

If you were God, you could have humans do anything you wanted them to in any way you wanted them to do it. That would be your right as God.

Many non-Christians scoff and say some of those traditions were all rubbish. I'm absolutely fine with that opinion :) Just know that God can want things exactly how He wants them, and that's His right. You'd be no different. You might want your breakfast brought to you on a silver plate when a plastic one would do. You might want your cups to be made of gold, when wood would do just as well.

Look at the frivolities of millionaires and billionaires... then take that up a notch and apply it to God. He can do whatever the heck He wants, however the heck He wants them done.

Do you see the point? If you were God, you would have some peculiarities/frivolities about you as well. That would be your right.

The Pragmatic's picture
@Ilovequestions

@Ilovequestions

"No, the Bible makes it clear that the world was once perfect. By logical deduction, that means that genes used to be perfect, too."

First, I'm having trouble finding where it actually says that the world was perfect. Do you have a reference to such a passage? And if it does indeed say that the world was perfect, you still insert something that it simply does not say: "By logical deduction, that means that genes used to be perfect, too."

That is still your personal opinion of what you want it to say.

"Instead of giving them a science lesson, He just told them what they needed to know/do. I don't see the problem with that."

There is no problem with that.
I'm merely pointing out that the bible does not say anything that could NOT have been made up by men at that time. No references to bacteria or viruses, nothing about genes or DNA, or any other knowledge that only god could have given them. In fact, the information found supports only the claim that the bible was written by men of that time. Like for example splashing blood on people and buildings "to clean" them.

"Do you see the point? If you were God, you would have some peculiarities/frivolities about you as well. That would be your right."

Yes, absolutely. I do see your point.
But I wasn't so much pointing out the "frivolity" of the rituals, but rather the pure ignorance of splashing blood from lambs and pigeons on people you are trying to clean, and to actually think that burning animals will help against leprosy.
It's a testament to the ignorance of the men who made up these scriptures.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
https://www.youtube.com/watch
n7natnat's picture
the whole point of the theory

the whole point of the theory is that it "can" be observed. That's why we have evidence for it. Heck, micro evolution is a fact! Unless they can provide any real evidence, we can say there is no god and that jesus did not rise from the grave, that mohammed did not see Gabriel, and all that other nonsense.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"If not than someone else was

"If not than someone else was also there other than adam and eve to bring wives for abel and cain."

The Jewish text never says that adam and eve were the first humans, but the first humans in the garden created by a god.
At least that is what the Hebrew text is saying. The hebrew text takes in consideration, multiple gods and even a phanteon of gods with it's leader as the Elion.
Yeah the christian bible turned it in an epic of creation, but the Jewish text are not saying that.
The Jewish text took the story from Sumerian legends and gave it a Jewish twist.
Abraham was a Sumerian and he kept the Sumerian legends in the Jewish origins through his generations.

Evolution= fact (we can observe Micro evolution)
Human Micro evolution= fact (we can observe it in bacteria)
Human evolution from a Miocene ape= hypothesis (trying to explain our existence through evolution but not enough evidence has been presented yet)

It has not been proven yet that human descended from Miocene apes, neither enough evidence was ever presented for that case.
Actually there is contradictory evidence to that hypothesis, like genetic differences and huge physical difference.

We still do not know how we came to be on this planet yet, and it is OK to say that we do not know.

This has nothing to do with creation since the Admm and eve story is just a story and historians know that it is a twist on Sumerian myths.
So creationists still haven't really presented a case about how we were created.

Do not fall for the trap of answering a question about our existence that you do not have to.
At least let them present a case first.

This is like making such a stupid claim:
"You do not know what created a black hole therefore god exists."
You do not need to know what created a black hole to reject that unsupported claim.

Desiderata's picture
I am a new member and this is

I am a new member and this is my first post. To be clear, I am a newly confirmed Atheist.
This is in response to the original post and first reply.

@Aber, I also had the same question about propagation of the species and incest concerning Adam and Eve and their offspring. I started to read the Bible again recently and found that Cain travels to the land of Nod to get himself a wife, presumably because his parents had yet to have any daughters. No mention from the scriptures where the people of Nod came from so this may just further confuse the issue of the creation story, but there you go.

@Ilovequestions
1. By your first statement you infer humans were perfect and go on to say (in different words of course) perfect+perfect=less than perfect, which for me makes no logical sense, then you throw in genetic mutations which is, in effect, kinda what evolution is. Does that mean that even though you believe the creation story you also believe in evolution?

2.You state that Adam and Eve have genetic variation between them. While this is a sound guess as they are male and female, was Eve not created from Adams rib and therefore "cloned" from Adam. Wouldn't this severely limit the amount of genetic difference betwixt them? Most of us know the story of Dolly the cloned sheep whose genetic material is exactly the same as the sheep she was cloned from.

Ilovequestions's picture
@Desiderata

@Desiderata

Thanks for the questions!

1) I believe in microevolution, or speciation. This has been observable and repeated countless times.

The world was once perfect (and therefore genes were, too). However, once mankind rebelled God allowed the world to start to go downhill. Mutations entered the DNA of organisms and our genes have been going not-so-great ever since.

2) There is more to a human than a single rib. Eve's ribcage contained ONE of Adam's ribs... but the whole rest of her body was her own.

This would still allow for genetic variation, other than that ONE rib.

Mitch's picture
Define "perfect genes",

Define "perfect genes", please. You theory suggests a deminishing genetic state as time goes by, and therefore, we could expect geneticist to find that earlier humans were near "perfect".

I'm curious how that might look. Who was the supposed genetically "perfect" human? Quick question: which human skin colours are the deviations, and which is the "perfect" one?

This is a slippery slope.

Ilovequestions's picture
@Mitch

@Mitch

1) Define "perfect genes", please.

Perfect genes: genes with NO mutations or anything else harmful in them (if there are any other harmful things).

2) Who was the supposed genetically "perfect" human?

Adam and Eve were the "perfect humans"... but they didn't last long!

3) Quick question: which human skin colours are the deviations, and which is the "perfect" one?

I'm not saying a particular skin tone is or is not perfect because different skin tones don't necessarily mean mutations are involved. It's not like black skin tones are perfect, and the white skin tones are the deviants. Or vice versa. I'm not saying that.

Mitch's picture
Except you are saying that.

Except you are saying that. You are saying just that, if you are presupposing that there was once - somehow - a 'genetically perfect' human. By your theory, there must have been a genetically "perfect" person, or, the 'Adam'. I AM curious to know how you imagine Adam might have looked.

Because that person would have been closest to gods image, correct? Ergo, they would be holiest.

Your "genetically perfect" person theory comes dangerously close to the basis of eugenics.

Better altogether to abandon this point on genectics. Acknowledge evolution, and state that god simply planned it all this way.

Someone once suggested that god made everything to look old, intentionally. Try some variation on this tactic. More defensible by half.

Ilovequestions's picture
@Mitch

@Mitch

1) "I AM curious to know how you imagine Adam might have looked.

Because that person would have been closest to gods image, correct? Ergo, they would be holiest."

My friend, God is a spirit. He doesn't have a natural physical form... He can adopt any He chooses. When the Bible says that humans are "made in (God's) image", the Bible isn't talking about our physical attributes because God's image has no physical attributes. He's talking to the fact that we have an eternal soul and that we have the ability to have a relationship with God. Animals do not have either of these things, therefore they are not made in the image of God.

"Image of God" has nothing to do with physicality, but spirituality.

2) "Better altogether to abandon this point on genectics"

My friend, the world was once perfect. Which means the human genome used to be too. When Adam and Eve rebelled, mutations entered our genes, and they were no longer perfect.

Mitch's picture
So describe how Adam might

So describe how Adam might have looked for me.

Ilovequestions's picture
@Mitch

@Mitch

I don't know! I'm figuring he would've been in the middle when it comes to everything. Weight, height, skin tone, muscle mass, etc.

Mitch's picture
Right.

Right.

To describe 'Adam' would be to suggest some knowledge of the "perfect" person, which by default, makes all others a sin-based "deviation". Here we have the basis of such dangerous ideologies as 'racial purity'. I needn't mention the examples of such things. They abound.

You've been operating on a few problematic presumptions:

- Genetic "perfection" is possible.
- Genetic "perfection" is desirable
- Genetic deviation is harmful/useless, or erroneous in its nature.

Genetic diversity actually (in part) develops as response to natural circumstances, and can sometimes even confer evolutionary advantages, which - on first glance - seem to be only problems.

Consider Sickle Cell traits and Malaria:

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/biology/sickle_cell.html

Genetic diversity is human, warts and all. And to connect theological concepts of "perfection" to the human condition is to invite repression, shame, guilt, and discrimination - because it makes 'difference' sinful. It invites us to hate ourselves for the pain we experience.

I don't know much about you Ilovequestions, but it think that this self/victim-blaming, genetic Garden-of-Eden theory isn't fully within your personal values. You've never expressed hate toward others in your comments. You love people more than that, I think, and you wouldn't reject and blame them for their pain.

Does that sound accurate?

Mitch's picture
Ilovequestions, you haven't

Ilovequestions, you haven't answered.

What stops you?

The Pragmatic's picture
@Ilovequestions

@Ilovequestions

Just curious, what denomination of Christianity do you adhere to? What version of the Bible do you read?

---

I looked up the word "Image". (If that is a correct translation from the original language.)

Image: (wikipedia)
An image (from Latin: imago) is an artifact that depicts or records visual perception, for example a two-dimensional picture, that has a similar appearance to some subject - usually a physical object or a person, thus providing a depiction of it.

Image: (dictionary.com)
1. a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.
2. an optical counterpart or appearance of an object, as is produced by reflection from a mirror, refraction by a lens, or the passage of luminous rays through a small aperture and their reception on a surface.
3. a mental representation; idea; conception.
4. Psychology. a mental representation of something previously perceived, in the absence of the original stimulus.
5. form; appearance; semblance: We are all created in G̲o̲d̲'̲s̲ i̲m̲a̲g̲e̲.
6. counterpart; copy: That child is the image of his mother.

Image: (thefreedictionary.com)
1.
a. A representation of the form of a person or object, such as a painting or photograph.
b. A sculptured likeness.
2. Physics An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror.

I especially noticed that dictionary.com actually uses "God's image" as an example in No 5.

Miami Wolf's picture
"perfect genes" implies the

"perfect genes" implies the ability to prosper both at the colds of the arctic and the heat of the equator as well as the rain-forrest and the desert. It implies being both fast and strong and both tall and small. It requires night vision as well as the ability to look upon the breadths of the texas panhandle in full-on daylight and to detect polar bear and small lizard as hazards. In short; there can be no such thing as one perfect genome provided by one perfect couplet.

The Pragmatic's picture
Sure there can, haven't you

Sure there can, haven't you seen Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection? :D

Nyarlathotep's picture
ilovequestions - "I believe

ilovequestions - "I believe in microevolution, or s̲p̲e̲c̲i̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲. This has been observable and repeated countless times."

Speciation is the idea that new species are created by evolution! So it looks like you accept the whole thing! You are an 'evolutionist'! (yes I know it is a horrible term).

Ilovequestions's picture
For me, a new species is not

For me, a new species is not evidence of evolution. You have Saint Bernards and Poodles... but both are still dogs. Speciation is simply the new formation of a species... of a preexisting type of animal (cats, dogs, etc.). All of Darwin's finches... were still finches.

I guess for me, macroevolution (speaking in taxonomical, or classification, terms) would be a new FAMILY of animals. A new species happens all the time. And genuses too, probably.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Ilovequestions - "For me, a

Ilovequestions - "For me, a new species is not evidence of evolution."

I guess you have forgotten how the evolution argument all started. Remember Darwin's book: "On the Origin of Species"? If you think evolution can create new species, the argument is over: you accept evolution; case closed.

Ilovequestions's picture
@Nyarlathotep

@Nyarlathotep

I have no problem with microevolution because we SEE it EVERYDAY. That is extremely scientific.

However, we have NOT seen one animal kind (cat) turn into another animal kind (bird). That is macroevolution.

I'm totally fine with new species being created. But you have to admit that evolution goes way beyond simply stating one species of dog can breed to become another species of... yep, still dog.

Travis Hedglin's picture
"I'm totally fine with new

"I'm totally fine with new species being created."

Then you are totally fine with evolution.

"But you have to admit that evolution goes way beyond simply stating one species of dog can breed to become another species of... yep, still dog."

Nope, it actually doesn't. The difference between any new species and what it evolved from is always miniscule, you have to go back through hundreds of such speciation events to find an ancestor very different than the new species. Evolution states that like will give birth to like with modification, but the input changes over generations, making the cumulative changes over vast generations add up to appreciable change. Making your argument equivalent to saying you CAN count by two's, but only until 100, you can't count by two's after that. There is no reason to assume that change isn't cumulative, none whatsoever, meaning you have essentially handed us the argument by agreeing with descent with modification.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Ilovequestions - "stating one

Ilovequestions - "stating one species of dog can breed to become another species of... yep, still dog."

I don't even know what to say to that. Uhhh all dogs are the same species. Yes, a saint bernard and a chihuahua are the same species. At this point I have no idea what you really believe on this subject since this entire time you've been laboring under the very false idea that different breeds of dogs are different species. Could you maybe start again, now that you know that?

Travis Hedglin's picture
I think you have some

I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings of evolution, as you seem to think that descent with modification would mean that the offspring would be in a different family or genus as its ancestor. That isn't how it works. We are firmly entrenched in the SAME kingdom, phyla, family, genus, etc as our ancestors where. Our oldest ancestors would be Eukaryota, we are still technically Eukaryote, as opposed to Prokaryote. We are also still dueterostomed, chordates, mammalian, upright tetrapods, primates, etc. Evolution doesn't take away from what those ancestors were, or what we inherited from them, it adds to it. Let us take canids, since you brought them up.

Most already know, or at least suspect, that wolves and domesticated dogs share a common ancestor, I would hope. Let us say that the current paradigm, wolves being predators in the wild and dogs being domesticated pets, continues unabated for a million years. All this time wolves will continue to evolve to be better predators and eat meat, and dogs will continue to be selectively bred and eat mainly feed we make from corn and other complex starches and carbohydrates. Eventually, over successive generations of descent with modification, their morphology will continue to change until they no longer look anything alike. They also, will no longer even share the same diet. Now, looking back at the division that originally caused the divergence from wolf to domestic dog, would you even recognize it as a significant evolutionary event? Probably not, because they would both still be canids, much like we and dogs are still mammals.

The problem here isn't with the actual theory of evolution, it is with your perspective, it prohibits your ability to see beyond the species that currently exist. You think a dog is a dog is a dog, but if you go far enough back they were a basal ancestor which diverged in multiple distinct directions. Dogs, bears, and walruses are all related because they all share that same basal ancestor. Further, if all these different subdivisions of "dog" are give the space and time to evolve independent of each other, they will always be "dog" but will diverge in multiple distinct directions as well. It is simply a foregone conclusion considering population mechanics and time, whether anyone likes it or not, and no amount of creationist hand-waving will make it disappear.

Further Information:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ-DawQKPr8

Technical Canid information starts around 4:50 or so.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.