Leaderboard

If a chemical was that carcinogenic that it could commonly cause cancer with one application, or even a few,, it wouldn't be on sale to the general public. That warning is only really only pertinent to someone who may use it on a daily basis for a prolonged period as part of their work i.e. an industrial-level exposure. Given that it causes irritation, I don't think anyone is going to get it on them more than once or twice. Forget about it and carry on with your life.

Do you understand that scientists also observe nature and explain it without invoking a God. And do you also understand that nature is entirely consistent with there being no God? And do you therefore understand that nature is not evidence for God. It's like saying that it is theoretically possible that someone deliberately planted weeds in my garden. The weeds are there. So the phantom weed planter must exist!. The presence of weeds is consistent with His existence, but it's certainly not proof of it and, given that there are other more plausible explanations, it hardly counts as evidence for it. So, while nature is tangible, it's not evidence.