'Mommy, why are atheists dim-witted?'

Jerusalem Post ^ | 12-18-06 | JONATHAN ROSENBLUM

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Where is Jesus? I'll gladly take a look at him."

Take a close look at your baby or little child. (If you haven't got one, borrow a grandchild or a close relative's baby. Younger the better.) Give the child a "receptive" gesture, e.g. hold gently in arms. Then think of this:

Mark 9:37
“Whoever receives one of these little children in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me, receives not Me but Him who sent Me.”

If you are into taking a look at Jesus, there are clues all around. (While you're at it, read that whole chapter 9 from Mark --- do you have a New Testament? Or if not, it's online here.)

I mean it: do this experimentally. It's absolutely worth an experiment. There are clues all around, and this is one of the easier ones.

[grey_whiskers]

Why isn't 'new year' on December 22 - the day when the Sun begins coming back North again??

That would constitute 'cultural imperialism' towards inhabitants of the Southern Hemisphere ;-)

Cheers!

[Elsie]

I don't post under the name "Elsie", so your logic that it is my words bothering me is a bit confused.

huh?

I misspoke. I should have said "all the Christians I know who are in the community I once was associated with". I'm sure you understood my meaning, but picked at my wording anyway.

[Elsie]

Perhaps your problems with logic are why you find it impossible to understand evolution.

Oh; I 'understand' it just fine: I just don't BELIEVE it.

Poor ol' Charles... Look what it did to him!

[narby]

Poor ol' Charles... Look what it did to him!

He died an old man, is buried in Westminster Abbey near Sir Isaac Newton, and is one of the most honored men of science. Evolution treated him pretty nice.

You might live as long, but almost certianly no one will remember Elsie in 100 years, and you'll be just as dead as Darwin despite whatever fantasy you have otherwise. I know that because you convinced me so.

[grey_whiskers]

Sorry for the long delay.

I misspoke. I should have said "all the Christians I know who are in the community I once was associated with". I'm sure you understood my meaning, but picked at my wording anyway.

No, I *didn't* understand your meaning. A parallel would be if Richard Dawkins said that "All scientists are atheists, as they should be."

Maybe in his crowd.

Cheers!

[DungeonMaster]

So how can grasshopper eggs, ant eggs, etc survive underwater? And what about spider eggs, etc etc. And it usually takes less than 40 days for insect eggs to hatch. So where did the larvae go once they hatched?

They floated.

(And what about Freshwater Fish? How can they survive in saltwater?

A worldwide flood means saltwater and freshwater mixing. And I'd like to see you raise freshwater fish eggs in saltwater.

It doesn't mix that fast.

Furthermore, where did all this water come from? And how did the animals distribute themselves around the world? And how did they build a sustainable population with just one male and one female?

The atmosphere.

And what did the predators eat all the time they were on the Ark?

They hybernated.

[dogbyte12]

Sometimes there is circular argument going on. I had a co-worker who said that Jesus rising to heaven was a historical fact because 500 people witnessed it. Intrigued, I said, where did you read that. He said, in the bible. People talk past each other in this debate. If you are operating under the assumption that everything in the bible is true, and therefore every bit of proof is in the bible, it's hard to argue with an atheist other than talking past one another. I am a born agnostic personally. Sometimes I believe, sometimes I don't. I love the message of Jesus and the New Testament and I want to believe it is THE truth, but can't. It's a bit insulting when I hear from people that faith is so simple. It isn't for some. Personality type plays a big part. Some people simply can't take that leap of faith. Others, there isn't even a question. They blindly believe anything. If they were raised by Christians, they are christians. The same person raised in India would be a Hindu. What impresses me with some people is those who find faith outside their tradition that is meaningful to them. Simply copying the tradition of your parents isn't that difficult. For those of us with agnostic personalities, it always comes down to the issue of
1. So many religions, which one is right. Or if you pick the right one, which branch is right. If judaism is right, which version, same with Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. You pick one sect of any religion and they are a very small minority. What if Catholics are right and the reformation was wrong? What if Jehovah's witnesses are right and Lutherans are wrong?
2. Physical evidence. The planet is very old. There are signs of evolution. Homo Erectus, Australopithicene, Neanderthals did exist and die out. Period. The planet was around for billions of years until we showed up irregardless. It makes us seem like an afterthought rather than the center of the universe.
3. Historical evidence. Other than the circular evidence of the bible telling us so, what other proof is there. We know Julius Caesar existed because of all the other contemporaneous texts, biographies that existed. If there were scores of contemporaneous accounts of Jesus that could be carbon dated to his time, it would really be nice. The oldest complete bible in existance now dates to over 100 years after Jesus died. It is copies of copies. I believe Jesus existed. Does that mean that I believe that the surviving chronicles of his life are the correct emphasis. If he preached for 3 years, the gospels are really scant. What he said would fill up volumes and volumes, but if you just read all of Jesus' quotes, it's only a few hours of dialogue. Did everything signifigant survive?
4. It all comes down to faith. Mormons have faith in Joseph Smith being a prophet. His positions are already being diluted, and modernized. How is one to know that Jesus didn't have the same done to him to make him more palatable? Scientologists whitewash L. Ron Hubbard's crackpot notions, his discharge from the Navy for psych reasons, and somebody who joins the church now doesn't know the real truth about what a fraud he was. So, for those who are skeptical, who see how modern religions evolve, and change, and lie, taking it on faith that this is the one religion that doesn't lie, that the lack of complimentary documentary evidence isn't a problem is very troubling. Jesus very well can be the messiah. Or the Jews could be right and he wasn't. Or the Hindus could be right about their Gods. Most people are wrong. I find it arrogant when everybody insists they are right and logic dictates the opposite.

[LiberalGunNut]

(They floated.)

So ant larvae can survive on the water? And just what did the larvae do for food?

(It doesn't mix that fast.)

But it eventually does mix right?

(The atmosphere.)

You do know that the amount of water in the atmosphere is constant right? "Extra" water is not produced. Where did all the water go after the flood?

(They hybernated.)

Lions, TIgers, WOlverines, Eagles, Hawks, etc hibernate? News to me.

[grey_whiskers]

Will reply tomorrow night; am doing household chores tonight.

Thanks for your patience...I hate not being able to keep going on the spot!

Cheers!

[DungeonMaster]

You do know that the amount of water in the atmosphere is constant right? "Extra" water is not produced. Where did all the water go after the flood?

How constant do you think it is over what time period. It is commonly believed that before the flood the earth's atmosphere was thick with water. The whole earth was more like a giant terrarium which is why tropical vegetation existed way up north, like Siberia.

[dogbyte12]

The science is squirrelly. Don't make a science argument here. A miracle would be an appropriate answer. Think of how high up mountains are. To flood everything in sitting water, think about 30,000 feet above sea level filled with water around the globe. It didn't happen with science. I am not insulting you as to say God couldn't have done it as a miracle, and then dissapeared the water, but the volume of water just doesn't exist, even in a humid atmosphere. There is only so much water air can hold. Not 30,000 feet high across the entire surface of the planet.

[DungeonMaster]

I agree, it's an awful lot of water. But how much water is there under the surface of the ocean floor. Another point has been made that the oceans did not exist or not nearly as big as they currently do before the flood. In addition there seems to be scriptural proof that the continents were not divided up until after the flood.

I think that the miracle of the flood was done without creating and uncreating new water though. The bible says that existing water was released.

[blessedvic]

That’s what I told a few atheists on youtube this last April 1st.They didn’t get it!

[SunkenCiv]

Note: this topic is from 12/18/2006. This should get some blood pumping though. :') Thanks SJackson.

[gleeaikin]

Does this mean the Lamark may have been right?? At least a little bit?

[muawiyah]

Actually, epigenetics tells us that Lamarck was right ~ kinda!