How to be "Intellectual," in Your Own Mind-Ray Comfort <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"'You believe in nothing created something or the Creator created something? It's a simple question.' Yes indeed it is. It is also a simple presupposition offered as a limited hypothetical 'choice', excluding as it does any number of other possibilities, all of which are probably beyond our current knowledge." Raoul RheitsMany times I have been called a liar because I have said that an atheist is someone who believes "nothing created everything," which of course is a scientific impossibility. This is a huge embarrassment to the atheist. Instead of being seen as an intellectual, such a thought reveals him to be a fool, just as the Bible says (see Psalm 14:1). Professor Richard Dawkins isn't embarrassed to say that believes that "nothing created everything." This is what he said in his book, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution: "The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing--is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice" (italics added).He's right of course about someone being mad if they even attempted to explain it.But those who believe it need not attempt the madness of trying to explain it or justify it. If they want to hold onto the label "atheist" and still think that they are intellectual, they can pretend that there is another alternative. All they need to do is employ the evolutionist's popular "language of speculation" by using the word "probably," and then hope that the answer is "beyond our current knowledge"--they enroll in the "Don't Understand How" club (DUH).How true is Scripture when it says of the atheist (see Romans 1:20): "...when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:21-22).

Nothing Has Changed, in Over 100 Years

"You cannot disqualify scientific endeavors [the way you do] unless you truly understand it. Since it is obvious that you have no idea, you should rather shut it. Try and learn what the whole paleontology, geology, and biology are about, how the evidence is collected and analyzed, then come back and tell those things with a straight face." G.E.I will let the wisdom of Charles Spurgeon address the subject of "science" in his day:"Away from the old-fashioned belief of our forefathers because of the supposed discoveries of science. What is science? The method by which man tries to conceal his ignorance. It should not be so, but so it is. You are not to be dogmatical in theology, my brethren, it is wicked; but for scientific men, it is the correct thing. You are never to assert anything very strongly; but scientists may boldly assert what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith far more credulous than any we possess. "Forsooth, you and I are to take our Bibles, and shape and mould our belief according to the ever-shifting teachings of so-called scientific men. What folly is this! Why, the march of science, falsely so-called, through the world, may be traced by exploded fallacies and abandoned theories. Former explorers, once adored, are now ridiculed; the continual exposure of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles. As the quacks, who ruled the world of medicine in one age, are the scorn of the next, so has it been, and so will it be, with your atheistical savants and pretenders to science . . ."So the bubbles go on bursting, and meanwhile more are being blown, and we are expected to believe in whatever comes, and wait with open mouth to see what comes next. But we shall not just yet fall down and worship the image of human wisdom, notwithstanding all the flutes, harps, sackbuts, psalteries, dulcimers, weekly papers, quarterly reviews, and boastful professors. Show us a man of science worthy of the name, and then we will not follow him if he dares to oppose revealed truth; but show us one in whom the next generation will believe; at present, there is not one alive worthy to be compared with Newton and other master-minds reverent to the Scriptures, compared with whom these men are mere pretenders."

A Strange Name for a Christian Site

"Once again, despite the title of Ray's blog, Atheist Central, today's post addresses a theological point that is of no concern to atheists." ClamflatsThis is a Christian blog that is called "Atheist Central." It is a strange name for a Christian site, but there is a reason for it being called that. It's not because I solely post comments that concern atheists (although many do), but because so many atheists hang around and read it each day. It was originally called "Comfort Food," and it was created solely to feed Christians. But things changed from the moment it started back in 2007. Let me tell you what happened. It's as though one dark night back on 2007, I decided to have a barbeque for members of my family. I found a spot in my back yard, lit the barbeque, put some meat on it and listened to it sizzle. Suddenly, to my amazement, a mass of annoying bugs came from nowhere and infested the place. I tried swatting them, but they wouldn't go away. They wanted to hang around the light, and they also wanted to try and get a little poison in here and there. So I gave up trying to swat them. I instead welcomed them, and decided to call the place "Bug Central." Why? Because I grew to actually like them. Go figure. No doubt this will stir up a fresh frenzy of biting and stinging replies.
www.LivingWaters.com