This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Where Christianity intersects with politics, culture, and entertainment.


LeahLibresco

Prominent atheist blogger converts to Christianity

A prominent atheist blogger says she has converted to Christianity.

Leah Libresco made the announcement on Monday on her Patheos blog, "Unequally Yoked." The blog post, titled "This is my last post for the Patheos Atheist Portal," details how Libresco came to her decision.

She said she struggled with moral law, exploring where it comes from and what's behind it. As an atheist, she states that friends told her that her philosophy was unsustainable.

"I was ready to admit that there were parts of Christianity and Catholicism that seemed like a pretty good match for the bits of my moral system that I was most sure of, while meanwhile my own philosophy was pretty kludged together and not particularly satisfactory," she wrote.

She goes back to the night before Palm Sunday, where after a debate on religion she then had a discussion with a friend about morality.

Continue reading at usnews.msnbc.msn.com
 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Vladimir

    Your turn, Jeff Dixon.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      I can show stories of Christians who became atheists. It is hardly a one way path.

      • garry williamson

        just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't mean they are, study the New Testament it was a problem then and still is today. There are many stories of "preachers" who turned out to be "preachers" for the money not the faith. A good book for you to read would be Foxes book of martyrs to see the difference in professing christians and actual christians.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Just because one claims to be an Atheist does not mean one is really one either. Any honest review of any religion shows it to be a fraud.

          • Robert De Leon

            Jeff:
            Again, have you read the NASA's study about the mantle of Guadalupe in Mexico City?
            It might show you the path to Heaven, even if you don't believe in.
            Robert.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You asked me this before. Yes I am aware of this topic.
            http://www.miraclesceptic.com/guadalupe.html

          • Robert De Leon

            And even so, you say you are an atheist. It doesn't make sense.
            Any way I'll keep praying in your behalf till trhe end of my life. I'll see you in Heaven.
            Robert.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            There is nothing supernatural about this place. You misunderstood my response.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            "The Psychology of Atheism" ~ AUDIO: http://bit.ly/MRzgvT

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            ' I'll see you in Heaven."

            Second only unless you repent and believe DeMelon.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            "NASA's study about the mantle of Guadalupe in Mexico City? "

            It came from aliens DeMelon?

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Is this similar to National Geographic actually writing articles on geography in their magazine? What is NASA doing going over some mantle "of Guadalupe" in Mexico? Good to see my tax money hard at work, as with Eric Holder.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Joe supposedly the stars that appear on the Mantle of Mary the Guadeloupe idol reflect the configuration and positions that could be seen in the sky of Mexico on the day the miracle happened. Wackos like DeMelon take this as a sure sign for this idol to be heaven certified… as if satan was not a prince of air and sky.

          • Joe Anzilotti

            It is good to know that something can be "heaven certified" Despe. Where did I put my certificate?
            I thought NASA was busy trying to find ways for all of us to move to Mars–they seem to think that we need a settlement there.
            Studying some mantle in Mexico could yield big dividends though.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Not sure about those dividends. NASA is folding a lot of programs as you know and is paying Ruskies 50 mil a pop to blast off into spaces our astronauts. Good business for Ruskies and they must be grateful to Mexican idol that put NASA off the track :)

          • KnowTheTruthToday

            One of the biggest religious frauds is the religion you belong to.

      • Debbie

        There IS only a one way path to God and heaven, that is through Jesus Christ. If those so called Christians became atheists after hearing the truth, then they were never Christians.

        • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

          Indeed.

      • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

        There are two paths, the wide and the narrow, and two destinations, _ _ _ _ _ _ and _ _ _ _ . I'll bet you wouldn't lose at hangman for either of them…

      • LarryB

        Okay. Show us.

      • millergroup2

        @ Jeff You still do not get it. Once a true Christian…….always. Impossible to change. A Christian, once filled with the spirit of God, cannot convert to anything else….impossible. So you have no story of a true Christin converting to the atheist religion. An atheist has no power, but the power of self. The power of self is weakness, and the atheist religion will fade away sooner than later, just like all other fake religions.

        • keyboardshark

          Exactly. There is no possibility that a true born-again Christian would 'convert' to atheism, or any other 'ism'. They cannot be plucked out of the Master's hand:

          "27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

          28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

          29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."
          John 10

          • millergroup2

            And that is a Bigger Than Life….AMEN!

          • Ken

            True! Derz no way you can get out of HIS hand once you become Christian! HE is the one who chose you and HE is all powerful! No one can become Christian unless the father draws him/her to Himself. Without Him you can't do it. Without you HE won't do it.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          You have a wonderful ability to deflect rational thoughts. Any believer who stops believing was never a true believer in the first place. Therefore, any story of a Christian who becomes an Atheist you dismiss with a wave of your hand. Truly delusional.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Dodo you were straining too much with this one…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Laughing is more like it.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            "The Psychology of Atheism" ~ AUDIO: http://bit.ly/MRzgvT

  • Godisalive

    Welcome to the fold, our new Sister in Christ!

  • RevelationAlive

    ahhh, the sweet power of prayer – and exectly why we are not to judge, we could be ripping the soul of a future Family member to shreds. Our government makes that quite the challenge.

  • Chascrock

    The source of morality is, perhaps, the biggest chink in the skeptics armor. When they are being "real" they have to admit that naturalism has no good explanation for, nor the grounding for objective moral law.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      Of course it does. Which is why we see similar behaviors in other primate species. Primates are a social animal. They have developed behaviors which help insure the protection of the group, which helps insure that the group will continue to exist.

      • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

        Whales and Dolphins are even more socially advance than primates. But where did they learn their behavior. At Mammal University?

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          I refered to primates since we are also primates. However, all animals develop behaviors that protect their group.

          • keyboardshark

            Animals do not "develop" behaviors that protect their group, these behaviors are instinctive, pre-programmed into their brains. And where does programmed information come from? Nothing? Information does not create itself. No, from God, who carefully programmed each animal's behavior. This is different from human morality, however, because man was created in the image of God and animals were not. God is the only source of not only instinctive animal behavior, but also the absolute standard of human morality.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Of course animals learn new behaviors. This has been shown in such classic work by B. F. Skinner which lead to the development of the use of learning paradigms, and the Skinner Box remains an important tool in the field of animal psychology.

            For example a rat learns to press a bar in a Skinner Box. With each bar press the rat is rewarded with food. This was not a normal behavior for the rat. It learned to develop new behaviors which benefited it.

          • keyboardshark

            Of course they can learn new tasks, but only within their general set of basic inbred behaviors. They don't start out in a vegetative state and then progress to learning to press a bar. They still have to have the basic motor skills and intelligence in order to be able to press a bar, and they also possess characteristics of their kind, such as burrowing instincts for rodents.

            This basic level of functioning is what I was referring to when I said that it was something they did not "develop". Every rat that is born will behave in certain ways because it has the brain of a rat. And those inbred behaviors were placed there by an intelligent Creator. He also gave animals a limited ability to learn certain behaviors as well.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Once again you are talking from both sides of your mouth. You claimed animals do not develop behaviors. When I showed you that they do, you then claim it is a new task, not a new behavior,. But it is a new behavior. Rats do not push bars for food normally The rat had to learn that pushing a bar could provide food. Learning new ideas is developing new behaviors.

            The same idea is what developed human morals. We learned that stealing and killing was bad for the group. Helping others was good for the group. From that we formed rules of behavior. Religion pretends it was the foundation of these ideas, but the reality is that the ideas were established long before gods were dreamed up.

          • keyboardshark

            The discussion was about the origin of morality. Your contention was "They have developed behaviors which help insure the protection of the group". I said that those behaviors were instinctive.

            You then introduced a new element, learned behaviors, which are a conditioned response to stimuli, and are different than the behaviors that we might consider to have a moral element. A rat pushing a lever has no moral element nor repercussions for the safety of other rats. It is simply a conditioned response, but the basic behavior of a rat in general has already been predetermined by the instincts God placed in its brain. Human morality is a far different concept.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It is not a new element. It is exactly what I said it is which is a new behavior. That is how groups survive, by developing behaviors which help ensure survival.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            "The Psychology of Atheism" ~ AUDIO: http://bit.ly/MRzgvT

          • petroskhan1262

            How is it not normal for the rat to remember where and how to get food? It's not like anyone asked the rat to solve triple integrals. Push a bar. About as complex as pushing something out of the way, when it's between the rat and food.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The difference between pushing something out of the way and learning that pushing a bar will provide food is understanding cause and effect. According to key, animals do not develop new behaviors. Pushing something out of the way does not get food for the rat. Pushing the bar did. It is a learned behavior.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            If you want something more specific, consider the gorilla. Here are great examples of new behaviors. The Gorilla Foundation conducts research in interspecies communication (language), cultural development, and intellectual and emotional awareness.

            Koko has learned over 1000 signs.
            • She invents her own new compound signs, eg, "finger-bracelet" for ring.
            • Koko understands spoken English.
            • Koko is not unique: gorilla Michael was very articulate in ASL too.
            •Koko's use of grammatical aspects of sign language in complex phrases is evident.
            •This teaches us much about human language development/origns.

            Koko paints representationally and impressionistically.
            • She's painted many self-named works.
            • Gorilla Michael painted even more!
            • Their work has appeared in galleries and artists and critics are impressed with their use of color and technique.
            http://www.koko.org/friends/research.koko.html

          • petroskhan1262

            Well, technically, in the example I gave, pushing something out of the way WOULD get the rat his food.

            Also, there is a distinction here that might have been missed. Key was questioning your statement that the behaviors were "developed". Developed by whom, seems to be his question. In the examples you've given, those behaviors were taught by humans to animals. The knowledge was there, but transferred though a learning process. For the original discussion, the moral, societally beneficial behaviors cited came, from your definition, from nowhere, or were developed by the simians themselves. And I think therein lies the distinction.

      • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

        Dodo yes you are showing some traits of your ancestors – sharks :) and I do not mean by this sharpness:) for you are as dull as they come.
        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/1206…

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Who knows what you mean. You babble nonsense most of the time.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            That is not my problem but yours and your wet shoelace IQ…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I realize you are comfortable babbling nonsense. It makes you happy.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Dodo you realize nothing so stop kidding around.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I realize you are an delusional blowhard.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            You need to blow out and way harder than this from your neophyte complacency…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I need to blow out? Man, once again you can really butcher the English language. Please tell me it is not your native tongue.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Sure schizo. "The Psychology of Atheism" ~ AUDIO: http://bit.ly/MRzgvT

    • msjallen

      However, morality is not spirituality. Spirituality is far greater since we get it from Bible Doctrine. We should take establishment values from Bible Doctrine and apply them to our lives and all other things will fall in place. Morality does not require the filling of the Spirit. Unbelievers can be moral; like living by an honor code in the military. We can’t use morality to measure the Christian way of life; we are to use the Bible. Anything the unbeliever can do is not Christianity and unbelievers can be moral.

  • Chris

    So – lady – which religion is the right one? How does heaven work?

    • Vladimir

      Heaven works very well, Chris.

      • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

        Works for me!!! Woo Hoo, Hallelu Yah!!!

      • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

        Works for me!!! Woo Hoo

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        Satan rebelled there. It obviously does not work as well as you think.

        • Randy

          doesn't God tell us there will be a new heaven and a new earth? read the bible for enlightment, not talking points. God Bless.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            A new Covenant, a second Adam, starting over with Noah: your god can not seem to get things right the first time around. Are you sure he is all knowing? He does not seem to have mastered that power very well.

        • Vladimir

          Yes, Jeff Dixon, Satan exercised his agency and rebelled in heaven. Heaven was not designed to enforce righteousness. God's work is to bring to pass our immorality and eternal life and to force us to achieve these, defeats the whole effort.

          Reminds me of a movie starring Tony Curtis. He was being sold into slavery in ancient Rome and the Roman who bought him immediately gave Tony a valuable purchase and told him to take it to the Roman's house. When Tony departed, the companion of the Roman said that the slave will just sell the item and disappear. The Roman responded that the slave would be worthless to him unless he could trust him.

          The analogy isn't right on, but the slave also proved to himself what he would do in those circumstances. We are proving to ourselves everyday what kind of a person we are. And as we grow and repent, we become better persons. None of this would be happening if we are forced to live correctly.

          Heaven works just fine, Jeff Dixon.

        • Vince

          So Mr. Dixon, you must believe in Gods and spiritual forces because you just mentioned Satan and what happened to him in Heaven.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I previously have also mentioned Zeus, Hercules, Thor and Quetzalcoatl. I assume that makes them real as well?

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            The only thing real is your moron like shallow urban legends canards that you plaster here to show how incredibly naive and stupid you are while imagining yourself to be the opposite.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Good morning, Humpty. Glad to see you crawled out from your bottle this morning to start your absurd rantings.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Dodo I know you are happy to see me to learn a new word or new concept you never heard about before but do not get too excited for I will not be here too long for there is too much dumbness here especially in your neophyte posts.

    • Gordon

      When you say "religion" I am assuming you mean which denomination of Christian faith. My answer to that is – why should it matter? We are all in agreement on the four basic facts. 1) We are all – by nature – sinners. And that our own attempts at righteousness are as "filthy rags: in the eyes of God. 2) In spite of our sin, God loves everyone. 3) Because of His love for everyone and His desire to bridge the sin that has separated us, He has given us a gift of forgiveness through Jesus Christ. 4) He gives us all the choice to accept or reject that gift – the result of which we will all ultimately be held accountable. Probably the greatest answer to this came from George Whitefield's question: "Father Abraham whom have you in heaven?" With the answer being: "All who are here are Christians – believers in Christ, men who have overcome by the blood of the lamb and the word of his testimony ….. God help us all, to forget having names (by denominational difference) and to become Christians in deed and in truth." Parenthesis is my addition to explain the context about which he was speaking.

    • KnowTheTruthToday

      No religion gets you to Heaven, but it is Christ and Him crucified and risen again that will get you to Heaven – you and anyone else that will believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose again.

      John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

    • msjallen

      It is religion that destroys the spread of Christianity. When people put their faith in anything besides Jesus Christ and His gospel they will be led astray. One may call themselves Christian but if they have not believed in Jesus Christ as their savior there is no eternal life. Religions do not teach the grace of God for salvation and living the Christian way of life; they have some type of “working” for their salvation and do-goodism to please their god. Every religious system only has dead leaders – Jesus Christ is alive and seated at the right hand of the Father – our savior. It is the risen Christ that confirms His substitutionary spiritual death on the cross. If at God consciousness one is positive to get information about God; He makes sure they get His message of salvation. Religions are the Devil’s Ace Trump.

    • anne gelinas

      Heaven is for God to know and you to want to find out. How? Just believe. If you are lucky and love God and wind up in His Heavenly Kingdom then so be it. I want to be there and hope to meet you there too. Where else can you wind up
      when you die except the Kingdom of Heaven. Would you prefer the fire of hell. Doubt it. Join in and stick with us. We
      aren't steering you wrong. Love is powerful and having a sense of morality as a guide can only come from loving Our Heavenly Father. Try it. It doesn't hurt.

  • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

    Congrats Leah, welcome to the fold. Your confusion about the Christian stance on homosexuality and many other things will be revealed to you in God's time. In order to grow as a Christian, you must be fed. To be fed, it is necessary to walk with the Lord every single day, if possible. A quiet time reading the Bible, the inspired Word of God, is absolutely necessary to feed the soul. A certain amount of enlightenment will come from every time you spend reading the Word. God Bless You

    • msjallen

      It takes more than just reading one's Bible. God will always provide for those who are seeking the study of His Word. Home churches can be dangerous when there is no one who has been trained to teach. We do not have the original languages or the time to study on our own to grow spiritually. We don’t have the Spiritual Gift of a Pastor who should study under the enlightenment or filling of the Holy Spirit to understand what we need to know from the Bible. The Mystery Doctrine of the Church Age must be taught by your Pastor-Teacher; not learned on our own. The congregation cannot grow to spiritual adulthood without the teaching of their P-T. Our church has a worldwide ministry where groups meet and listen to the availability of thousands of hours of Bible teaching either by direct hook-up or CDs, DVDs and literature; all free of charge.

      • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

        I disagree, not totally, but mostly. <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: bookman old style, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 14pt"> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px"></DIV>

      • petroskhan1262

        I disagree.

        Your statement indicates that you believe that only one who is a Pastor has the Holy Spirit to guide him, and is in direct contradiction to your earlier statement that "God will always provide for those who are seeking the study of His Word."

        God WILL provide understanding for anyone who needs it, and humbly seeks it. Teaching those seeking His truths that they must get that truth from some other person, no different from them aside from some arbitrary title, is the same sort of impediment to the spreading of the truth that the catholic church employed for years in keeping the Bible from the hands of the common people. It also imposes limits on God's power, claiming the He cannot help someone to understand His Word without the help of some "Pastor".

        The reason I am so convinced in regards to this is that I myself, along with a few others, are part of a "home church". Our understanding of the Scriptures, and our spiritual fulfillment, is greater from one meeting than it was from a year of attending regular churches. Small groups, studying together, guided by the Holy Spirit, can, in my opinion, do far more that sitting there listening to someone else talk for an hour on a topic that he picked, with no opportunity for someone to stop him and ask questions, ask for background on the issue, etc. I believe that small group study is not only more efficient, but closer to what the early church would have done.

        • msjallen

          One must use syntax, grammar and etymology to understand what the Bible says from the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. That is why our churches should have trained pastors or ministers who study and teach us correctly from the Hebrew and Greek. We need pastor-teachers to interpret the Bible for us to get the full meaning of the Scriptures and to grow spiritually so we can glorify Jesus Christ. With his gift of Pastor-Teacher he studies and teaches under the filling of the Holy Spirit and the congregation listens under the filling of the Holy Spirit and this helps us know whether it is the truth that is spoken. If you want to call that wisdom, then you would be right. No person can grow spiritually by just reading the Bible nor do we have time to learn the original languages or have been educated to teach the scriptures on our own. That is one reason why so many people really don’t know how God wants them to live as a believer. Continued…

        • msjallen

          Our pastor teaches from the original languages of Hebrew and Greek using ICE:
          I= isagogics, the interpretation of scripture with its framework of historical setting or prophetical environment.
          C=categorical, communication of scripture – comparing scripture with scripture which results in Biblical systematic theology. Theological nomenclature must be assigned to give retention of categories.
          E=exegesis, the expository approach to scriptures and based on the analysis of the grammar, etymology, syntax of the scripture. Every verse must be correctly translated so it can be accurately interpreted. Must be interpreted in the time of writing. This is to determine under the ministry of God the Holy Spirit the exact thought of any given writer under any given context.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            They do that as long as it is not contradicting their dispensationalism…

        • msjallen

          The way we are taught has nothing to do with the way the RCC kept the Word of God from the people. Our P-T is very clear about everything that is taught and backs it up though hermanuetics (ICE). Just because one has an experience with something does not mean it is right. The Apostles were told to start churches whereever they went; train the person who had the gift of P-T and move on to the next one. The blind cannot lead the blind. When the Word of God is taught it should not be interrupted and the if questions are asked it disturbs the whole message for others. It does not matter to me whether you study in a small group but I would rather have a P-T who has been trained and teaches each book of the Bible verse by verse, word by word. It took 5 years to teach the book of Ephesians — as an example. It took that long in many other books because he is so thorough because of all the doctrine that is contained in every book of the Bible. He taught for 53 in our church and now his son who has the gift of P-T has taken up the mantle since he has passed from life through death to eternity.

          • petroskhan1262

            Within the framework that you have described, I would be inclined to agree that it is a good way to teach/learn. I would only state that such learning methods are available to all (all hail the internet!) who seek them. I have found, and use, many translation tools, and multiple versions of the Bible to research, study, and learn all that I can. Our group covers the bases fairly well, and we are growing in our faith quite nicely.

            But, as I said, it does sound like what you've described is a great way. I just don't think it needs to be limited to someone with a title.

          • msjallen

            I am glad we have a better understanding. I think a lot of comments are misunderstood on sites like this and I am sure you and your group want to know what God wants through His Word. Our goal is to be prepared to serve the Lord.
            II Peter 3:8… but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity.

          • petroskhan1262

            Cool. :D Have a great one.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      If that was true you would see that older Christians become more agreeable with each other about what the bible verses mean. However, the opposite is what occurs.

      • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

        As if that would mean anything or if you would have a proper and objective perspective to appraise that.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Humpty, good to see you up and about. Reading your babble always brightens my day for it provides me a good laugh.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            That is just what a high schooler would write.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            That is what a grade schooler would reply.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Let me know if and when you really want to start a discussion.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            About what? You have nothing to offer Dodo but all canards refuted so long ago.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I expected no less from you, Humpty. Unable and unwilling.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            I value my time Dodo and I am discussing issues with people who are actually well read.
            You are good for a quick line only or a joke.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Your entire worldview is the joke, Humpty. Run into any talking donkeys or snakes lately?

      • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

        Once again, you come up with a meaningless comment. <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: bookman old style, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 14pt"> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px"></DIV>

  • KnowTheTruthToday

    I am glad that this young lady has made some type of decision. We do not have enough information here (that I can see) to determine if she has trusted Christ as her Savior, or just changed her mind on some thing.

    Believing (not a head belief but a heart belief) that Jesus died for our sins, and rose again is what makes us a Christian. Changing our mind about various things is not how we become Christians.

    Having said all that, I do hope this young lady has accepted Christ and the free pardon of sin. Anything less than that won't take us to Heaven.

    • anne gelinas

      One thing we have to do is trust that when God finds a believer that He judges that persons mind change not us. Everyday anyone of us changes our minds about something and this is no different. If you did not change your mind and turn left when you should have turned right, you would be lost. So now Leah is not lost. She is found. We don't need more information we must just trust that God is happy with her decision.

      • KnowTheTruthToday

        Thank you for your response, but needing more info is not judging. To say I changed my mind about something is not a clear salvation testimony – is the young lady saved – she may very well be, but if she is she got saved by trusting Christ, not changing her mind about whether or not there is a God.

        James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

        Believing in a God does not make a person a Christian – only trusting Christ does.

  • millergroup2

    Take a moment to read this lady's post in its entirety: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2012/…

    The cool thing are the responses of pure support in the comments. Now that is the difference between the power of self, and the power of GOD!!!

  • keyboardshark

    I can see it now: "Atheist Blogger Jeff Dixon Converts to Christianity

    Well, why not? Many of us have been praying for you, Jeff.

    • millergroup2

      All I can say to that statement is …….cool! Can you feel it tuggin' at you Jeff?

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        Not at all.

        • keyboardshark

          Party pooper.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Key, I am a skeptic. For me to accept something there has to be compelling evidence. That is why I accept Evolution. It is also why I accept Capitalism.

            What is really amusing to me is how Christians dismiss all other religions, as well as how believers of other religions dismiss anything except the one they believe in. ALL religions are based on the same irrational beliefs. There is not more evidence for Christianity than other religions. There is the same lack of evidence.

            Praying for me is meaningless. Prayers do not accomplish anything. This is not my belief, it is what the evidence shows us. People do respond when they know they are being prayed for. But when they do not know, the prayers accomplish nothing. It is the same effect with placebos. Placebos work because it makes people happy they are being treated. Positive mental energy is beneficial. When you know you are being prayed for, you also get positive mental energy. But it does nothing when people do not know they are being prayed for.

            Religion is a placebo for many people. But it is not for me. It never was and it never will be. I am a skeptic. All real Atheists are skeptics at heart.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I also want to point out another fact. I suspect many on here believe I am looking for a reason to believe. That is not accurate. For me to accept that Jesus is god would be the same as believing that the sun is really a sentient being. It is not just absurd, all the evidence shows it cannot be true. I am here to offer a rational alternative to theism. That is the only reason I am posting here.

            Well, that and poking fun at Humpty, aka Despeville. He is one annoying individual. But self righteous, smug loons usually are.

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Except for the fact that Despeville is the one poster on this site that Jeff misses the most, when Despe is not around continually showing Jeffrey where he falls short of the mark.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            :) Joe and here is about Dodo Dixon's favorite imbecilic shenanigan: THE UNICORNS in the BIBLE :)
            Yes, Dodo imagines Disney style Unicorn in the Bible showing his complete dumbness and lack of education:
            http://youtu.be/iEUbqjzmycE

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Mythical creatures in the bible are amusing, that is true. But Genesis 30:37-39 with its utterly bemusing explanation of genetics is far more bizarre.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            There is no point for you to even imagine that you can to discuss that or anything else from the Word as long as Mark 1:15 is alien and closed to you. Get that Dodo and stop hallucinating that you can actually say anything of significance about any part of the Bible because you cannot.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It is a book of fables. That is all that needs to be said about it.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            All books are books of fables to a moronic, hyper shallow logic deficient mind that operates on level of popular science only and feeds on pseudo science books designed for morons with chip on their shoulder to make them feel good after reading 220 page simplistic pamphlets.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I do not miss him at all. But his absurdities are fun to read.

          • Randy

            no one spends this much time posting on something they absolutely believe not to exist. you may not believe in God, but deep down you're not really sure. a true atheist wouldn't waste time here. God Bless.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            And you would be wrong.

          • DWoodPC

            Hey Jeff. I received a note that you negatively responded the book on Darwin I recommended for you… I could not get my google chrome to find it to respond back… so when I saw this comment … but I just wondered why you did not answer the question I asked and that is: If we evolved from apes, why are the apes still around? It is an important question.

            Also did you know that the Charles Darwin you think promoted evolution actually plagiarized the work of another family member… Yes Charles is a fraud… what do you think of fraudulent science?

            Also re: your exposition on infinity and quantum mechanics . Do you think a TOE is possible anytime soon?

          • DWoodPC

            good point

          • DWoodPC

            good point Randy

          • keyboardshark

            Nothing wrong with being a skeptic about certain subjects, as long as that skepticism is based on evidence. You accept evolution, yet no one has ever seen it occurring today, even though it is supposedly an entirely natural process. There is no known mechanism that would create the vast amounts of new genetic information that would be required were evolution actually true. And evolutionists do not even have an answer for the origin of the first life form. I would hardly call your acceptance of evolution and conversely your rejection of creation as a valid skepticism based on evidence.

            Jeff says: "ALL religions are based on the same irrational beliefs."

            That is true. All religions say that you must do some combination or some form of good works in order to curry favor with God. But the Bible turns that idea on its head. It flatly states that there is nothing anyone can do to obtain God's favor. It is all entirely in God's hand, not man's. No religion has an answer for man's sin problem except Christianity. No religion has an accurate account of history except Christianity.

            No book has stood the test of time like the Bible, and no other book declares the absolute sovereignty of God over the universe. And no other religion has produced the greatest scientific minds the world has known nor the achievements of those individuals except Christianity.

            You may think prayer is meaningless, but that is because you do not understand the purpose for prayer. Prayer is not a means to change God's mind, but rather an opportunity for us to talk to God, ask Him for wisdom, and pray that His perfect will would be done when we bring our petitions before Him. We cannot fully understand the contrast between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, but we do know that God commands us to pray, and that we can rejoice when our prayers are answered, even if the answer is not what we first expected.

            Religion may indeed be a "placebo" for many people, because there can only be one true God, not multiple gods, and so the worship of a false god is a dangerous waste of time. It may make them feel better about themselves for a while, but their spiritual condition will not change without the intervention of God, and their eternal destiny will remain the same–lost for eternity outside the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The Torah, the Koran and the Vedas have withstood the test of time as well. You want to believe that Christianity is the only religion that people have accepted for centuries. That is simply not true. The achievements of the Hindus, the Muslims, the Chinese and many others show your comment is wrong.

            Gods mind can be changed. "So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people," (Exodus 32:14, NASB).

            Christianity does not have an accurate account of history. It gets the beginning of the universe wrong. It is absurd with the idea of the Garden of Eden. The flood never occurred. There is no evidence of the Exodus. It merely refers to a few people and places that did exist. It would be like my stating that Scientology is true because L Ron. Hubbard existed and we know where he was born.

            Religion is a placebo because religion only exists in the brain.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Too bad Dodo you have not read any of those you are mumbling about like a neophyte you are :)

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You would be surprised at who I have read. And I know you are wrong. It is as simple as that. :)

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Hahahahhaah, Dodo you have not read much and if anything a popular writings for dummies only. If you would really read something of value and had a reasonable and educated mind you would not be mumbling your incredible imbecilic shenanigans like the one about about Disney style Unicorns in the Bible for example… :)

            Here watch, listen and learn something about what I told you long ago: changing semantic domains of many words:
            http://youtu.be/iEUbqjzmycE

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Job 39:9 – Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

            So you are wanting to believe the verse is referring to the rhinoceros? You never fail to try and make an absurd argument even more ridiculous.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            See Dodo that is why there is nothing that you can offer in terms of high end intelligent and factual discussion for despite factual and substantiated corrections offered to you so many times you refuse to learn and refuse to move a step higher out of your moron's gutter which is in itself a sure proof sign of a classic imbecile you are. You are so incredibly dumb that you even fail to recognize that the text precisely supports what you deny in your moronic Disneyland infused stupefying assertion of uneducated and closed mind…
            Yes, the text does in fact supports and that that is why it is in a form of a rhetorical question and one of many more where all of them signifying the impossibility a creature to really know its Creator and it this regard that is as impossible as taming a wild animal like unicorn; a species of rhinoceros which now 400 years later thanks to evolving language and semantic domain is know as rhinoceros only.

            "Whose house I have made the wilderness, and the f barren land his dwellings.
            That is, the barren ground where no good fruit grows.
            Will the unicorn be willing to g serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
            Is it possible to make the unicorn tame? signifying that if man cannot rule a creature, that it is much more impossible that he should appoint the wisdom of God, by which he governs all the world.
            Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust,
            They write that the ostrich covers her eggs in the sand, and because the country is hot and the sun still keeps them warm, they are hatched. "

            That is why I do not even try to engage morons like you for it is always a waste of time and what I wrote here is mainly for the benefit of others and not you for you will not get it any way with your IQ of a wet shoelace.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            When your argument is to spout absurdities and call it a rational conversation, I agree there is no reason to try and engage with you. You consider nonsense to be the highest form of knowledge.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            :) Just as I predicted: " it is always a waste of time and what I wrote here is mainly for the benefit of others and not you for you will not get it any way with your IQ of a wet shoelace." Hahhahahahahahahahahaa See dumbo you cannot help yourself. Only God can.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Wow, you predicted I would dismiss your nonsensical ramblings? You are truly a legend in your own mind.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Nope, Dodo I actually went to good universities and I studied there really hard and I continue to read 20 to 30 books a year including science books.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Does not change the reality that you are a pompous blowhard that does not understand what he is talking about.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Dodo, read something more than your comic books or popular science pamphlets for IQ challenged folks like you…

            "[A]n opposite way to look at the genotype is as a generative algorithm and not as a blue-print; a sort of carefully spelled out and foolproof recipe for producing a living organism of the right kind if the environment in which it develops is a proper one. Assuming this to be so, the algorithm must be written in some abstract language. Molecular biology may well have provided us with the alphabet of this language, but it is a long step from the alphabet to understanding a language. Nevertheless a language has to have rules, and these are the strongest constraints on the set of possible messages. No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequences which express its sentences. Meaning is almost invariably destroyed. Any changes must be syntactically lawful ones. I would conjecture that what one might call "genetic grammaticality" has a deterministic explanation and does not owe its stability to selection pressure acting on random variation."

            Murray Eden, "Inadequacies as a Scientific Theory," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. 11)

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            .

            The earliest description of a unicorn is found in the works of Ctesias. He has described a unicorn as an animal with a horn on the forehead which is colored white, red and black.

            Aelian, a Roman author and a rhetoric teacher mentions in his writing about the one-horned horses belonging to India.

            A Roman geographer, Strabo, has mentioned about one-horned horses with stag-like heads were found in ancient India.

            But according to your video, the horse was not associated with the unicorn until recent times.

            Historians state Alexander the Great had a few encounters with an animal called Bucephalus. It is said the head of the animal resembled a lion and the body that of a horse.

            Yep, sounds just like a rhino.

            You are such a blithering idiot. You continually live up to your name of Humpty Dumpty. Always trying to make words mean what you want them to mean.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            "The Psychology of Atheism" ~ AUDIO: http://bit.ly/MRzgvT

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            One of the most puzzling questions about the origin of life is how the rich chemical landscape that makes life possible came into existence.

            This landscape would have consisted among other things of amino acids, proteins and complex RNA molecules. What's more, these molecules must have been part of a rich network of interrelated chemical reactions which generated them in a reliable way.

            Clearly, all that must have happened before life itself emerged. But how?

            One idea is that groups of molecules can form autocatalytic sets. These are self-sustaining chemical factories, in which the product of one reaction is the feedstock or catalyst for another. The result is a virtuous, self-contained cycle of chemical creation.

            Today, Stuart Kauffman at the University of Vermont in Burlington and a couple of pals take a look at the broader mathematical properties of autocatalytic sets. In examining this bigger picture, they come to an astonishing conclusion that could have remarkable consequences for our understanding of complexity, evolution and the phenomenon of emergence.

            They begin by deriving some general mathematical properties of autocatalytic sets, showing that such a set can be made up of many autocatalytic subsets of different types, some of which can overlap.

            In other words, autocatalytic sets can have a rich complex structure of their own.

            They go on to show how evolution can work on a single autocatalytic set, producing new subsets within it that are mutually dependent on each other. This process sets up an environment in which newer subsets can evolve.

            "In other words, self-sustaining, functionally closed structures can arise at a higher level (an autocatalytic set of autocatalytic sets), i.e., true emergence," they say.
            http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427856/the-s…

          • DWoodPC

            But Jeff how do you explain the spirit?

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            "The Psychology of Atheism" ~ AUDIO: http://bit.ly/MRzgvT

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Right Jeff, just like the Hebrew nation only exists in your brain. Get real for once.
            BTW what would you like for God to do? Consult you before He changes His mind? You are under the influence of something.

          • keyboardshark

            The test is not whether a religion has been accepted by certain groups for years. The test is, what kind of followers does a religion turn out? Religions like Islam have a bloody, murderous history, and the others have no history of changed lives and scientific achievement. Your claim that other religions beside Christianity have a history of scientific achievements is nonsense. Virtually every branch of modern science, such as astronomy, chemistry, and genetics, were founded by Bible-believing scientists. I'm sure you have seen this list before:
            http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencef…

            God's mind cannot be changed. Exodus 32:14 more accurately reads in the KJV:
            " And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
            From our perspective it may appear that God has repented, but a careful examination of other verses reveals that it is not God changing His mind at all.

            Look at Jeremiah 18:7-10:

            First, we have to look at the context of the passage. In the preceding 6 verses, God has just used the illustration of a potter at a wheel making a vessel to declare that He Himself has sovereignty over man, and can therefore shape Israel any way He chooses. Verses 5 and 6 summarize His conclusion::

            "5Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,

            6O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel."

            Then come the next four verses that appear to be conditional:

            "7At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

            8If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

            9And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

            10If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them."

            But look at the next two verses. God is indicating that He already knows Israel will do evil and not repent:

            "11Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

            12And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart."

            God was telling them to "return ye now every one from his evil way", but Israel keeps insisting "we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart."

            Since God is sovereign, He knew full well that Israel would not turn from their evil ways, so even though His statement sounds conditional ("If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.") it is not. There is no possibility God would 'repent' because the outcome has already been predetermined, and is entirely in His hands, as He demonstrated in verses 1-6 with the illustration of the potter having complete control over the vessel.

            You also claim that the Bible does not have an accurate account of history, yet you expect us to believe the outlandish claims of a universe that is 3 billion or more years old based on dating methods that have been shown to be inaccurate when applied to samples of known ages. If we cannot trust the dating methods on a sample of known age, why should we trust it to accurately date a sample of unknown age? I would hardly call that an accurate account of history.

            Evolutionists also claim that the fossils layers were laid down over the course of millions of years, yet there are polystrate fossils, such as tree trunks, that extend vertically through multiple layers, plus there is no indication of erosion between layers. The Biblical model of a flood and a date for the earth of thousands of years rather than billions of years is far more logical and reasonable.

            No evidence of Exodus?
            "Evidence for the Exodus from Egypt is plentiful—as long as one has their Biblical chronology right, and thus knows to examine Egypt's history around 2450 B.C., rather than around the traditional 1450 B.C." http://biblicalchronologist.org/answers/exodus_eg…

            You can opine all you wish that the garden of Eden never existed, the flood didn't happen, etc etc. but that is denying the most accurate ancient text the world has ever known. There is far more historical evidence that the Bible is true and far more textual evidence that the writings of the Bible are more accurate than any ancient document you care to name. There is zero evidence to support the validity of nonsensical man-made religions like Scientology.

          • msjallen

            Right, keyboardshark, and The Bible was written for man to understand God, believe in His Son and how He wants us to live. In order to help us understand with our finite minds He uses; Anthropopathisms: feelings, thoughts of anger, hatred, scorn, benevolence, compassion, longsuffering and repentance. It ascribes to God human feelings which God does not have but in order to explain a Divine Policy, it is so used. Anthropomorphisms – ascribing to God a part of the human anatomy that He does not possess but expresses a Divine attitude.
            Our finite mind cannot understand all about God and He teaches through His Word how He works with the human race and the Angelic Conflict is why He created man to prove to Satan He is fair and why he will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire.

          • petroskhan1262

            I'm confused again, Jeff. You say that there has to be compelling evidence for you to accept something, then you mention evolution. The "compelling evidence" does NOT support evolution, or even come close. The only way you could claim that it does, is to disregard the majority of what evidence there is, and cling to that which fits your preconceptions.

            As for Christianity and other religions, that statement is pretty much along the same lines as your first comments. Christianity is valid, supported by the vast majority of available scientific evidence, whereas other religions are backed by…nothing.

            And being a skeptic is good, in my opinion. As long as healthy skepticism is guided by the evidence, and the desire to see objectively, and reach a goal, based on a desire to ascertain truth. Skepticism for the sake of skepticism is simply a bored and mindless dog, chasing his own tail.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Nonsense. 99% of all biological scientists in the world accept evolution. It has passed every test assigned to it. The theory of evolution has more evidence than any other scientific theory.

            People who claim that majority of evidence is against evolution are simply wrong.

          • petroskhan1262

            Oh, good grief, MUST we go there again?

            Evolution is WRONG. It is UNPROVABLE and unproven. There is NO evidence that supports a single claim of evolution, and you are delusional in the extreme if you think otherwise. And, it's not even a "theory". It's a Hypothesis. An attempt to explain something without a shred of proof behind it.

            And that old line of it having "more evidence than other scientific theory" is an outright lie. More evidence than the theory of gravity? Relativity? Those are provable and proven through experimentation and observation. Name a single case of a documented, repeatable experiment where an organism was shown to become more complex. Show me where a single cell organism became multi-cellular. Anyone out there every breed a bird from a fly? How about a horse from a dog?

            Evolution is a fantasy, require more "faith" in its baseless and nonsensical claims than Christianity demands.

            Dude, we've danced to this music before, and you insist on repeating, after being shown it's wrong, almost verbatim, the same exact cliches regarding your "religion" of evolution. "Passed every test", my foot. It hasn't passed any tests, it's failed miserably.

            And once again, I will point out that the foundation of evolution must be built upon is to show where life started. Show how, in defiance of the laws of chemistry and biology, life arose from lifelessness. Until then, it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Wrong and does not work mathematically which is a dirty and well hidden secret of atheists of which most are completely and utterly ignorant of in their otherwise "scientific and logical" worldview….
            Hahahahhahahaahahhahahahahahqhahahhaahahahah ahaha haahhaah ahahhaha ahaa :)

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Dumbo this mathematical proof for fraudulent nature of bad science in Darwin theory of evolution is far more complex and in depth than probability calculation to which you refer in your neophyte slang of "calculation of odds" :) It deals with limitation on the degree of variation and deviations from the mean values of a sample that over time return to mean values of population sample. Of course that is just signaling it and there is way more but it is not your dumb "calculation of odds" which shows again that you have no educated clue about this.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            All it shows is your attempting to sound educated on a topic you know nothing about. You are a complete blowhard.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            :) Nope Dodo. You are projecting again and lying again. You actually never heard about mathematics disproving Darwinian theory until I brought it up and you still have no clue how and that is why you mumble about "odds" :)

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            More nonsense from the mind of the blowhard.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Sure Dodo… He must be too:

            '"We do not know any general principle which would explain how to match blueprints viewed as typographic objects and the things they are supposed to control. The only example we have of such a situation (apart from the evolution of life itself) is the attempt to build self-adapting programs by workers in the field of artificial intelligence. Their experience is quite conclusive to most of the observers: without some built-in matching, nothing interesting can occur. Thus, to conclude, we believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology."

            Marcel Schutzenberger, "Algorithms and Neo-Darwinian Theory,"

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Evolution does not need to show that life arose from lifelessness anymore than atomic theory needs to explain where the atom came from.

            If you actually were able to breed a bird from a fly or a horse from a dog, that would be evidence against evolution.

            By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

            increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
            increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
            novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
            novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

            If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
            http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

          • petroskhan1262

            "Evolution does not need to show that life arose from lifelessness anymore than atomic theory needs to explain where the atom came from."

            Apples and oranges. Atomic theory is an attempt to explain the behavior of the atom, and its component parts. A Christian, atheist and a buddhist could all work together in that field with no problem. They are studying the behavior of the observable, the measurable, with repeatable experimentation.

            Your religion of evolution claims no Creator, no God. Fine. Then where did the life come from? If you disallow, in your view, the actions of God, then show how such a complex thing as life arose without Him. It's the foundation of the topic at hand.

            And variation within a species is not the introduction, or appearance, of new genetic information. You are gullible in the extreme if you think information can come from nowhere. Show an example, proven, repeatable, observable, of NEW genetic information being present where it did not exist before. If it existed, this would have rocked the scientific world. Where is it?

            "The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning ….. the tendency is to imagine that there must have been a time when simple cells existed, but when complex cells did not ….. this belief has turned out to be wrong ….. Going back in time to the age of the oldest rocks ….. fossil residues of ancient life-forms in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse, the information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of the Earth were formed." A statement indicating that all cellular organisms discovered as fossils so far have been made of complex cells – no evolution from primordial soup to simple cell to complex cell has yet been discovered. Written by evolutionists Fred Hoyle, and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, in "Evolution from Space", J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 1981 p:8 & 70

            So…no simple to complex, I guess, right? Hey, maybe this proves that simple things become more complex:

            If anything should give an indication that evolution results in simple life becoming more complex, it should be shown in the amount of genetic material a species cell contains. The more complex an animal, the greater the number of genes required for it to function. The converse should also be true. An examination, however, of the chromosome number of living things shows that this is not the case. For example, the number of chromosomes for some animals in order of their supposed evolutionary development are:- worm (2), crayfish (100), shrimp (254), goldfish (94), housefly (12), chicken (78), mouse (40), horse (66), & human (46). E. Sinnott, et al, "Principles of Genetics" (5th ed.), McGraw-Hill: New York, 1958 p:11

            Oh, wait…that doesn't show it works either, does it?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Apples and oranges. Atomic theory is an attempt to explain the behavior of the atom, and its component parts. A Christian, atheist and a buddhist could all work together in that field with no problem.

            Christians, Atheists and Buddhists work on Evolution theory as well with no problem. It is the wacko creationists that refuse to accept any part of Evolution.

          • petroskhan1262

            "It is the wacko creationists that refuse to accept any part of Evolution."

            Yes, it's wacko to not believe in something that violates the laws of mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. Far more sane to believe that which is unproven, unprovable and illogical. How silly of Christians to not follow such reasoning.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            " It has passed every test assigned to it."

            Except the mathematical tests :) As you know since a couple of weeks Dodo and as you lie about now for you were to dumb to find it for it takes more work that your imbecilic 30 second Google searches.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You are the one who cannot grasp the concept of probability, Humpty. But that holds no surprise for me.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Hahahhahaha sure neophyte.

          • keyboardshark

            Biology has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Biology is the study of living organisms in the present. We can observe living organisms in the present, conduct experiments on them, and repeat those experiments in the future.

            Evolution, on the other hand, deals with the supposed origin of those living organisms, so we are comparing operational science (observation and testing in the present, such as biology) with origins science (theories of how present organisms came to be). We do not observe evolution occurring today, even though it is supposedly an entirely natural process, nor can we conduct experiments on evolution in the present.

            Therefore, comparing biology to evolution is inaccurate, and it matters little what percentage of biologists, most of whom have been educated in pro-evolutionary universities, accept it or not. Their opinion would not be any more relevant or authoritative than would a chemist's, or even an educated layman. I would, however, take exception to your 99% figure, which sounds contrived.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Biologists studying evolution do a variety of things: population geneticists study the process as it is occurring; systematists seek to determine relationships between species and paleontologists seek to uncover details of the unfolding of life in the past. Discerning these details is often difficult, but hypotheses can be made and tested as new evidence comes to light.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Mathematics (which you do not understand) has shown theory of evolution as a fraud that cannot and does not work as popularly asserted. Most biologist are in it and for it for that is their zeitgeist that keeps them occupied, keeps them in the system and keeps them on their pedestals. High Mathematics and specifically theoretical mathematics has more room to play and more actual scientists who cannot be easily witch hunted for saying what is true: Darwin's theory of evolution is bad, bad really bad science that does not work and is a form of mass make believe.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Repeating a lie does not make it become factual.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Sure Dodo, just hide your nipple head deeper into the drift sand of ignorance.
            Mathematicians like Hoyle, Neumann, Yuckey, Wickramasinghe, Moorhead, Kaplan, Eden and so many others never existed and never mathematically disporved your fable of evolution. Meetings like Wistar Institute Symposium and other after it never took place. Keep on reading popular science books for dummies…

          • keyboardshark

            Jeff says: "…population geneticists study the process as it is occurring;…"

            Which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, which is a speculation about what happened in the past, not present occurrences.

            "…systematists seek to determine relationships between species…"

            Systematics, closely related to taxonomy, is merely a system of classifying an organism into a hierarchy, and offers no evidence either for or against evolution. If the systematist classifies it according to a tree that reflects its supposed evolutionary history, then they are merely engaging in speculation.

            "…paleontologists seek to uncover details of the unfolding of life in the past."

            This obviously deals with life in the past, but fossil evidence tells us nothing about the origin of the creature whose fossil we can observe. The evidence must be interpreted, and this is also outside the realm of operational science because it is a speculation about the past.

            In short, there is nothing about the present biological processes of living organisms that cannot be understood apart from evolution.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Key, evolution is an ongoing process. Of course it describes the process as it is occurring. It is not the only aspect of the theory, however.

          • keyboardshark

            Then why do we not see evolution occurring today? If evolution supposedly occurs by chance in an uncontrolled environment, surely we would be able to reproduce it in a laboratory under controlled conditions where we could greatly speed up the process.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            We do see occurring today. I have shown may examples of that very thing.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            many

          • keyboardshark

            You have shown many examples of natural selection, which I do agree is occurring today. But that is merely a re-shuffling of the existing genetic information. The kind of 'evolution' that evolutionists talk about would require creation of a vast amount of entirely new genetic information. We do not observe this to be occurring today. Evolutionary theory has no answers as to how vast amounts of new genetic information could be created. Information does not create itself.

          • RobertM

            http://evolutionfacts.com/Handbook%20TOC.htm

            By the way the word unicorn was used to interpret the original language in the bible for a one horned animal that is believed to be extinct now. Like the word behemoth for a dinosaur.

            Also the Koran & Vedas are not attract as the bible has been for centuries for if they had they would be put in the same category as homers odyssey by now.

          • RobertM

            I meant to say that other religious books have not been attacked as much as the bible and if they had they would be put in the same category as Homer's Odyseey. The bibles many prophesies that have come to pass, the archeological and scientific discoveries have all come on the side of the biblical text. Just because you refuse to study these facts doesn't make them false. It just makes you one of the many idiots that have held on to a false theory and have already passed on to a Christless eternity. Believe me if that's what you want that's what you'll have.

            The bible shows that the earth is round long before science discovered this fact. That's just one of many scientific facts in the bible that proves it is a supernatural book. You are being deceived if all you read are books by non-believers. You do not know if what they tell you is true especially if you don't check their so-called facts. I remember reading the book of Daniel and the prophecies that have come true. I was amazed then of course one your kind stated that Daniel was written after the fact. Wow was I disappointed and that disappointment lasted a long time. But then a Christian showed me that the copy of the book of Daniel found in the caves proved that it was written long before the prophecies were fulfilled. There are many many things written by unbelievers trying to disapprove the bible but have turned out to be either mistakes or outright lies by the unbelieving authors.

          • keyboardshark

            Good source you have given the link for, RobertM. I hadn't heard of that one before, but it looks like a comprehensive refutation of virtually every evolutionary argument. I'm bookmarking that for future reference.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            That link is terribly funny. Thank you for that bit of absurdity.

          • keyboardshark

            Then perhaps you'd care to take several points expounded therein and show why it is wrong, using factual information and not conjecture or theory.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            6 – SOLAR COLLAPSE—Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—in order for life to be sustained on our planet.

            This assumes that the rate of shrinkage is constant. That assumption is baseless. (In fact, it is the uniformitarian assumption that creationists themselves sometimes complain about.) Other stars expand and contract cyclically. Our own sun might do the same on a small scale.

            There is not even any good evidence of shrinkage. The claim is based on a single report from 1980. Other measurements, from 1980 and later, do not show any significant shrinkage. It is likely that the original report showing shrinkage contained systematic errors due to different measuring techniquies over the decades.
            http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            8 – COMETS—Comets, journeying around the sun, are assumed to have the same age as our world and solar system. But, as *Fred Whipple has acknowledged, astronomers have no idea where or how comets originated. Yet we know that they are continually disintegrating. This is because they are composed of bits of rocky debris held together by frozen gases and water. Each time a comet circles the sun, some of the ice is evaporated and some of the gas is boiled away by the sun’s heat. Additional material is lost through gravitational forces, tail formation, meteor stream production, and radiative forces. The most spectacular part of a comet is its tail, yet this consists of material driven away from its head by solar energy. All the tail material is lost in space as the comet moves onward.

            The comets that entered the inner solar system a very long time ago indeed have evaporated. However, new comets enter the inner solar system from time to time. The Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt hold many comets deep in space, beyond the orbit of Neptune, where they do not evaporate. Occasionally, gravitational perturbations from other comets bump one of them into a highly elliptical orbit, which causes it to near the sun.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            11 – SOLAR DRAG—This is a principle known as the "Poynting-Robertson Effect." Our sun exerts a solar drag on the small rocks and larger particles (micrometeoroids) in our solar system. This causes these particles to spiral down into the sun and be destroyed. The sun, acting like a giant vacuum cleaner, sweeps up about 100,000 tons [82,301 mt] of micrometeoroids each day. The actual process by which this occurs has been analyzed. Each particle absorbs energy from the sun and then re-radiates it in all directions. This causes a slowing down of the particle in its orbit and causes it to fall into the sun. At its present rate, our sun would have cleaned up most of the particles in less than 10,000 years, and all of it within 50,000 years.

            Comets bring more particles into the inner solar system regularly.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            Wow Dodo looks like you just got a new book.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            12 – COMPOSITION OF SATURN’S RINGS—*G.P. Kuiper reported, in 1967, that the trillions of particles in the rings circling the planet Saturn are primarily composed of solid ammonia. Since solidified ammonia has a much higher vapor pressure than even ice, reputable scientists recognize that it could not survive long without vaporizing off into space. This is a strong indicator of a young age for Saturn’s rings.

            Saturn's rings may be less than 100 million years old (Cuzzi and Estrada 1998). However, that says nothing about the age of the planet. The rings could have formed when Saturn captured a small moon that fell within the Roche limit (the distance below which moons will be pulled apart by tidal forces). This could have happened any time in Saturn's history.

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            No, that must be some site you are plagiarizing this from.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            So you have no response about the information other than I must have obtained it from another source? lol

          • http://youtu.be/HlD3Gaq4cN0 Despeville

            What's to respond Dodo? For a second I thought you actually bought a book and typing what you have read but of course no just usual copying and pasting of a page of the net.

          • keyboardshark

            Jeff says: "12 – COMPOSITION OF SATURN’S RINGS….The rings could have formed when Saturn captured a small moon that fell within the Roche limit (the distance below which moons will be pulled apart by tidal forces). This could have happened any time in Saturn's history."

            Possible, yes, but only a speculation. They could have just as well have been formed at the same time as the planet, but since we have no definite way of knowing which it was, we'll have to call this particular one a draw.

          • keyboardshark

            Jeff says: "11 – SOLAR DRAG…..Comets bring more particles into the inner solar system regularly."

            True, but since the sun sweeps up 100,000 tons each day, there would have to be an unbelievably huge number of comets to have any effect. The actual icy core of the comet, called its nucleus, can be anywhere from a mile across to 50 miles across for the rare 'super comets' like Hale-Bopp. http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2965.html

            Since comets disintegrate slowly over a long period of time, and have orbits ranging from 20-200 years, up to thousands or even millions of years, they would lose relatively few particles over the course of a year in the solar system, vs. the 'clean-up rate' of 100,000 tons/day, so it's not too difficult to see that any material shed from comets would be negligible and have little if any effect on solar drag.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet

          • keyboardshark

            Jeff says: "8 – COMETS"

            The comet question is much more complex than it seems and would be too lengthy to discuss here. But here is a link to a comprehensive examination of the 'comets and the age of the solar system' question:
            http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v11/n…

            Here is the abstract (summary):

            "The existence of comets as an argument for a recent creation is examined. Most creationist presentations of this topic are out of date. To rectify this situation, the tremendous amount of work on the origin and evolution of comets by evolutionary astronomers over the past two decades is reviewed.

            While it was once thought that the Oort cloud could account for all comets, computer simulations have clearly shown that short-period comets cannot originate from the cloud, so the Kuiper belt has been revived to explain the origin of the short period comets.

            The alleged discovery of the Kuiper belt is discussed, while the status of the Oort cloud as a theory is questioned. It is concluded that the existence of comets is still a valid argument for a recent creation of the Solar System."

          • keyboardshark

            ALL dating methods, unless verifiable by historical written records, are based on assumptions, including the ones presented above. The point of presenting the time clocks which show a young earth age was not to 'prove' that the earth is young, but simply to show that:
            1) Assumptions based on shorter time periods are more likely to be correct because the greater the length of time involved, the more likely that the assumptions upon which the method is based may have changed

            2) Evolutionists and old earth secular scientists expect us to believe that the earth is old based entirely on dating methods that use uniformitarian assumptions, but creationists can also produce time clocks based on uniformitarian assumptions that show much younger ages. Therefore, the evolutionary conclusion that the earth is very old is no more authoritative, at least from the standpoint of time clocks, than the creationist assumption that it is much younger.

            You are correct that the shrinking sun assumption may or may not be valid, and perhaps should not have been included since there is no clear consensus. Some studies, such as the 1979 Eddy and Boornazian studies have indicated that the sun does indeed shrink at a fairly constant rate over time (diameter decreasing at a rate of almost six feet per hour), while others indicate that it may merely oscillate in size.
            http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v11/n…

  • Richard

    Chris and Jeff,

    Way to go. Always will be trying to drag others back into the darkness where you both are trying to Hide. The power of other people's prayer may cause you also to irresistibly change one day. You will not be able to fight it, that's a promise.

    Leah,

    If you're confused about homosexuality get hold of some of the discussions with John MacArthur about the subject. He has a clear lucid way of explaining it all that is absolutely biblical.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      Helping people move away from delusion is hardly trying to drag them back into darkness. I am shining a light on the absurdity of religion.

      • Glen S

        I'm afraid you over estimate your importance in your own little dance of flawed logic.

  • Cravczec

    Phew.. dodged a bullet. Nice move Leah.

  • Gizmo

    Welcome to Christ's Fold! Truth has a way to be found if it is being honestly sought!
    Make sure to find a good solid local church & continue your Walk to the Paradise God has promised for us!

  • red nig

    Over the last half-century of life, I've heard from and discussed with many ex-secular humanists, be they garden variety or former extremists such as Nazis and KKK (both of which are secular humanist with replacement theologies, attempting to displace Christianity/'the other Jews' (Hitler's term for Christians)). Each made the decision after a long agony or indecision, and none to my knowledge ever regretted it. Herein there is peace which passes all understanding. When men of science were killing men of science who claimed the world was round, the Bible still pointed out that God's feet sit upon the ball of the earth. The Bible is still the root of human understanding of the soul (psychology), and so on. Each of these people strove to become the best in their world, and each came against that vast wall: They could not disprove the Bible. Peace to all of you, including Jeff, who is in my prayers, tho I tend to trat him as I would a Native American (we tend towards sarcasm in humor ;)