As for Dawkins, he's not the most reasonable person to listen to.
I agree since I use the term "Dawkinist" to mean one who is rabidly anti religious. (e.g., Contra). At least as far as religious matters go. But that statement about babies makes the case that the Dawkinists want to make. That is that the religious are incompetant and unable to think clearly.
I am thunderstruck that you would try to make such an obviously stupid argument. You're saying that an entire city had no babies. More than that you're saying that at the time of the flood there were no babies. You simply
have to be kidding.
I find it hard to state just how utterly ridiculous that idea looks. I am, for a change, at a loss for words.
'Sides, while I'm no Biblical scholar, what does Abraham have to do with it?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-17-2004 12:13 PM