Atheism Rising

Dec 5, 2012 Full story: Houston Press 770

It's a warm fall morning near the Texas State Capitol's south steps, and there's a fight brewing.

Full Story

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#124 Jan 29, 2013
HEATH - 72 wrote:
<quoted text>
16 Their children also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
Their houses will be plundered
And their wives ravished.
NKJV
Amen!
www.roysecitycoc.org
Way to go god!
What a ball less pack of shit.

Steal their stuff: God is a theif.
Kill their children: god is a murdering bastard.
Rape their wives: god is a douche bag.

Hey god, why won't you rape him, kill him, he is the one who pissed you off? It's because the Christard god sees woman and children as possessions, and not quite human.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#125 Jan 29, 2013
Very well said. Amazing how far we have come.
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Way to go god!
What a ball less pack of shit.
Steal their stuff: God is a theif.
Kill their children: god is a murdering bastard.
Rape their wives: god is a douche bag.
Hey god, why won't you rape him, kill him, he is the one who pissed you off? It's because the Christard god sees woman and children as possessions, and not quite human.
hey

United States

#126 Jan 29, 2013
Now there's a good tattoo 4 ya.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#128 Jan 29, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Just let people have their own beliefs. What someone else believes does not affect you, and a lot of problems would be solved if everyone just realized that. I respect other's beliefs. I think as long as it makes you happy and secure, go right ahead.
Fine.

Just as soon as ALL churches quit taking tax-bribes by claiming tax-exempt status.

That is an unconstitutional support of churches. And so long as it happens? I will continue to prove all faith in supernatural sh7t is...... bullsh7t.

Since: Jan 10

Royse City

#129 Jan 29, 2013
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.asp...

Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?

Since: Jan 10

Royse City

#130 Jan 29, 2013
Blind, Biased Failure to See God
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The flagellum that propels bacteria has long been recognized as a marvel of engineering. Scientists know that this rotating wonder, and the assembly to which it is attached, is a tiny but powerful molecular engine. One of nature’s smallest, and yet most powerful, motors rotates at over 200 revolutions per second, driven by incredible torque. Researchers have also long been puzzled by what enables the flagellum to come to a stop, and even reverse its rotation. In recent years they have discovered that it does so using a “clutch.” The bacterium can disconnect from the flagellum by releasing a protein that disengages the clutch (“‘Clutch’ Stops...,” 2008).

In the presence of such sophistication and intelligent design, one would think that researchers would recognize divine design when they see it. Sadly, however, the massive propaganda campaign that has inundated the science departments of American schools for a half century has blinded its victims to glaring evidence. Consider the lead researcher’s analysis of the clutch discovery:“We think it’s pretty cool that evolving bacteria and human engineers arrived at a similar solution to the same problem”(“‘Clutch’ Stops...”). Really? Nonsentient, uncoordinated, chance forces of nature somehow designed and created a technologically advanced device long before sentient, intelligent human engineers designed their own version? The same researcher also observed:

“This makes a lot of sense as far as the cell is concerned.... The flagellum is a giant, very expensive structure. Often when a cell no longer needs something, it might destroy it and recycle the parts. But here, because the flagellum is so big and complex, doing that is not very cost-effective. We think the clutch prevents the flagellum from rotating when constrained by the sticky matrix of the biofilm”(“‘Clutch’ Stops...”).
Wait a minute.“Makes a lot of sense”?“Very expensive”?“Big and complex”? The verbal gymnastics that evolutionists engage in would be humorous if not so sadly serious. These are terms that demand intelligence and sentience. The evolutionists constantly allow themselves the luxury of speaking as if the myriad organisms that display incredible design and purpose somehow created themselves and then consciously tweaked themselves over millions of years to become more efficient. They regularly cut themselves slack by speaking as if a mind—a conscious, intelligent being—were orchestrating the endless stream of biological marvels that grace the planet.

So blinded by irrational commitment to an outlandish theory, evolutionists are unable to hear the evidence screaming in their ears and flashing before their eyes, and come to the only logical conclusion: such intricate, complex design demands an intelligent, superior Designer. To deny it is bias of the first order.

“Thus says the LORD....‘I am the LORD, who makes all things…Who turns wise men backward, and makes their knowledge foolishness”(Isaiah 44:24-25).

REFERENCE

“‘Clutch’ Stops Flagella”(2008), Photonics Media, June 23, http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx... .

Since: Jan 10

Royse City

#131 Jan 29, 2013
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.asp...

Atheism and Liberal, Missouri

Since: Jan 10

Royse City

#132 Jan 29, 2013
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.asp...

The Atheistic Naturalist's Self-Contradiction
Thinking

Saffron Walden, UK

#133 Jan 29, 2013
There is no irreducible complexity here... tough sh!t, "intelligent" design.
HEATH - 72 wrote:
Blind, Biased Failure to See God
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
The flagellum that propels bacteria has long been recognized as a marvel of engineering. Scientists know that this rotating wonder, and the assembly to which it is attached, is a tiny but powerful molecular engine. One of nature’s smallest, and yet most powerful, motors rotates at over 200 revolutions per second, driven by incredible torque. Researchers have also long been puzzled by what enables the flagellum to come to a stop, and even reverse its rotation. In recent years they have discovered that it does so using a “clutch.” The bacterium can disconnect from the flagellum by releasing a protein that disengages the clutch (“‘Clutch’ Stops...,” 2008).
In the presence of such sophistication and intelligent design, one would think that researchers would recognize divine design when they see it. Sadly, however, the massive propaganda campaign that has inundated the science departments of American schools for a half century has blinded its victims to glaring evidence. Consider the lead researcher’s analysis of the clutch discovery:“We think it’s pretty cool that evolving bacteria and human engineers arrived at a similar solution to the same problem”(“‘Clutch’ Stops...”). Really? Nonsentient, uncoordinated, chance forces of nature somehow designed and created a technologically advanced device long before sentient, intelligent human engineers designed their own version? The same researcher also observed:
“This makes a lot of sense as far as the cell is concerned.... The flagellum is a giant, very expensive structure. Often when a cell no longer needs something, it might destroy it and recycle the parts. But here, because the flagellum is so big and complex, doing that is not very cost-effective. We think the clutch prevents the flagellum from rotating when constrained by the sticky matrix of the biofilm”(“‘Clutch’ Stops...”).
Wait a minute.“Makes a lot of sense”?“Very expensive”?“Big and complex”? The verbal gymnastics that evolutionists engage in would be humorous if not so sadly serious. These are terms that demand intelligence and sentience. The evolutionists constantly allow themselves the luxury of speaking as if the myriad organisms that display incredible design and purpose somehow created themselves and then consciously tweaked themselves over millions of years to become more efficient. They regularly cut themselves slack by speaking as if a mind—a conscious, intelligent being—were orchestrating the endless stream of biological marvels that grace the planet.
So blinded by irrational commitment to an outlandish theory, evolutionists are unable to hear the evidence screaming in their ears and flashing before their eyes, and come to the only logical conclusion: such intricate, complex design demands an intelligent, superior Designer. To deny it is bias of the first order.
“Thus says the LORD....‘I am the LORD, who makes all things…Who turns wise men backward, and makes their knowledge foolishness”(Isaiah 44:24-25).
REFERENCE
“‘Clutch’ Stops Flagella”(2008), Photonics Media, June 23, http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx... .

Since: Jan 10

Royse City

#134 Jan 29, 2013
Are Viruses Really “Evolving”?
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

We’re all familiar with the concept—viruses changing over time, appearing to perceive and then circumvent our medicinal efforts. But do they do it on purpose? Humanity appeared to have won the battle against many diseases and viruses using various drug treatments in the 1960s and 1970s. However, today it appears that we may have only toughened the battle. According to Kenneth Miller,“the culprit is evolution”(1999, p. 50). Evolutionists frequently use this idea of the “rapid evolution” of viruses as “observed proof” for evolution. Their claim is that drug-resistant strains of many types of viruses have evolved from strains that, at one time, were susceptible to these same drug treatments. Newscasters remind us frequently of viruses such as HIV that respond to certain treatments for a while, but then develop (“evolve”) immunity to that particular therapy. Scientists would have you and me believe that these microorganisms are “selectively” adapting to our drug treatments through a mechanism that involves mutation. However, a recent study indicates an alternative explanation for this acquired immunity—one that argues against organic evolution.

Researchers Monica Sala and Simon Wain-Hobson from the world famous Pasteur Institute in France recently published a paper titled “Are RNA Viruses Adapting or Merely Changing”(2000). In this particular study, 85 sets of proteins from viruses that are known to infect mammals, plants, and bacteria were studied. According to the old evolutionary hypothesis, once drug therapy alleviates the majority of viral particles, only the ones that remain have mutated during replication and thus are resistant. Evolutionists believe that this represents a new kind of “natural selection” taking place—one in which mutations purposefully confer drug resistance to viruses. Speaking about bacterial replication, Dr. Miller stated:“The result is unavoidable, given the millions of genetic duplications that occur in a bacterial population in just a few days. Sooner or later, the ‘right’ mutation shows up, and it causes the individual bacteria that possess it to prosper at our expense”(p. 50).

However, Dr. Sala’s data indicate that the changes we are seeing in viruses are due to a genetic drift (random genetic variations within the viral material) rather than a response to drugs! These studies demonstrated that this genetic drift occurred at a constant rate, even when the viruses were subjected to drug treatments (in other words the viruses changed whether or not they had been exposed to drug therapy). The appearance of “drug resistance” may not be as new as researchers once thought. Modeling studies looking at HIV-resistant mutants have demonstrated that drug resistant strains already are present before drug therapy begins (Ribeiro and Sebastian, 2000), indicating that the changes in these viruses are occurring randomly rather than in response to a particular drug. Do viruses change over time? Yes. Are they purposefully “evolving”? No.

REFERENCES
Miller, Kenneth (1999), Finding Darwin’s God (New York: Cliff Street).

Ribeiro, Ruy M. and Sebastian Bonhoeffer (2000),“Production of Resistant HIV Mutants During Antiretroviral Therapy,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 97:7681-86.

Sala, Monica and Simon Wain-Hobson (2000),“Are RNA Viruses Adapting or Merely Changing,” Journal of Molecular Evolution, 51:12-20, July.

Since: Jan 10

Royse City

#135 Jan 29, 2013
Stephen Hawking Is Wrong, God Created the Universe
by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Stephen Hawking is a brilliant scientist. He has battled a crippling disease since he was 20, made a name for himself on a global scale through his scientific prowess, and been an inspiration to many. But in his latest book, The Grand Design, he is just plain wrong. Michael Holden wrote an article he titled:“‘God Did Not Create the Universe,’ Says Hawking,” in which he stated that Hawking’s new book, co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow, proposes the idea that the laws which hold the Universe together do not need an intelligent Designer.

In fact, Holden quoted Hawking as saying:“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist”(as quoted in Holden, 2010, emp. added). While the book is not yet on the shelves, there are already glaring flaws with Hawking’s reasoning.

First, Hawking cannot explain why the law of gravity exists in the first place. He says “because there is a law of gravity,” but he can give no reason why such a law is present, and is constant. Without an adequate explanation for the origin of laws, such as gravity, any explanation of the origin of a Universe dependent on those laws is incomplete. Furthermore, regardless of what theoretical, mathematical calculations Hawking has concocted, the simple fact of the matter is, if there ever was a time when nothing existed, there would be nothing now. The mere fact that Hawking suggests that anything can “spontaneously create itself out of nothing,” is, with all due respect, ridiculously absurd and completely unscientific! It is impossible to get something from nothing—any way you slice it. Using Hawking’s way of thinking, we could suggest that this article you are reading “spontaneously created itself out of nothing.” Yet such a conclusion defies all known scientific laws.

In Acts 26:24, the Roman governor Festus said to the apostle Paul:“You are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!” While that accusation did not accurately apply to Paul, it does, unfortunately, apply to Hawking’s concept of “spontaneous creation out of nothing.” The Psalmist wrote:“The fool has said in his heart,‘There is no God.’” Sadly, Hawking’s brilliant mind has been turned to false, unscientific foolishness. Would to God that Hawking and all his fellow scientists would turn to the God of the Bible who speaks “the words of truth and reason”(Acts 26:25).


REFERENCE
Holden, Michael (2010),“‘God Did Not Create the Universe’, Says Hawking,” http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_lif... .

www.roysecitycoc.org
Thinking

Saffron Walden, UK

#136 Jan 29, 2013
Yes.
HEATH - 72 wrote:
Are Viruses Really “Evolving”?
Thinking

Saffron Walden, UK

#137 Jan 29, 2013
If your god exists, yes.
HEATH - 72 wrote:
Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?
rubish

United States

#138 Jan 29, 2013
Were r your rewards , yeah ur neighbor geten em .hmmm go figure. But not u . Ur rooting for the rong team . Or pretending . Either way , YOU Will miss the boat. Soon you Will feel me praying for you. Chill , a few demonds got u by the arse . Shu them away 1 at a time . & a simple SMILE can b a part of ur day more often. Atheist statist , crap ur either good or evil . Is no in-between .i

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#139 Jan 29, 2013
HEATH - 72 wrote:
Blind, Biased Failure to See God
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
The flagellum that propels bacteria has long been recognized as a marvel of engineering. Scientists know that this rotating wonder, and the assembly to which it is attached, is a tiny but powerful molecular engine. One of nature’s smallest, and yet most powerful, motors rotates at over 200 revolutions per second, driven by incredible torque. Researchers have also long been puzzled by what enables the flagellum to come to a stop, and even reverse its rotation. In recent years they have discovered that it does so using a “clutch.” The bacterium can disconnect from the flagellum by releasing a protein that disengages the clutch (“‘Clutch’ Stops...,” 2008).
In the presence of such sophistication and intelligent design, one would think that researchers would recognize divine design when they see it. Sadly, however, the massive propaganda campaign that has inundated the science departments of American schools for a half century has blinded its victims to glaring evidence. Consider the lead researcher’s analysis of the clutch discovery:“We think it’s pretty cool that evolving bacteria and human engineers arrived at a similar solution to the same problem”(“‘Clutch’ Stops...”). Really? Nonsentient, uncoordinated, chance forces of nature somehow designed and created a technologically advanced device long before sentient, intelligent human engineers designed their own version? The same researcher also observed:
“This makes a lot of sense as far as the cell is concerned.... The flagellum is a giant, very expensive structure. Often when a cell no longer needs something, it might destroy it and recycle the parts. But here, because the flagellum is so big and complex, doing that is not very cost-effective. We think the clutch prevents the flagellum from rotating when constrained by the sticky matrix of the biofilm”(“‘Clutch’ Stops...”).
Wait a minute.“Makes a lot of sense”?“Very expensive”?“Big and complex”? The verbal gymnastics that evolutionists engage in would be humorous if not so sadly serious. These are terms that demand intelligence and sentience. The evolutionists constantly allow themselves the luxury of speaking as if the myriad organisms that display incredible design and purpose somehow created themselves and then consciously tweaked themselves over millions of years to become more efficient. They regularly cut themselves slack by speaking as if a mind—a conscious, intelligent being—were orchestrating the endless stream of biological marvels that grace the planet.
So blinded by irrational commitment to an outlandish theory, evolutionists are unable to hear the evidence screaming in their ears and flashing before their eyes, and come to the only logical conclusion: such intricate, complex design demands an intelligent, superior Designer. To deny it is bias of the first order.
“Thus says the LORD....‘I am the LORD, who makes all things…Who turns wise men backward, and makes their knowledge foolishness”(Isaiah 44:24-25).
REFERENCE
“‘Clutch’ Stops Flagella”(2008), Photonics Media, June 23, http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx... .
Too bad we can actually determine the evolutionary precursors of the flagellum.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#140 Jan 29, 2013
rubish wrote:
Were r your rewards , yeah ur neighbor geten em .hmmm go figure. But not u . Ur rooting for the rong team . Or pretending . Either way , YOU Will miss the boat. Soon you Will feel me praying for you. Chill , a few demonds got u by the arse . Shu them away 1 at a time . & a simple SMILE can b a part of ur day more often. Atheist statist , crap ur either good or evil . Is no in-between .i
I see your time in school was wasted as well.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#141 Jan 29, 2013
HEATH - 72 wrote:
Stephen Hawking Is Wrong, God Created the Universe
by Kyle Butt, M.A.
Proof that even someone with an M.A. can be a total idiot.

Next.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#142 Jan 29, 2013
Is it immoral to kill innocent children you ask. If one even has to ask this question it shows a level of depravity only achieved by cults and sociopaths.
HEATH - 72 wrote:
http://www.apologetic
Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#143 Jan 29, 2013
HEATH - 72 wrote:
http://www.apologeticspress.or g/apcontent.aspx?category=11 &article=260
Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?
Yes.

So are you.

Next!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#144 Jan 29, 2013
rubish wrote:
Were r your rewards , yeah ur neighbor geten em .hmmm go figure. But not u . Ur rooting for the rong team . Or pretending . Either way , YOU Will miss the boat. Soon you Will feel me praying for you. Chill , a few demonds got u by the arse . Shu them away 1 at a time . & a simple SMILE can b a part of ur day more often. Atheist statist , crap ur either good or evil . Is no in-between .i
English, please learn it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 11 min CunningLinguist 227,628
Our world came from nothing? 13 min Patrick 477
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 27 min Lawrence Wolf 106
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 29 min Patrick 22,258
Here's a place for Patrick's off-topic articles 1 hr NightSerf 1
Glorify God, our Heavenly Father 1 hr Son of God 1
Stump a theist with 2 questions 1 hr NightSerf 66
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••