Creationists

[Hollie]

Wrong,your creation view is Abiogenesis no more credible by your own reasoning. Because you deny complexity as evidence of a designer.

Correct in very narrow terms. Complexity has no requirement for a "designer".

Your only argument in the affirmative is "yes it does, because I say so'.

There is nothing in the natural world that requires a "designer". You are arguing from a religious perspective and your religion is far removed from a science paradigm.

I know you didn't watch the videos posted and it was not by a religous fundie as you call them. Each post you put up,reveals alot about you hollie.

I knew it as only a matter of time before you were back with your videos.

You make the mistake of assuming that your videos, of unknown origin and authenticity make a convincing argument. It's also clear that your videos are carefully selected from fundie Christian websites as they are culled from unknown sources to further your religious claims.

You are not able to address that honestly which says a lot about you.

 

[Hollie]

More "science" from the creationist ministries:


Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI’s Egnor


The Panda's Thumb: Intelligent Design: 2007 Archives

By Guest Contributor on April 16, 2007 11:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (48) | TrackBacks (0)

by Douglas L. Theobald

As many of you undoubtedly know, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is the Discovery Institute’s latest garrulous creationist mouthpiece. In a recent blog entry (Mr. Lemonick, Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell - Evolution News & Views) responding to Michael Lemonick of Time Magazine, Egnor claims that the 19th century scientists Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell used “the inference to design” to study electricity:

“Let’s ask: what role did the inference to design play for scientists who gave us electricity? … The two scientific pioneers of classical electromagnetism, Faraday and Maxwell, were particularly devout Christians who inferred design everywhere in nature. They believed that God designed everything — including electricity. Their approach to science was pure design inference, undiluted by atheism or materialism…. They worked entirely from the design inference.”

Faraday and Maxwell were Christians who did indeed see design in nature. However, Egnor has it backwards.

Continue reading “Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor”.

Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor - The Panda's Thumb

More cut and pasting from Fundie EVO sites.

The source is not an evo site.

But the article does speak volumes about the inability of Christian fundies to operate in a rational world.

 

[UltimateReality]

I have bolded the massive amounts of assumptive language used in these so called findings just so every one else isn't fooled like Hollie was because she can't see when she/he/it is being duped...

1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator [Intelligently Designed by a human no less] can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004). [May have? Can't we do an experiment to confirm this??]

2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed [are you saying there is no other possibility??]abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). [Perhaps??? Can't we set up a simple experiment to verify this? Since folks like Hollie will buy the pseudoscience without any experimental proof, why bother??] The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.

3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). [May have had??? Let's base a whole theory on "might haves" and "may haves", do nothing to test them, and then call it a fact] HA, HA! It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.

That's some great science you posted up there Hollie.

 

[UltimateReality]

More "science" from the creationist ministries:


Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI’s Egnor


The Panda's Thumb: Intelligent Design: 2007 Archives

By Guest Contributor on April 16, 2007 11:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (48) | TrackBacks (0)

by Douglas L. Theobald

As many of you undoubtedly know, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is the Discovery Institute’s latest garrulous creationist mouthpiece. In a recent blog entry (Mr. Lemonick, Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell - Evolution News & Views) responding to Michael Lemonick of Time Magazine, Egnor claims that the 19th century scientists Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell used “the inference to design” to study electricity:

“Let’s ask: what role did the inference to design play for scientists who gave us electricity? … The two scientific pioneers of classical electromagnetism, Faraday and Maxwell, were particularly devout Christians who inferred design everywhere in nature. They believed that God designed everything — including electricity. Their approach to science was pure design inference, undiluted by atheism or materialism…. They worked entirely from the design inference.”

Faraday and Maxwell were Christians who did indeed see design in nature. However, Egnor has it backwards.

Continue reading “Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor”.

Echoes of Zeus: Thunder and Lightning are Supernatural According to DI's Egnor - The Panda's Thumb

More cut and pasting from Fundie EVO sites.

The source is not an evo site.

But the article does speak volumes about the inability of Christian fundies to operate in a rational world.

Hollie, just to clue you in, I just did what you do and you didn't even catch it.

You don't even check out the links and then automatically assume they are from "religious" websites. So when you make those comments, no offense, but you just look really foolish. I really thought you would catch my humor but oh well.

 

[Hollie]

I have bolded the massive amounts of assumptive language used in these so called findings just so every one else isn't fooled like Hollie was because she can't see when she/he/it is being duped...

1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator [Intelligently Designed by a human no less] can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004). [May have? Can't we do an experiment to confirm this??]

2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed [are you saying there is no other possibility??]abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). [Perhaps??? Can't we set up a simple experiment to verify this? Since folks like Hollie will buy the pseudoscience without any experimental proof, why bother??] The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.

3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). [May have had??? Let's base a whole theory on might haves and may haves, do nothing to test them, and then call it a fact] It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.

I was hoping you could use some larger fonts.


If you have an issue with science not having every answer, show us conclusive proof to the contrary... you silly little name-caller.

 

[UltimateReality]

Wrong,your creation view is Abiogenesis no more credible by your own reasoning. Because you deny complexity as evidence of a designer.

Correct in very narrow terms. Complexity has no requirement for a "designer".

Your only argument in the affirmative is "yes it does, because I say so'.

There is nothing in the natural world that requires a "designer". You are arguing from a religious perspective and your religion is far removed from a science paradigm.

How did you reach this conclusion hollie when scientist don't have a viable explanation for life ?

I am really curious too, since you have made it clear on here SEVERAL times that the TOE doesn't apply to ORIGINS questions. Yet here you are posting up rebuttals to the left handed amino acid questions and talking about the complexity in the cell.

Which is it?? Does evolution apply to abiogenisis or not? You need to pick a stance and stay with it.

 

[UltimateReality]

"Real data,real evidence".... yeah.... just watch this video I cut and pasted from the ICR.

You're kidding, right?

No, your words and my words and if I paste anything it will be from someone on your side.

You're still not getting it.

You have demonstrated on several occasions that the "quotes" you post are falsified, altered or edited. I've corrected these falsified "quotes" and you continued with attempts to deceive and misrepresent.

Oh you mean like when you read into things based on your skewed worldview? Like when you automatically assumed creation with a little 'c' was referring to the Judeo-Christian account? Is that what you mean by altered quotes? Or are they just Altered in YOUR mind?

 

[Hollie]

Correct in very narrow terms. Complexity has no requirement for a "designer".

Your only argument in the affirmative is "yes it does, because I say so'.

There is nothing in the natural world that requires a "designer". You are arguing from a religious perspective and your religion is far removed from a science paradigm.

How did you reach this conclusion hollie when scientist don't have a viable explanation for life ?

I am really curious too, since you have made it clear on here SEVERAL times that the TOE doesn't apply to ORIGINS questions. Yet here you are posting up rebuttals to the left handed amino acid questions and talking about the complexity in the cell.

Which is it?? Does evolution apply to abiogenisis or not? You need to pick a stance and stay with it.

I see your confudion. It's the result of your appalling lack of a science vocabulary.

The matter can be resolved immediately with nothing more than affirmative proof of the gods you claim are extant.

 

[UltimateReality]

I have bolded the massive amounts of assumptive language used in these so called findings just so every one else isn't fooled like Hollie was because she can't see when she/he/it is being duped...

1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator [Intelligently Designed by a human no less] can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004). [May have? Can't we do an experiment to confirm this??]

2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed [are you saying there is no other possibility??]abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). [Perhaps??? Can't we set up a simple experiment to verify this? Since folks like Hollie will buy the pseudoscience without any experimental proof, why bother??] The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.

3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). [May have had??? Let's base a whole theory on might haves and may haves, do nothing to test them, and then call it a fact] It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.

I was hoping you could use some larger fonts.


If you have an issue with science not having every answer, show us conclusive proof to the contrary... you silly little name-caller.

Ask, and you shall receive.

All I'm saying is next time you cut and paste up some "evidence", you might want to refer to some real science that actually uses the scientific method that you have referred to on here so many times. Remember, you are always going on about how my beliefs are supernatural, so please explain your expectation for me to provide scientific evidence for something that is Supernatural?

 

[UltimateReality]

How did you reach this conclusion hollie when scientist don't have a viable explanation for life ?

I am really curious too, since you have made it clear on here SEVERAL times that the TOE doesn't apply to ORIGINS questions. Yet here you are posting up rebuttals to the left handed amino acid questions and talking about the complexity in the cell.

Which is it?? Does evolution apply to abiogenisis or not? You need to pick a stance and stay with it.

I see your confudion. It's the result of your appalling lack of a science vocabulary.

The matter can be resolved immediately with nothing more than affirmative proof of the gods you claim are extant.

Nice dodge. Why not answer the question: Does the TOE apply to origins arguments or not? What is your stance?

 

[Hollie]

I have bolded the massive amounts of assumptive language used in these so called findings just so every one else isn't fooled like Hollie was because she can't see when she/he/it is being duped...

I was hoping you could use some larger fonts.


If you have an issue with science not having every answer, show us conclusive proof to the contrary... you silly little name-caller.

Ask, and you shall receive.

All I'm saying is next time you cut and paste up some "evidence", you might want to refer to some real science that actually uses the scientific method that you have referred to on here so many times. Remember, you are always going on about how my beliefs are supernatural, so please explain your expectation for me to provide scientific evidence for something that is Supernatural?

I'm beginning to understand what puberty does to little boys.

If you understand the process if science, you may eventually come to understand that the study of biology is not performed by presuming a supernatural intervention but by testing and research.

I don't expect you to present scientific evidence of the supernatural. Obviously, you cannot. The supernatural is by definition out of the realm of the natural. Religion and your gods are not available for testing as us the natural world.

Basically, the best you can do is to post videos from fundie xtian websites and accompany them with gargantuan fonts.

That's a good not. Now run along. Scoot

 

[UltimateReality]

I was hoping you could use some larger fonts.


If you have an issue with science not having every answer, show us conclusive proof to the contrary... you silly little name-caller.

Ask, and you shall receive.

All I'm saying is next time you cut and paste up some "evidence", you might want to refer to some real science that actually uses the scientific method that you have referred to on here so many times. Remember, you are always going on about how my beliefs are supernatural, so please explain your expectation for me to provide scientific evidence for something that is Supernatural?

I'm beginning to understand what puberty does to little boys.

If you understand the process if science, you may eventually come to understand that the study of biology is not performed by presuming a supernatural intervention but by testing and research.

I don't expect you to present scientific evidence of the supernatural. Obviously, you cannot. The supernatural is by definition out of the realm of the natural. Religion and your gods are not available for testing as us the natural world.

Basically, the best you can do is to post videos from fundie xtian websites and accompany them with gargantuan fonts.

That's a good not. Now run along. Scoot

Again you dodge the question. You you fail to understand in your skewed view is that you the burden of proof is on you, because you are claiming your belief is a fact which is testable by the scientific method.

Also, if the TOE doesn't apply to origins, why do you propose possibilities? Can you not just answer the question instead of resorting to put downs?

 

[Hollie]

Ask, and you shall receive.

All I'm saying is next time you cut and paste up some "evidence", you might want to refer to some real science that actually uses the scientific method that you have referred to on here so many times. Remember, you are always going on about how my beliefs are supernatural, so please explain your expectation for me to provide scientific evidence for something that is Supernatural?

I'm beginning to understand what puberty does to little boys.

If you understand the process if science, you may eventually come to understand that the study of biology is not performed by presuming a supernatural intervention but by testing and research.

I don't expect you to present scientific evidence of the supernatural. Obviously, you cannot. The supernatural is by definition out of the realm of the natural. Religion and your gods are not available for testing as us the natural world.

Basically, the best you can do is to post videos from fundie xtian websites and accompany them with gargantuan fonts.

That's a good not. Now run along. Scoot

Again you dodge the question. You you fail to understand in your skewed view is that you the burden of proof is on you, because you are claiming your belief is a fact which is testable by the scientific method.

Also, if the TOE doesn't apply to origins, why do you propose possibilities? Can you not just answer the question instead of resorting to put downs?

The theory of evolution is testable by the methods of science. Additionally, the theory of evolution does not address the beginning of life.

This has been addressed before which us why I'm surprised st your confusion...but not surprised at your juvenile behavior.

Are and the other guy playing tag-team fundie?

 

[UltimateReality]

I'm beginning to understand what puberty does to little boys.

If you understand the process if science, you may eventually come to understand that the study of biology is not performed by presuming a supernatural intervention but by testing and research.

I don't expect you to present scientific evidence of the supernatural. Obviously, you cannot. The supernatural is by definition out of the realm of the natural. Religion and your gods are not available for testing as us the natural world.

Basically, the best you can do is to post videos from fundie xtian websites and accompany them with gargantuan fonts.

That's a good not. Now run along. Scoot

Again you dodge the question. You you fail to understand in your skewed view is that you the burden of proof is on you, because you are claiming your belief is a fact which is testable by the scientific method.

Also, if the TOE doesn't apply to origins, why do you propose possibilities? Can you not just answer the question instead of resorting to put downs?

The theory of evolution is testable by the methods of science. Additionally, the theory of evolution does not address the beginning of life.

This has been addressed before which us why I'm surprised st your confusion...but not surprised at your juvenile behavior.

Are and the other guy playing tag-team fundie?

So that begs the question, if the TOE doesn't apply to origins, why are you cutting and pasting responses to origins questions or commenting on Abiogenesis video's you haven't bothered to view?

The only juvenile behavior I am witnessing in this thread is your incessant name calling and put downs. Or your condescending comments like "now run along. scoot". It really adds nothing to the discussion and only serves to distract from your lack of ability to engage in an adult discussion.

 

[Hollie]

Again you dodge the question. You you fail to understand in your skewed view is that you the burden of proof is on you, because you are claiming your belief is a fact which is testable by the scientific method.

Also, if the TOE doesn't apply to origins, why do you propose possibilities? Can you not just answer the question instead of resorting to put downs?

The theory of evolution is testable by the methoids of science. Additionally, the theory of evolution does not address the beginning of life.

This has been addressed before which us why I'm surprised st your confusion...but not surprised at your juvenile behavior.

Are and the other guy playing tag-team fundie?

So that begs the question, if the TOE doesn't apply to origins, why are you cutting and pasting responses to origins questions or commenting on Abiogenesis video's you haven't bothered to view?

The only juvenile behavior I am witnessing in this thread is your incessant name calling and put downs. Or your condescending comments like "now run along. scoot". It really adds nothing to the discussion and only serves to distract from your lack of ability to engage in an adult discussion.

Those comments are actually comical based upon your obvious juvenile behavior.

 

[UltimateReality]

YWC, I just watched the video's of the guy talking about Abiogenisis and what a great, UN-BIASED, summary of the current thought. I was especially intrigued by his comments on the "self-replicating molecule". Science makes it seem like we have an inkling into a naturalistic method but he really puts it into perspective. The cell, with all of its micro machines and factories, is probably the best, but most under-used, example of irreducible complexity. It is wholly responsible for manufacturing life, and the continuation of life. I like his comment about placing RNA or DNA on the counter. Without the cell, you have nothing. DNA is merely the coded instructions for the factory. So the real question shouldn't be about how DNA came into existence, but the cell itself!!!

If Daws and Hollie actually watched this, they might not be so bold in their foolish comments on the origins of life, especially when they found out that one of the best, naturalistic explanations for Abiogenesis for the better part of the 20th Century was borrowed from the Egyptian Creation Account some 4000 years ago!!!

On a side note regarding the video, my father, who is 78, is an incredibly intelligent man. He worked for Hughes Aircraft in their Missile Systems Group for 25 years as a corporate accountant and as a manager, single handedly set up the books for two new Hughes manufacturing plants. We moved to Arizona from Tennessee in 1968 and for the first one or two years, even though he was working on his masters, folks at Hughes tended not to take him seriously due to his thick, southern accent. I found myself at the beginning of the video thinking the guy was kind of a dimwit but by the end, found him to be an incredibly intelligent and insightful gentleman.

 

[Hollie]

Look,left handed amino acids connect to produce proteins and they connect to form life.Right handed amino acids can't connect in that sequence of forming because that would prove to be fatal to the organism. Right handed amino acids are produced by cells as well but these right handed amino acids perform other duties that is not what you are understanding.

What you are attempting to do is show that right handed amino acids refute what is said they are not harmful to the formation of life they are if they were to connect with left handed amino acids. That is the part you are misunderstanding. Right handed amino acids are also produced by cells and they do have functions within a cell but not with forming life.

Let's let an agnostic man of science help you understand how the process works since you won't believe me. Here it is in a nutshell


You and Daws need to watch these videos to understand what I have been arguing.

The issue is that you don't know what you're arguing.

You are hoping to denigrate science with the presumption that will somehow prove your gods. It won't.

As I noted before, your rabid cutting and pasting of YouTube videos is the entirety of your argument. I suppose I could cut and paste videos in refutation to your videos and in turn you could cut and paste more videos.

I suppose that at some pount, the videos could pair off by themselves and have their own debates.

Simply put, you are an Ideologue and a zealot for naturalism,you are not open to facts about the flaws of your theory.

I’m curious to know how you function on a daily basis. Did you read what you wrote?

I’m a zealot for naturalism? Inasmuch as we live in a natural world, governed by natural forces with no hint of anything supernatural, why would I be anything but a naturalist?

Naturalism is important for me because religions and supernatural beliefs keep humanity in bondage, both mentally and physically. That matters because because countless numbers of people are made to live their lives in fear of things like hell and plagues and various "wraths", "curses" and "spells". I care because I live in a country that is forced to deal with fundie religious believers, and worse, since religions by definition are totalitarian in nature, we are at some risk of losing precious freedoms that many died to protect.

Everything I’ve posted in these threads remains in the realm of the natural, not the supernatural, and it’s fully rational. I don’t think the universe is supernatural, I think it’s eminently natural, hence knowable, hence comprehensible.

And while I'm at it -- why don't fundie creationists post some videos proposing anti-gravity? Didn't numerous OT prophets "rise to Heaven" -- literally? Didn't Jesus "ascend" to heaven and "walk on water"? Clearly there is something in competition with the Theory of Gravity -- but I don't see any theist demanding there be equal time for Supernatural Levitationism to assert gravity is "only a theory".

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC, I just watched the video's of the guy talking about Abiogenisis and what a great, UN-BIASED, summary of the current thought. I was especially intrigued by his comments on the "self-replicating molecule". Science makes it seem like we have an inkling into a naturalistic method but he really puts it into perspective. The cell, with all of its micro machines and factories, is probably the best, but most under-used, example of irreducible complexity. It is wholly responsible for manufacturing life, and the continuation of life. I like his comment about placing RNA or DNA on the counter. Without the cell, you have nothing. DNA is merely the coded instructions for the factory. So the real question shouldn't be about how DNA came into existence, but the cell itself!!!

If Daws and Hollie actually watched this, they might not be so bold in their foolish comments on the origins of life, especially when they found out that one of the best, naturalistic explanations for Abiogenesis for the better part of the 20th Century was borrowed from the Egyptian Creation Account some 4000 years ago!!!

On a side note regarding the video, my father, who is 78, is an incredibly intelligent man. He worked for Hughes Aircraft in their Missile Systems Group for 25 years as a corporate accountant and as a manager, single handedly set up the books for two new Hughes manufacturing plants. We moved to Arizona from Tennessee in 1968 and for the first one or two years, even though he was working on his masters, folks at Hughes tended not to take him seriously due to his thick, southern accent. I found myself at the beginning of the video thinking the guy was kind of a dimwit but by the end, found him to be an incredibly intelligent and insightful gentleman.

Yes people with a draw seem just a bit slow. My mom is from mississippi and is a chemical engineer. when people would listen to her talk the draw didn't allow people to take her serious until she spoke concerning her job.
My mom is another reason I gave up the nonsense of the theory of evolution a long time ago.

The guy also pointed out in the videos things that were used as explanations for the theory and that don't exist or they never have been observed.

 

[UltimateReality]

religions and supernatural beliefs keep humanity in bondage, both mentally and physically. That matters because because countless numbers of people are made to live their lives in fear of things like hell and plagues and various "wraths", "curses" and "spells".

This is by far the scariest post you have made to date. In your skewed perception of reality, you ACTUALLY believe the world will be better off without religion. Well stand by my dear, because the effects of a Godless nation and a Godless world are playing out right before your eyes. Unbridled greed and worship of things is growing like mad. People are living more and more for themselves everyday. And don't you always find it odd that the same folks that are atheists are also the leftists that worship the environment over humans, scream for protection of animals but demand the right to kill unborn babies, and hate Capitalism, the one form of government that has produced the most wealth any nation in the world has ever seen, so much so that even the poorest poor are totally obese, and live comfortably in climate controlled bliss, cell phone in hand?? Sadly, you mistakenly believe that a world filled with atheists would be a better place. What you are dead wrong about is the nightmarish hell that would look like. Can you imagine everyone denying God and embracing themselves, free to live out every selfish desire that pops into their mind, like raping a child, or any other sick fantasy their depraved minds could imagine? That is not the world or a nation I want to live in. You're a fool if you think a world without religion is Utopia. Not just a fool, but dangerous. Your presence here tells me you aren't content to live out your beliefs in peace. You are on a mission of hate, to force everyone else to believe like you. You are no better than the Taliban.

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWq15lDh8yM]Dune (4/9) Movie CLIP - Baron Harkonnen (1984) HD - YouTube[/ame]

 

[UltimateReality]

Galatians 5:1
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Acts 13:38-40 (New International Version)
“Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. 40 Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you:

Romans 8:1-3
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you[a] free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in the flesh...

2 Corinthians 3:16-18 New International Version (NIV)

But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.