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

Where Christianity intersects with politics, culture, and entertainment.


dayofreason

Secularists counter National Day of Prayer

As millions of Americans bow their heads next Thursday (May 3) for the annual National Day of Prayer, atheists, humanists and other nontheists will mark a day of their own.

The National Day of Reason — or “NDR” in the shorthand of the nontheist community — will also be held May 3, part protest, part celebration and totally godless.

“In times of great conflict and worry, people want to look to a higher power, and I am sympathetic to that,” said Paul Fidalgo, communications director at the Center for Inquiry. “But our day puts the focus back on people and what we can do for ourselves. We are trying to make a better world on our own by emphasizing good works and good deeds on the day.”

To that end, local groups of nontheists will hold blood drives (Groton, Conn.) training in lobbying politicians (Raleigh, N.C.) and voter registration drives (Flagstaff, Ariz.), as well as marches, rallies and social gatherings. One group in Putnam, Conn., is holding a “science for reason” book exchange — turn in a Bible and receive a free copy of Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species,” among other titles.

Continue reading at www.washingtonpost.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.
  • millergroup2

    It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7): ‘Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sow, that shall he also reap.

    • http://conservativebyte.com Michael G.

      Wouldn't it be something that if these people di their "inquiry" only to fin out that God really exists, and is interested in what they are doing?

      • Evermyrtle

        What boggles my imagination is the fact that they do not want us to bow our heads and ask "THE HIGHER POWER" for direction, for help, for wisdom, and all things that we need HIM to help us with!!! If they do not believe in HIM what are they afraid of??? Of course, what the are promoting is good advice and good aims as secondary choices but GOD is our very first place to go to for what we need because we know "That all Good hings Come From GOD

  • Joan Neel

    This is an example of a society who needs to read the true history of what led to Hitler and the extermination of millions of people who opposed socialism. Our country was founded on the idea of people of all faiths living together peacefully in a country that was founded on the precept of God's blessing on people who would stand for peace, love for our fellowman, good stewardship of the blessings bestowed on our country and tolerance, with civil discourse when opposing ideas are discussed. Unfortunately, our current administration is spewing hatred for anyone who doesn't agree with their ideas, and this is being copied by others. Leadership, by good example, is NOT be practiced. Where is the civil discourse, budgeting, tolerance for Christians and Jews, as well as family values. We see division where we should see a leader who tries to bring people together to SHARE ideas and values. We are a country "Of the People, By the People and For the People"… NOT the government.

    • Chris P

      The religious leaders are the ones spewing hatred – of women and gays. Your idea of "family values" is misogyny and homophobia.

  • Joan Neel

    After writing my comment, at the bottom of the page I saw that some of my comment would be deleted since I did use CAPS (your words) which is more of the politically correct agenda in today's world. It's so sad that a very polite comment would be edited to be considered "politically correct" to appease a select group and we can't speak the truth.

  • Linda F.

    "National Day of Reason" ? More like, "National Day of Mocking People Who Believe in the Existence of God, Because We're Angry and Bitter and We Have Nothing to Do." I think the second title is a more accurate description of what this particular event is all about.

    • JoJo

      Yeah, the "we have nothing to do" seems to come to an ugly head every year like a broken record during the Christmas holidays. I wonder what has made them so angry. Did they not get that BB gun for Christmas? Did they get picked last once too often in gym class? I wonder what these so called good deeds entail…other than mocking christians (they wouldn't DARE mock a muslim!) and calling them stupid athiests haven't done much of anything but make trouble.

    • msjallen

      Great assessment of the "NDR". How can one be offended by what does not exist to them? Are they also offended by symbols of other religions or even mythology? Or is it just Christian representations that they are offended or afraid of? Of course it is Christianity because they are afraid of the Son of God; Jesus Christ just as the demons were in the time He lived on earth and even to this day. The demons are smart enough to know where they are going for all eternity but Atheist deny the fact and I would call that stupidity.

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

        While your god does not exist, Christians most certainly do. What we protest about is the actions that Christians take, not your mythical god.

        • msjallen

          Christians cannot exist without God. The sad part is that you know there is a God and you know about Jesus Christ but you refuse to accept His gift of love to you; salvation.
          2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance (change of mind towards Christ).
          Romans 5:8 -But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died (as a substitute) for us.

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

            Of course you can. People all over the world exist without a belief in Jesus.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Gee, what an insight you have baboon fan.

    • Evermyrtle

      This is a form of persecution against GOD'S People. All peoples should compare the way that Christians go about bring people to CHRIST to the effort of the anti-Christian against what we believe. Not for judging reasons but to see how we might improve our delivery of our ideas of working for GOD and working against GOD.There is a great difference!!!.

      • Chris P

        It's not persecution at all – it's about stopping your interference in other peoples lives. YOUR persecution of women and gays because of what you think is written in a man made bible.

        • msjallen

          Chris, RELIGION persecutes, Christianity is taught not to and those who love the Lord will never persecute women or gays. We know that God is the judge and we are to have impersonal love towards all mankind. Yes, that includes the muslim who do persecute their women. Watch the move; "Not Without My Daughter". We love the sinner but not the sin and that includes homosexuals.
          I John 5:11-13 And this is the deposition, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

          • Deep_Thinker

            NO, the Christian religion doesn't persecute say, Islam or anything like that… The "christian" nation of America doesn't perform violence on innocent women and children in foreign nations for the sake of our "national security".. No, Christianity is perfect just like all the other religions..

          • msjallen

            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.

          • Deep_Thinker

            Yes, you just described Christianity.. Said nothing pertaining to my response…

            What in the world does that have to do with the persecution of other religions. Are you saying that because Christianity is the "right" religion we have a right to do so?

          • msjallen

            Yes I did but you are not understanding it. Are you saying Christians persecutes other religions around the world? Even though Christianity is the only right faith (not a religion) does not mean me push our beliefs on others like the muslims and many religions that do. We do sent missionaries to other countries to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ but never to persecute even though it has been done and was/is wrong. This is where your "individual" meaning comes in; not all Christians are Christians and not all are taught the Word of God and how to live the Christian way of life.

          • Deep_Thinker

            Then tell me why we are in Iraq, afghanistan, Libya, and trying to go into Iran? If America is a christian nation, and you vote for those that you believe are christians, and they keep taking us to war, then yes, we are pushing our religion on other nations.

          • msjallen

            Now you are using "collective" thinking for our Nation and not individualism. I don't consider America a Chrisian nation. We are a Client Nation to God and as individual true Christians we vote for those whom we believe will fulfill establishment principles for the freedom of ALL citizens. If we were a Christian nation we would not allow any religions the freedom of their worship. Apparently, you would rather we be taken over by the nations you mentioned? Has our government ever gone to war and taken over any other country we have fought? I do not believe we have the right to stick our nose into other countries government but I do believe in defeating our enemies if it protects our country. I do not agree with 0's foreign policy. War is not pushing our "religion" on other nations; it is preserving our freedom as a national entity.

          • Deep_Thinker

            So you believe that you have the right to kill other people because you think they MIGHT kill you? Who are our enemies? We are the enemy. We are hated because we have meddled in other countries affairs.

            Do you believe the ends justify the means? You said" I do believe in defeating our enemies if it protects our country". Who determines who our enemy is? Who determines if it is "good" that we have defeated a country?

            War is the health of the state. The wars we have fought over the last 50 years have nothing to do with our freedom. You should ask yourself why we are ever attacked…

            What flavor kool-aid you drinking?

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "What flavor kool-aid you drinking?"

            Dispensational Zionist…

          • Deep_Thinker

            Jews aren't even Christians.

          • Evermyrtle

            I believe about 985 of the Jews who are not Christian. About 2% are Christians. Don't package the Christians with the non Christians. What percentage of us do you think are Christians.

            Matt. 22:14 For many are called but few are chosen!

            I choose to be among that few but because I am a sinner as well as a Christian I may not pass muster, either. I will do the best I can with HIS help and leave the rest up ot HIM.

          • Deep_Thinker

            Yes, messianic Jews. I know them well.

            My statement was a generalization to support the claim that Israel is not of any concern to me . It should not be our foreign policy driver, and it is no more special than Iran, nor are its people in my eyes or Gods.

            "Don't package the Christians with the non Christians" – I'm not, its a generalization.

            "What percentage of us do you think are Christians. " – God knows that, not me. And he will judge.

            I can lump Jews as being non-christian because Jewish by definition isn't Christian. That's like me saying that all homosexuals aren't Christian. They aren't, and you wouldn't want me to say that.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Nope they are not but for deluded dispensationalist they surely will be and for some of them they do not need to be…

          • Evermyrtle

            Who are you talking to?, I did not read where anybody was going to kill anybody except in self defense. I believe GOD give us a right to protect our selves and our families!. How do you feel about that?? Don't you believe is self defense?

          • Deep_Thinker

            MSJALLEN.

            She stated "I do believe in defeating our enemies if it protects our country".

            That is not self defense. That is the presumption of said enemy and pre-emptive action based on said presumption… Utter BS

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Yes, and that is why Georgie proclaimed invisible weapons of mass destruction as a reason for going after oil and all leavenjellycal claptraps jumped so happily on his jolly war making – profit milking wagon. Now Obonzo expands "peace efforts" war wide excuse me worldwide and get a Nobel "peace prize" for it too.

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

            How surprising, yet another issue you are completely delusional about.

            Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. "[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week."
            http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,194…

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Swoon of a baboon Dixon,

            You apparently have a monopoly game understanding of what I said and you think that geopolitical game of energy and control is counted and translated only by number of contracts somebody secured… Well, congratulations on your dumbness then.

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

            Humpty, I know you have no idea what you are talking about. You demonstrate that constantly here.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Dixon you can hardly be demonstrated even what your keyhole, baboon genealogy joke of a worldview allows you for. You are a clown performing in somebody's cabaret while imagining you are also an audience and box office clerk all at the same time too. :)

          • Deep_Thinker

            Keep drinking the Kool-aid… If you really think we were threatened by Iraq, I feel sorry for you if you have that small of a critical thinking space in your brain.

            I'll bet you didn't know that right before Qaddafi was targeted he planned on using gold to purchase and sell oil.

            I

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

            I did not say we should have invaded. I pointed out to Despeville, or Humpty as it is more accurate to refer to him , that the view that we invaded was to get oil is idiotic.

            For a deep thinker, you are showing little signs of that.

          • Deep_Thinker

            You think it had nothing to do with oil??

            Like I said: Keep drinking the kool-aid…

            Operation Iraqi Liberation – O.I.L.

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

            I am sure it played a part, but it was not the main reason we invaded. And sorry, not a kool-aid drinker. I gave that up as a child.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            So you "sure" now??? Hahahahhahaa how weasel like you can be baboon hunter?

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

            World events are complex, Humpty. Far too complex for your delusional mindset to begin to grasp. Has the . Bilderberg Group been threatening you again?

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Hahahhaha what a profound insight form baboon theorist. 8 months ago you did not even know this name yet now you want to use it in your baboon like mockery.

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

            Nothing profound at all. It is all just another issue to tease you with. You are so very entertaining.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Hahahaa, I wish I could say that about you numb besserwisser wanna be. You are not only dumb as a rock but boring as watching the paint dry.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Baboon genealogist you have no idea what you howl about in your front page, back woods misunderstanding of geopolitics and Deep can eat you and your imbecilic rant for breakfast if he wanted to but he will not do that because he eats healthy.

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

            Delusional loon, you are the one who is hopelessly confused on your ideas of the New World Order. You have no idea what it is that is in front of your face when you reading about world news.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "Dod" Delusionist and Baboon hobbyist Dixon. NWO is well under way and there are institutions operating for tens of years that have that agenda in their mission statements and documents. This is only "news" and improbable at that only to a backwoods hick like you who discovered it here no more than last year.

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

            Complete and total delusion on your part, Humpty. The only NWO that exists is in your silly excuse for a brain.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Sure backwoods baboon hunter. You did not even know what CFR is or Club of Rome and what they accomplished and what they are striving to accomplish so keep on enchanting yourself with your baboon theories.

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

            You will not see a unified world government before you pass on.

            You will not see the return of Jesus before you pass on.

            You will go to the grave never seeing the events unfold that you believe are in motion. You are a loon, Humpty.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            One thing for sure. I will never see a coherent, factual response and logical and factual argument from a dumbo on a run like you…

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

            Humpty, that is because facts, logic and making a valid argument are concepts you cannot grasp.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Baboon hunter, but there is no room for logic in your worldview nor thick cranium.

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

            How could you tell, Humpty? You do not grasp what those concepts mean.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Teach me mortgage broker… Ahhahahahhahahahahaaa

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

            It is impossible to teach something to someone incapable of comprehending it.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Moron you are shallow impostor with nothing to offer but your dumb plagiarisms.

          • msjallen

            "So you believe that you have the right to kill other people because you think they MIGHT kill you?" YES
            "Who are our enemies?" Those who want to attack us & destroy our freedom.
            "We are the enemy. We are hated because we have meddled in other countries affairs." We are NOT the enemy. You think like a liberal and must be one.
            "Do you believe the ends justify the means?" NO. We have the right to defend our country against those who want to defeat us.
            The wars we have fought over the past 50 years have not been fought to win freedom but to keep our freedom. I believe you are the one drinking the kool-aid.

          • Deep_Thinker

            Prove to me, that Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Vietnam, or Iran are our enemy, and that they wanted to kill us.

            You are a warmonger. God says turn the other cheek. You have no right to kill innocent people in war because you THINK they might kill you..

          • msjallen

            There is no peace without military defeat of our enemies.
            2 Samuel 22:35-36 He trains my hands for battle, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze.
            "You have also given me the shield of Your salvation, and Your help makes me great.

            The Lord Jesus Christ is behind the concept of war and also disciplines us with war and we are to be prepared to fight. Jesus Christ has the strength to fight terrorism and to help all of us.
            Luke 22:36 And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.

          • Deep_Thinker

            We are the terrorists… We have killed more people in the name of terrorism than the "terrorists" could have killed of us.. And the only reason why the "terrorists" want to kill us is because of people like you and your delusional zionism..

          • msjallen

            Psalm 144:1 Hand to hand combat.
            Being happy (barbak) is the LORD, my strength (rock), Who trains my hands to hold weapons in combat, And my fingers for battle (draw the plan);
            Psalm 44:6-7 For I will not trust in my bow, nor shall my sword save me. But You have saved us from our enemies, And have put to shame those who hated us. (No matter what you do, always put our LORD GOD first.)

          • msjallen

            I Chron 5:22 For many fell slain, because the war was of God and they settled in their place until the exile.
            Isaiah 37:36 Then the angel of the LORD went out and struck 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men arose early in the morning, behold, all of these were dead.
            Psalm 18:33-34 He makes my feet like hinds' feet, and sets me upon my high places. He teaches my hands to war (beast barracks), so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze. (The breaking of weapons is a sign of the breaking of the enemy.)
            2 Samuel 22:3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge; my savior, You deliver me from violence.

          • Deep_Thinker

            You have given no justification for the wars our nation partakes in…

            You've misused bibilcal passages for your own sake. (Most of them from the OT where an eye for an eye still stood, but now its, turn the other cheek)

            You clearly need help… Beyond delusion.

          • msjallen

            Sure, Deep, turn the other cheek when your enemy attacks so we call can die. Yes, I believe in war and I believe in killing the enemy.
            Esther 8:11-12 By these letters the king permitted the Jews who were in every city to gather together and protect their lives — to destroy, kill, and annihilate all the forces of any people or province that would assault them, both little children and women, and to plunder their possessions.
            I have said all I am going to say to you. There is no need for further discussion. I have my view and you have yours and if you want to call me names and be disrespectul and try to lie about what I believe forget it. You are not worth it.

          • Deep_Thinker

            Tell me when the enemy attacked????

            We attacked first, in 1991 we attacked Iraq.

            Ya, just because you can't prove your points you;ll walk away… I call that delusional…..

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "Ya, just because you can't prove your points you;ll walk away…"

            Yes, that is a classic symptom of sect like mentality where mind is on a short and easily pulled leash.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "There is no need for further discussion. I have my view and you have yours"

            :) That is what you say all the time when having no arguments which is all too frequent here… :)

            'be disrespectul and try to lie about what I believe forget it. You are not worth it."

            And look at this oxymoron in one sentence… A classic.

          • msjallen

            You are not worth arguing with either, Deperate since you love to attack people who do not believe the way you believe from your RCC days and Calvinism that I consider false doctrines. Get off your holier than thou throne and stop bashing those of us who do not accept your beliefs. You are like a child who doesn't get their way.
            II Cor 12:10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
            II Cor 12:10, Gal 5:25-26, I Tim 6:3-5
            Gal 5:25-26 If we live by the Spirit let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Nobody is "worth" unless they agree with your delusional dispensationalism infected with pathogen of Gnosticism. I am not "holier" than you. I have repeatedly stated that I am a rotten sinner in DAILY need of the Grace of One Triune God. You are swollen with pride and heresies which you cover up with your thin veneer of fallacious piety. Every single time you are cornered in your man made up system you assert truth without actually bothering to address clearly presented arguments that debunk your myths as evidenced again with Deep. Your usage of Scripture is mostly wrong and sometimes purely demonic as you twist it, mutilate it and cave it according to your ego and its needs.

          • msjallen

            A Client Nation must have a civil government; its laws based on Divine establishment principles (Rom 13:1-10). It must have the function of evangelism and the teaching of Bible Doctrine from pastors or ministers. It has autonomous local churches where believers practice separation of church and State. The teaching of the mystery doctrine of the Church Age (Rom 5:32, 11:25, 16:25+) and God’s plan for that nation and missionary activity to other nations that will not interfere with that nation’s politics. SPQR was the first Client Nation in the Church Age during the reign of the Antonine Caesars called the Golden Age. There was peace and prosperity more than any other time and the greatest CN of all time lasting 400 years. The leaders were not even Christian and yet believers and evangelism spread tremendously. Other CN such as the Goths, Sweden, Switzerland, France under the Huguenots, and other Anglo Saxon basin countries. The USA has been a CN from its beginning.

          • Deep_Thinker

            A law, is not based on divine establishment. We are not a client nation. Our laws are based on natural rights. No matter who you believe gave us those rights. Those rights include the right to sin, such as engage in homosexuality. Yes, it's morally wrong, but no country, especially ours, was set up by divine establishment to outlaw homosexuality and codify it in the law.

            Law and morality are two separate things. Our country was not founded on the Bible, but on the ability to worship as you please… You have no right to impose your beliefs on me. Just because I was born in the USA does not mean I fall under your divine desire.

            Furthermore, do you think this gives you the right to act with God's sword on other nations?

            Do you think that God somehow picks and chooses which nation will be a "client nation" and then that country has the right to do as it pleases?

            Utter Nonsense.

          • Deep_Thinker

            And your client nation crap is all based on OLD TESTAMENT biblical covenants.

            They don't exist anymore… Wake up!

    • ceejay

      They believe in EVOLUTION but unfortunately they FAILED to EVOLVE. Along the way the GENES got messed up and they remain – NEANDERTHALS..

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

        So, you do not believe in evolution, yet you state atheists have not evolved. lol. You do not believe neanderthals are anything different than other humans, yet you state atheists have remained a different type of humanity. lol.

        • Evermyrtle

          She is right, the atheists have not evolved because there is no such thing. If it were possible we would have all degrees of monkey, ape, human being in the world, today. Maybe you can explain why we don't have any of them we are either all ape, all monkey or all human and no mixtures..

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

            Evolution does not predict incomplete creatures. In fact if we ever saw such a thing it would pretty much disprove evolution. In order to survive, all creatures must be sufficiently adapted to their environment; thus, they must be complete in some sense.

            The basic false assumption here is twofold: first, that intermediates are necessarily incomplete, and second that once variation beyond the "type" is allowed, any and all variation is allowed (this latter is typological or essentialist thinking).

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

            2. We see many creatures in transitional stages. These may be considered incomplete in that they do not have all the same features and abilities of similar or related creatures:

            • Various gliding animals, such as the flying squirrel, which may be on their way to becoming more batlike
            • The euglena, which is halfway to plant
            • Aquatic snakes
            • Reptiles with a "third eye" that only gets infrared
            • Various fish that can live out of water for long periods, use their fins as legs, and breathe air
            • The various jaw bones of Probainognathus that were in the process of migrating toward the middle ear
            • Various Eocene whales, which had hooved forelimbs and hindlimbs.
            http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB925.html

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK MATHEMATICALLY. PERIOD.
            The rest is your sham of pseudo science which you cannot even account for in your sham of a worldview.

      • Chris P

        What has evolution got to do with atheism? You say "Christians" have evolved – meaning YOU believe in evolution. Evolution is evidence of the non-existence of god. Religion is not in ones genes – it comes from indoctrination by your parents. Your mothers and fathers make you dumb and ignorant.

        • msjallen

          It is apparent that you mother & father failed to raise you correctly. How sad.
          Whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. James 4:14

        • Evermyrtle

          Who said Christians evolved?? I could not find that!!

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          " Evolution is evidence of the non-existence of god."

          Goon of a mad baboon,

          There is no evidence supporting theory evolution as it was defined and proposed by Darwin himself and his students when the theory was published. if you would read it you would know it. Mathematics and mathematical modeling disproves, debunks and decries theory of evolution as simply false and unattainable and mathematics is a language of science which you do not understand nor can account for in your baboon genealogy myth making.

  • far2right

    "Day of Reason".

    If they could reason they would not so blindly follow light headed men like Dawkins and Hawkings who simply cannot deduce the basic teachings of the bible.

    Regrettably, a lifetime is insufficient amount of time for the liberal mind to know truth.

    • Evermyrtle

      I don't believe they are doing any reasoning, they are going on "feelings' Your "feelings" will lead you badly astray, just remember that. I have been around the block, many times, and it is fairly hard to fool me, not to say that I am not a sinner. I still have that 'old human disposition.' It is alive and well!!

    • Chris P

      "light headed men" that are more brilliant than anybody on this website. You people are too dumb to know how dumb you are.

      Dawkins knows the bible better than most people. Hawkings probably doesn't care about the bible. Your caring "God" gave him a crappy disease.

      • far2right

        Thanks for the open demonstration of your "brilliance".

        Dawkins retains an adolescent's understanding of the bible. He has no clue what the central message of it is. This is plainly obvious from his writings.

        But since you also have no clue what the bible has to say, how could you know this?

        And, yes, God afflicted Hawkings with his disease. Perhaps one day he will wise up enough to realize this and appeal to Him for a cure.

        As for you, stupid is forever. Unless God intervenes on your behalf.

        There is nothing I can do for you.

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

          The bible is a book of fables. Understanding the world around us is far more important than knowing what the "context" of why your god is fixated on dung.

          “But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you” (Isaiah 36:12)?

          (God preferred they bake it with human feces, but when they complained, He allowed them to substitute cow patties.) “And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man…Then said I, Ah, Lord God, behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself…Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith” (Ezekiel 4:12-15).

          . Before Jesus, people atoned for their sins by sacrificing animals and their dung to God. But only if they burned the dung outside town. “But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering” (Exodus 29:14). And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung” (Leviticus 16:27).

          “And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass's head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove's dung for five pieces of silver. And as the king of Israel was passing by upon the wall, there cried a woman unto him, saying, Help, my lord, O king. And he said, If the Lord do not help thee, whence shall I help thee? out of the barnfloor, or out of the winepress? And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him” (2 Kings 6:25-29). (Note: A “cab” equals approximately a quart.)

          : (He treated them like dogs, smearing feces on their faces.”) “If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it” (Malachi 2:2-3).

          (So they could cover up the human poop lying around the camp, in case God happened to walk through.) “And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp” (Deuteronomy 23:13-14).

          (What is left of their decaying bodies will cover the Earth, never to be buried, and serve as fertilizer for the land, much like dung.) “At that time, saith the Lord, they shall bring out…the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, out of their graves: And they shall spread them before the sun, and the moon, and all the host of heaven…whom they have worshipped: they shall not be gathered, nor be buried; they shall be for dung upon the face of the earth” (Jeremiah 8:1-2).

          “And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the Lord: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung” (Zephaniah 1:17).

          “[Jehu] said, This is the word of the Lord, which he spake by his servant Elijah the Tishbite, saying, In the portion of Jezreel shall dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel: And the carcase of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field” (2 Kings 9:36-37).

          “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ” (Philippians 3:8).

          • iheartagw

            Ah, Jeffie the Evolutionary Evangelist crawls out of the primordial ooze once again to preach his great faith.

            Once again I say to you, you have absolutely no clue of bible doctrine.

            I truly love this posting by you because of the beautiful irony of it.

            Dear Jeffie, the dung in these passages is a picture of people like YOU, and your brand of "wisdom".

            Why are you content to continually eat your own dung and drink your own piss?

            Please keep us apprised if you ever discover even one of the multiplied billions of universes you just know are out there in the quantum vacuum somewhere. And let us know if you make contact with your other self.

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

            Christians cannot even agree on what biblical doctrine is supposed to mean. It is hardly a surprise that you would think a non-Christian could understand it. Let me know when the thousands of different Christian sects finally agree on doctrine and one intrepretation of the bible.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Atheists cannot agree on so many aspects of their beliefs is that a most important argument against atheism? No, so stop being a blind, dishonest and manipulative hypocrite. Christians do not agree on secondary and tertiary issues and you have no tools and no system to actually understand that and who is and who is not a Christian either.

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

            Atheistism is a non-belief in god(s). There is only one premise and we agree on it. Everything we disgaree on is science or government or any of the various topics of the day. That is nothing compared with the fact that Christians cannot and will not ever agree on what it is they say they belief in.

            You are the hypocrite, Humpty, and as I have repeatedly informed you, have no control over what I post. So, get off your high horse about what I can or cannot post about. It is as tedious as listening you whine about your absurd Calvinist views of Christianity.

  • JoJo

    The NDR people mock those of faith. I wonder if they consider THAT part of their "good deeds". So far, I have yet to see anything positive come from these people.

    • Chris P

      So creating jobs for people isn't positive?

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

      Providing a rational response to mindless theism is a positive action.

  • M.A.Ed

    I feel that Stephen is an angry and bitter man that blames God for his unfortunate condition. A brilliant man who will one day stand before the Lord. What will he postulate at that time?

    • Chris P

      He won't because he s smart enough to know that there is no such thing as heaven and that the contents of your brain are lost on death.

      You on the other hand are too dumb to realize that and waste your time on this planet going to church in a mistaken belief.

  • msjallen

    Too many churches today try to mix Christianity and secularism – it is aimless and miserable and no pleasure or self indulgence will make the difference in one’s life. As in Liberation Theology it is very difficult to distinguish between secularism, socialism and it becomes syncretistic and is false theology.

    • Eversuch.

      This combo is called "Crislam." They are trying to please both sides. That wont' work, because "GOD IS NOT PLEASED WITH SUCH!"

  • M Green

    My, they sure are a noisy, bitter, bunch. I guess they got their feelings hurt badly by not feeling like they could come to the party. They COULD, but they seem to want to dictate to the majority of us that their needs and wants are more important than ours. I often see this "me" behavior in some mentally handicapped or emotionally slow children.

    • Chris P

      What a nasty person you are – as bitter and twisted as the uber Christian I know at work.

      Why would I want to go to your "party". Do you worship the Pope? Do you worship the nut cases in Salt lake city?

      My needs are to make this world better – Christians appear to be on the path to pray for more and better toys and bank accounts.

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

      What is bitter about expressing your point of view? Is that not the way people express their opinion?

  • http://www.kidon.com/media-link MalikTous

    The important part of 'National Day of Prayer' is that no-one be forced or required to participate. While most of us will either dedicate a prayer or meditate for a while, we should insure we don't force those who believe in non-deic influences to participate just as they should avoid forcing their lack of faith on us. I don't demand that everyone follow my ancestral Asatru deities; I don't demand that legitimate Christians or Jews (or other faiths) switch from their equally valid deity to mine. I often work actively for common charity results with other faiths. But I feel that interfaith issues and competition should be settled on the athletic field, where we can demonstrate our 'validity' and faith without costing our own faiths worshippers otherwise slain in battle or war. Sports honours faith; war and murder insult most faiths. Atheists can participate in sports too, and demonstrate their beliefs without loss of members on either side; it's something we can all believe in!

    • reba4freedom

      As Christians, we are required to pray for our nation every day … so I say, keep it up Brothers/Sisters … we've got them on the run … Jesus Christ IS Lord and Our God Reigns!

    • Chris P

      What a hypocrite – you always claim that yours is the "one true religion" and yet acknowledge the existence of other faiths.. Either yours is the right religion or there are no religions that are right. The only solution to the puzzle is that no religions are right. There are no gods.

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

    To God who made them it is "The National day of TREASON."

    • Chris P

      Really – how is that? Why are you so rude? Oh I forgot – you're a Christian.

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

      Myths are not concerned about nations, days or treason.

  • http://aol.com Ed in Florida

    God is real and is alive and has not wavered in his commandments. Only people who have a sinful and sometimes sinister motive oppose the people who believe in God. It is disheartening to see Christians who don't bother anyone but wish to live a good and Godly life be hounded by non-believers who have nothing to do but hound and attack peaceful loving Christians. These people are truly board with their life and it is easy to understand why. These people will never have peace in their lives and certainly will never see the Kingdom of God. They will however, see the other side.

    • Chris P

      "Christians who don't bother anyone". What an absolute LIE. Over the past year Christians have introduced dozens of new laws that BOTHER other people.

      There are no gods and no we will never see the Kingdom of god because there isn't one. I have no wish to spend an eternity where there cannot possibly be an internet. No books no nothing. What's truly silly is that there are no books on what to do in heaven.

  • Bobseeks

    It is ironic that those who are incapable of reason should be the ones who claim to champion reason. A person truly capable of reason looks at the evidence and believes in GOD. A person incapable of reason looks at the lies of darwin and listens to the useful idiots of science and claims that the is no GOD. Reason is only reason when it leads to thruth, therefore atheism is "unreason" because it leads to a lie.

    • Chris P

      There is no evidence to look at. Where did Darwin lie – have you been on a world tour in a boat to prove him wrong?

      You are a total joke Bobseeks – your ignorance is overwhelming. You know nothing about biology.

    • Deep_Thinker

      From all I hear spew out of your mouth, you are incapable of reason…

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

    A person capable of reason believes in what the evidence shows them. When you start your premise that a reasonable person believes in god, you have lost any claim to being a reasonable person. You are starting from dogma, not reason.

    A reasonable person looks at the age of universe and knows it is not less than 10,000 years old or even less than a million. A reasonable person looks at the world and realizes the fossil record and geology is in complete disagreement with how the bible says the world was formed.

    • keyboardshark

      @Jeff

      How would a 'reasonable person' know that the earth is not less than a million years old? The dating methods which come up with these old ages are all based on assumptions, and have been shown to be in error when a specimen of known age is tested.

      How does the fossil record disagree with the Bible? All fossils show us is remains of dead things. They tell us nothing about its origin. It is only evidence. Evidence must be interpreted. If you say it evolved, you are making an interpretation based on evolutionary assumptions. If I say it was created, I am making an interpretation based on Biblical creationist assumptions.

      How does geology disagree with how the Bible says the world was formed? The Bible says there was a worldwide flood, and many of the geological features we observe today, such as sedimentary layers, fossil layers (with polystrate fossils, usually tree trunks, extending through multiple layers), and huge canyons are good evidence that such a flood occurred.

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

        First off, keep in mind I said a reasonable person. :)

        Key, you can disregard all the different scientific disciplines that ALL agree on a very old earth and evolution, that is certainly your right. But you might as well also give up on germ theory, atomic theory and the theory of gravity, because there is more evidence for evolution than any of those theories.

        • keyboardshark

          "Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable (box below).

          However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.

          Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.

          It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means………

          ……No matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to ‘interpret’ it. He would simply change his assumptions about the history of the rock to explain the result in a plausible way. G. Wasserburg, who received the 1986 Crafoord Prize in Geosciences, said, ‘There are no bad chronometers, only bad interpretations of them!’5 In fact, there is a whole range of standard explanations that geologists use to ‘interpret’ radiometric dating results."
          http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-k…

          "So, the fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologists do—they make up an assumed geological history for rock after the event, depending on the numbers that come from the geochronology lab that measures the isotopes in the rocks now. Dating secrets explains how this works in practice. Some real-life examples of how geologists change their assumptions after the event include the dating of Skull KNM-ER 1470 (see The pigs took it all) and of the Mungo skeletal remains, Australia (see The dating game).
          http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-fatal-flaw

          ALSO SEE: http://creation.com/the-dating-game

          Next time you see dates quoted of millions of years remember that the numbers are not scientific measurements of time elapsed. They are the result of big philosophical assumptions.

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

            Claim CD002:

            Radiometric dating falsely assumes that initial conditions are known, that none of the daughter components are in the mineral initially.
            Source:

            Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 139.
            Response:

            Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known. In basic radiometric dating, a parent isotope (call it P) decays to a daughter isotope (D) at a predictable rate. The age can be calculated from the ratio daughter isotope to parent isotope in a sample. However, this assumes that we know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also assumes that neither isotope entered or left the sample.)

            With isochron dating, we also measure a different isotope of the same element as the daughter (call it D2), and we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials. Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D/D2 is initially the same in all of the samples. Plotting P/D2 on the x axis and D/D2 on the y axis for several different samples gives a line that is initially horizontal. Over time, as P decays to D, the line remains straight, but its slope increases. The age of the sample can be calculated from the slope, and the initial concentration of the daughter element D is given by where the line meets the y axis. If D/D2 is not initially the same in all samples, the data points tend to scatter on the isochron diagram, rather than falling on a straight line.

            For some radiometric dating techniques, the assumed initial conditions are reasonable. For example:
            K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating assumes that minerals form with no argon in them. Since argon is an inert gas, it will usually be excluded from forming crystals. This assumption can be tested by looking for argon in low-potassium minerals (such as quartz), which would not contain substantial argon daughter products. 40Ar/39Ar dating and K-Ar isochron dating can also identify the presence of initial excess argon.
            The concordia method is used on minerals, mostly zircon, that reject lead as they crystalize.
            Radiocarbon dating is based on the relative abundance of carbon-14 in the atmosphere when a plant or animal lived. This varies somewhat, but calibration with other techniques (such as dendrochronology) allows the variations to be corrected.
            Fission-track dating assumes that newly solidified minerals will not have fission tracks in them.
            http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD002.html

          • keyboardshark

            RE: Claim CD002:

            Even your source admits it is based on assumptions.

            "However, this assumes that we know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also assumes that neither isotope entered or left the sample.) "

            "Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D/D2 is initially the same in all of the samples."

            "For some radiometric dating techniques, the assumed initial conditions are reasonable. For example:
            K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating assumes that minerals form with no argon in them."

            "Fission-track dating assumes that newly solidified minerals will not have fission tracks in them. "

        • keyboardshark

          The following is a comparison between rocks of known age Vs radiometric "age."

          Rock Sample Obtained From: Sunset Crater, Arizona 7
          Known Age from Historical or Archaeological Data: 1,900 yrs
          Rock's Age from Radiometric Dating: 210,000–230,000 yrs
          Method Used: K/Ar

          Rock Sample Obtained From: Mt Rangitoto, New Zealand 9
          Known Age from Historical or Archaeological Data: 3,300 yrs
          Rock's Age from Radiometric Dating: 485,000 yrs
          Method Used: K/Ar

          Rock Sample Obtained From: Hualalai Volcano, Hawaii 11,12,13
          Known Age from Historical or Archaeological Data: 200 yrs
          Rock's Age from Radiometric Dating: 140 m.—670 m. yrs
          Method Used: Helium

          TO SEE REST: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometr…

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

            Claim CD010:

            Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.
            Source:

            Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 24.
            Response:

            Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.

            Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:

            The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).

            Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).

            Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).

            Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

            The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).
            http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html

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

            Claim CD011.4:

            A freshly killed seal was carbon-14 dated at 1300 years old.
            Source:

            Hovind, Kent, n.d. Doesn't carbon dating or potassium argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old? http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=C…
            Response:

            This claim derives from Wakefield (1971):
            Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, Antarctica sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot be accepted as correct. For example, the apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years.
            This is the well-known reservoir effect that occurs also with mollusks and other animals that live in the water. It happens when "old" carbon is introduced into the water. In the above case of the seal, old carbon dioxide is present within deep ocean bottom water that has been circulating through the ocean for thousands of years before upwelling along the Antarctic coast.

            The seals feed off of animals that live in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone. The water that is upwelling has been traveling along the bottom for a few thousand years before surfacing. The carbon dioxide in it came from the atmosphere before the water sank. Thus, the carbon in the sea water is a couple of thousand years "old" from when it was in the atmosphere, and its radiocarbon content reflects this time. Plants incorporate this "old" carbon in them as they grow. Animals eat the plants; seals eat the animals, and the "old" carbon from the bottom waters is passed through the food chain. As a result, the radiocarbon content reflects a mixture of old radiocarbon, which is thousands of years old, and contemporaneous radiocarbon from the atmosphere. The result is an apparent age that differs from the true age of the seal.

            The reservoir effect is well known by scientists, who work hard to understand the limitations of their tools. It is explained, for example, in Faure (1986) and Higham (n.d.). Contrary to creationist propaganda, limitations of a tool do not invalidate the tool.
            http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.htm…

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

            Claim CD013:

            Potassium-argon dating of rocks from lava flows known to be modern gave ages millions to billions of years older.
            Source:

            Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 146-147.
            Response:

            Argon may be incorporated with potassium at time of formation. This is a real problem, but it is easily overcome either by careful selection of the material being dated or by using 40Ar/39Ar dating instead of K-Ar dating.

            In the case of the claim about recent lava yielding dates that are millions to billions of years old, H. M. Morris (1974) misstated the facts concerning these "anomalous" dates as published in Funkhouser and Naughton (1968). The main misstatements of fact by Morris are as follows:

            It was not the lava that was dated, but inclusions of olivine, called "xenoliths", present within the lava. These gave anomalously old age because they contained excess argon that the enclosing lava did not.

            Morris failed to mention that the lava matrix without the xenoliths was dated and found to be too young to date using potassium-argon. (Funkhouser and Naughton [1968, 4603], stated that the matrix rock "can be said to contain no measurable radiogenic argon within experimental error.") This is consistent with the recent age of lavas and the state of the art of K-Ar dating at that time. The presence of excess argon was only a problem for the xenoliths but not for the lava containing them.

            Morris cited other examples of anomalous dates produced by excess argon and falsely claimed that it is a universal problem for K-Ar dating. The problem is not universal, as the majority of minerals and rocks dated by K-Ar do not contain the excess argon. Where excess argon is a problem, accurate, reliable dates typically can be obtained using 40Ar/39Ar dating, as demonstrated by Dalrymple (1969) and Renne et al. (1997) and discussed by Dalyrmple (2000).

            Morris's complaints are dated in that, for the most part, geologists no longer use the K-Ar dating technique as was practiced in 1974. Instead, K-Ar dating has been largely replaced by the related 40Ar/39Ar dating technique. This change also solved other problems that Morris complained about in his discussion of the K-Ar dating technique. These complaints were as follows:

            Claim: K-Ar dating techniques must be calibrated by uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating.

            Response: Some calibrations between U-Pb and K-Ar were done in the 1940s and early 1950s, but the decay rates of all the different radioisotopes involved are now known to within 1 percent, making the different dating techniques independent.

            With 40Ar/39Ar dating, it is possible to calibrate this dating method by using volcanic deposits created in historic volcanic eruptions — for example, the eruption of Mount Vesuvius on August 24, 79 C.E. (Renne et al. 1997). In addition, 40Ar/39Ar dating can be compared not only with U-Pb dating techniques but also with other absolute dating techniques — for example, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and Sm-Nd dating techniques — which all provide dates consistent with each other and with associated 40Ar/39Ar dates. This has been demonstrated by the dating of chondrite meteorites (Dalrymple 1991) and tektites and other ejecta and deposits created by the giant meteorite impact at Chicxulub in the Yucatan Peninsula (Dalrymple et al. 1993).

            Claim: The potassium-argon is an open system.

            Response: The papers cited by Morris fail to probe this point. The first paper simply demonstrates that rock altered by weathering cannot be dated. This is a common-sense conclusion understood by geologists literate in the basics of their profession; it is irrelevant to the unaltered minerals that are typically dated using K-Ar, 40Ar/39Ar, and other techniques. The final paper claims potassium is quite mobile because potassium can be extracted from iron meteorites by using distilled water. However, K-Ar dating commonly uses potassium silicate minerals, which are very insoluble in water and resist weathering. Potassium cannot be significantly leached from the minerals used in K-Ar dating, or, conversely, the minerals from which significant potassium can be leached are not the minerals used in K-Ar dating.

            Claim: The decay rate of potassium is subject to change.

            Response: This is simply not true.

            Claim: Argon maybe incorporated with potassium at time of formation.

            Response: See first point (a) above.

            Claim: K-Ar ages are extremely variable.

            Response: As previously noted, K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar dating both provide extremely consistent dates when the methods are used properly (Dalrymple 1991; 2000). The single paper (Engels 1971) cited by Morris clearly stated that variability resulted from presence of unwanted impurities in the specific mineral being dated. If the sample dated consisted of an absolutely pure mineral, there would not be any variability in the K-Ar dates obtained from them.
            http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

          • keyboardshark

            RE: Claim CD013

            I am not privy to the studies cited by Morris, and therefore cannot speak as to how they were conducted, but in my reply to Claim CD 010, the study I cited was an expedition by geologist Dr. Steven Austin and others from the Institute for Creation Research in 1993. http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

            Just to pick out a few points from your source: "Argon may be incorporated with potassium at time of formation. This is a real problem, but it is easily overcome either by careful selection of the material being dated or by using 40Ar/39Ar dating instead of K-Ar dating."
            It is overcome by "careful selection"? The study I cited used the whole rock from the St. Helen's dome, as well as several of its components, and all samples tested ranged from 0.35-2.8 million years for material only a few years old. How would "careful selection" overcome this?

            It says, "The problem is not universal, as the majority of minerals and rocks dated by K-Ar do not contain the excess argon."
            Oh really? How would they know this? Sounds like begging the question.

            " The presence of excess argon was only a problem for the xenoliths but not for the lava containing them."
            Again, oh really? The study i cited used the whole lava rock and the lab came up with a date of 0.35 ± 0.05 million years.

            "…reliable dates typically can be obtained using 40Ar/39Ar dating… With 40Ar/39Ar dating, it is possible to calibrate this dating method by using volcanic deposits created in historic volcanic eruptions — for example, the eruption of Mount Vesuvius on August 24, 79 C.E. (Renne et al. 1997)."
            Even if we assume that their "calibrations" are accurate, this would only provide reliable dates from the present back to the calibration date–79 AD. It could not be trusted for any dates earlier than that year, and certainly not for arriving at dates of millions of years.

            "In addition, 40Ar/39Ar dating can be compared not only with U-Pb dating techniques but also with other absolute dating techniques — for example, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and Sm-Nd dating techniques…"
            Perhaps they can be compared, but these other methods are ALSO based on assumptions, so all we would be doing would be comparing one set of assumptions with another set of assumptions.

            "Potassium cannot be significantly leached (by water) from the minerals used in K-Ar dating, or, conversely, the minerals from which significant potassium can be leached are not the minerals used in K-Ar dating."
            Assuming the statement is true, it still does not tell us anything about the initial state of the minerals, nor does it tell us whether K or Ar could have leached out or been added by other processes beside water.

            "Claim: The decay rate of potassium is subject to change.
            Response: This is simply not true. "
            Why is it not true? What is the evidence? This is pure conjecture.

            " If the sample dated consisted of an absolutely pure mineral, there would not be any variability in the K-Ar dates obtained from them. "
            Not true, according to the study I have cited. Plus the statement is pure speculation, because again we would have to know the initial state of the sample. And it also contradicts the previous statement: "The problem is not universal, as the majority of minerals and rocks dated by K-Ar do not contain the excess argon."

          • keyboardshark

            RE: Claim CD011.4

            The link you provided at the beginning redirects to http://www.creationtoday.org/ so I do not know what the argument your source is attempting to refute. But your source still says it "yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount."

            In other words, radiocarbon dating is also subject to assumptions regarding the initial state of the sample, which are unknown. So a dating by the use of this method, as well as the other methods such K/Ar, are all based on these kinds of assumptions. Therefore, if the method fails to give accurate readings of samples of known age, why would we trust it to accurately date samples of unknown age?

            The fact that living samples give ages of hundreds or thousands of years proves the method is unreliable. One could assume that they know what factor to use to correct for the error, but that too would be a guess. Also consider that we do not have any way of knowing whether the sample became contaminated or not before we tested it, so even if we knew the initial state, it would still be no guarantee we would obtain an accurate date.

          • keyboardshark

            RE: Claim CD010

            "Actually the present lava dome at Mount St. Helens is the third dome to form since the 1980 eruption, the first two having been blasted away by subsequent eruptions. The current dome started to form after the volcano's last explosive eruption on October 17, 1980.

            During 17 so-called dome-building eruptions, from October 18, 1980 to October 26, 1986, thick pasty lava oozed out of the volcanic vent much like toothpaste from a tube. Dacite lava is too thick to flow very far, so it simply piled up around the vent forming the mountain-like dome, which now sits as a plug over the volcanic orifice.

            Why does the lava dome provide an opportunity to test the accuracy of radioisotope dating? There are two reasons. First, radioisotope dating methods can be used mainly on volcanic (igneous) rock, such as dacite. (Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock cannot be directly dated radioisotopically.)

            Second, the date of formation of the dacite is known. (This is one of the rare instances in which, to the question, "Were you there?", we can answer-"Yes, we were!") It is widely assumed that the radioisotope clock is set at zero and starts ticking when igneous rock solidifies from a molten state.

            The concept of radioisotopic dating is fairly simple. The method used at Mount St. Helens is called potassium-argon dating. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or "variety" of the element potassium) spontaneously "decays", becoming argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon). This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years. In other words, 1.0 gram of potassium-40, in 1.3 billion years, would decay to the point that only 0.5 gm was left. Theoretically, given certain assumptions, one could measure the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in a volcanic rock sample and calculate how old the rock is. When this is done, the age is usually very great, often millions of years.

            In June of 1992, Dr. Austin collected a 15 lb. block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed, sieved, and processed into a whole rock powder as well as four mineral concentrates. These were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, a high quality, professional radioisotope dating laboratory.

            The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that "low argon" should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St. Helens and was only 10 years old. The results of this analysis, shown in Figure 2 (below), were recently published.1

            SAMPLE: 1. "Whole Rock"
            "Age" (in millions of years): 0.35 ± 0.05

            SAMPLE: 2. Feldspar, etc.
            "Age" (in millions of years): 0.34 ± 0.06

            SAMPLE: 3. Amphibole, etc.
            "Age" (in millions of years): 0.9 ± 0.2

            SAMPLE: 4. Pyroxene, etc.
            "Age" (in millions of years): 1.7 ± 0.3

            SAMPLE: 5. Pyroxene
            "Age" (in millions of years): 2.8 ± 0.6

            What can one observe about these results? First and foremost is simply that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been "zero argon" indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 0.35-2.8 million years! Why is this? A good possibility is that solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to zero. Probably some argon-40 is incorporated from the start into newly formed minerals giving the "appearance" of great age. It should also be noted that there is poor correspondence between the different samples, each taken from the same rock.

            Is this the only example where radioisotope dating has failed to give correct dates for rocks of known age? Certainly not! Dalrymple2 gives the following potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows (Figure 3): "

            TO SEE REST: http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

        • keyboardshark

          Here is a link to a video of a debate between an evolutionist, Dr. James Paulson, professor of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, and creationist Dr. Kent Hovind, conducted at the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh in April 2000.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpbny2tipr8&fe…

          • Chris P

            Kent Hovind is a stinking clown. Volcanic rock dating has nothing much to do with the age of the Earth. You just don't understand geology. You can determine the Earth's age by several methods that have nothing to do with carbon dating. You are just poor at science and mathematics.

          • keyboardshark

            Watch the debate.

          • keyboardshark

            I'm well aware that carbon dating is not used to date the earth. Carbon dating can only be used to date organic compounds, which are carbon based. However, even carbon dating, when testing samples older than written records, is also based on decay-rate assumptions, like the other methods, such as K/Ar, Ur/Pb, etc.

    • Evermyrtle

      You for get with GOD one day is as a thousands or one thousand years is a s a day. Knowing this you can understand why we do not really know how old the earth.is. Don't bother to say that "doesn't make sense!" GOD doesn't have to make sense according to our rules. HE doesn't go by our rules, HE has HIS OWN which are so much better than ours.

      • Evermyrtle

        Sorry, I should have written "One day is as a thousand days and a thousand years is as a day.

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

          It made no difference in its absurdity.

        • keyboardshark

          I think this is the verse you refer to, Evermyrtle:

          "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
          2 peter 3:8

          • Chris P

            And what has that got to do with geology, wind and water erosion rates. You people are just clueless about the planet.

          • keyboardshark

            Who said that verse had to do with geology, wind and water erosion rates? The verse is referring to the fact that for God, who is eternal, meaning He is outside the confines of time, a thousand years is equivalent to a day. In other words, time is irrelevant to an eternal being who always has existed and always will exist.

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

        An example of these rules which are so much better than anything man does. (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

        So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

        The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

        Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

  • msjallen

    Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (God the Son created the universe in less than a second.)
    Gen 1:2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. (In Hebrew tohu: dump waste & bohu: barren)
    The earth had become a disaster area since Satan used it as his headquarters. Satan was removed and an ice pack was put on the earth to keep the fallen angels out. Then in the creation of man the earth had to be restored for the occupancy of man on planet earth. It was God the Son who restored the earth in six days and then on the 7th was a day of rest which means the work was finished. The original creation was made in less than a second by God the Son Gen 1:1.

  • msjallen

    Is 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste (tohu) place, but formed it to be inhabited), “I am the LORD, and there is none else. (The earth was not originally created a desolation.)
    Is 14:17 Who made the world like a wilderness and overthrew its cities, who (Satan) did not allow his prisoners to go home?’
    (There is a lot more information regarding this just not enough room.)
    Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
    (The same way that the Holy Spirit shines Bible Doctrine into our souls in the Church Age. “Light shines out of darkness”)
    Col 1:16-17 For by Him (Jesus Christ) all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
    (Even in the cradle and through all of His life on earth and all during the Church Age through all the ages and eternity.)

  • msjallen

    John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
    Hebrews 1:10 And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

  • keyboardshark

    Instead of worrying or wondering why the secularists are choosing the National Day of Prayer to hold their observance, let us Christians be thankful to God that they at least realize that it is a special day and more importantly, that they are acknowledging that the Bible must have some credibility or else they would not go to the bother to counter it. Let us also pray that their eyes may be opened to the truth, and that they one day may come to know the Creator of the universe and the joy of salvation.

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

      They choose that day because Christians are the dominant religion on this country.

    • Chris P

      The bible is a credible source of crazy annoyances and contradictions.

      • keyboardshark

        I'll be praying for both of you.

  • Dennis

    Of topic but since when did Zionica start to censor? So this is a supposed christian site and should be about tolerance and understanding right? Then why turn into Nazis and wait to see if YOU approve of comment before posting? Guess you joined the beast system as well aye.Very sad and pathetic

    • keyboardshark

      Dennis: If you post a comment and it disappears, try clearing your browser cache and then refresh the page.

  • KnowTheTruthToday

    Another example of where our country is heading and will continue going in that direction as long as there are a few morons around.

  • bill

    I got a novel idea. Lets pray for them too. Pray that God will open their eyes just as he did the apostle Paul.

  • MEG

    Joan Neel, Amen to you! You are so right.

  • jorgi

    A reminder to all people , Darwin had a full blown hatred of God Almighty when his kid died ! From then on out he was at WAR with Christ .
    You know , when you dig deep into Darwins thinking ,you find out WHY he was a troubled man …….Darwin and Hemingway should have compared notes .
    WHEW !

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

    “The American regime can expect a resounding slap and devastating fist-blow from the Muslim nation for its support of the Zionist crimes and criminals.” — Supreme Leader Khameini

    The question isn’t whether the Iranian leadership is calling for the U.S. and Israel to be wiped out, it’s whether they really mean it. They are devout Shia Muslim Radicals, and they are not kidding about their passion to bring about the end of the world and usher in the era of their Islamic Messiah

    • Deep_Thinker

      Either way it doesn't matter, nor does it justify going to war. I'd ask you to kindly prove where those statements were said, their sources, (probably faux news) and their context. I think you will find some differences in your conclusions.

      Pre-crime is not a crime. I can say whatever I want. That does not allow one to pre-emptively detain me..

      Israeli Deputy PM: Ahmadinejad Didn‘t Actually Say Israel Must Be ’Wiped off the Map’ – http://www.theblaze.com/stories/israeli-deputy-pm…

      Propoganda is necesssary to control the sheep.

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

        Deep_Thinker 69p · 1 hour ago
        Prove to me, that Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Vietnam, or Iran are our enemy, and that they wanted to kill us.

        When I show you quotes from Iran that they do intend to harm us, you dismiss it with a wave of your hand as something that does not matter. Luckily for the USA, you are not in charge of defending the country.

        • Deep_Thinker

          Show me where the quotes came from! Prove to me how that gives you the right to start a war based on words! They never said anything about harming us, they said we will eventually fall.. Did they say how??

          And in the end, it doesn't matter. I am a free person, I will say whatever I wish and I should not be held accountable for it. Period. Mr. Iran can say all day Israel shouldn't exist, and no one should go attack them for it.

          "defending the country" – this isn't defense, it's offense! Wake up!

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

            Federal agents have arrested five people who were plotting to blow up a bridge near Cleveland, Ohio, an incident not connected to the anniversary of former al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden's death, officials say.
            Douglas L. Wright, 26, Brandon L. Baxter, 20, and Anthony Hayne, 35, were arrested by members of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force on Monday on charges of conspiracy and attempted use of explosive materials to damage physical property affecting interstate commerce. Also arrested were Connor C. Stevens, 20, and Joshua S. Stafford, 23. Charges are pending against them.
            The five were "controlled by an undercover FBI employee," and agents had them under extensive surveillance for a long period of time. The explosives they allegedly purchased were inoperable.
            "There was never any danger," one federal official said. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/01/1148…

            Based on your views of the world, these people did nothing wrong.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Your paranoia is worst than usual. Have you fallen down stairs this morning or your baboon ancestors are hunting your dreams lately?

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

            Humpty, so you believe an imaginary group is planning a NWO, but cannot conceive that an actual country mght pose a threat? The depths of your delusion are staggering.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Baboon theorist, I can assure you that CFR or Club of Rome or etc. etc. etc is real and functioning regardless of what you have heard in your neck of dark woods.

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

            They are not planning on establishing a NWO. Take off your tin foil hat, Humpty.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            baboon theorist, you have been watching too many movies and therefore not reading enough.

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

            Delusional loon, you have been reading too many books about conspiracy theories.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Swoon baboon, I do not ready any "conspiracy books"… Missed again.

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

            Humpty, that seems to be your second favorite type of reading material. The first is books that reinforce your god delusion.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Baboon Enthusiast, how is your sequel of "Dod Delusion" going?

          • Deep_Thinker

            Technically no. Who is the victim of this crime?

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

            Preventing crimes is also part of law enforcement. So, if a husband wants to kill his wife and hires an FBI agent to do the deed, he also has not committed a real crime since no one was going to be hurt by the FBI agent?

            You live in an odd world and deep thinking is not a part of it.

          • Deep_Thinker

            "was going to be hurt" – no one was hurt…

            Actually, it's based on common law and the NAP – Non-Aggression principle. It's what smart Libertarian types like myself subscribe to…

            In my workd, there is not government agency like the FBI. Defense is a good like any other and should be provided for privately anyway.

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

            Defining Attempt: What is an attempt? Start from the proposition that thoughts alone cannot be punished by the criminal law. (I'm grateful for that, and assume that you are too.) There has to be some level of mens rea and actus reus.The focus is on the accused's state of mind and the proximity to the target. Yet conduct does play a part.

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

            There is a requirement of conduct, but there are different approaches in determining the minimal conduct that will suffice for an attempt. Attempt is a specific intent crime in which there is always a purpose to complete the conduct necessary to achieve the target or offense that is the objective, along with the intent necessary to attempt the target offense.

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

            Traditionally, attempt has been considered as an endeavor to accomplish a crime, which endeavor is carried beyond mere preparation but which falls short of the ultimate design in some particular, i.e., a substantial but ineffective effort to commit a target crime. It is, of course, obvious that there is going to be difficulty in some cases in determining when an attempt begins and when mere preparation ends. Read what Judge Richard Posner has to say about the meaning of "substantial step". When Posner speaks, the legal community listens. Read his opinion in United States v. Gladish, 536 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2008). (1) http://www.crimesanddefenses.com/SilverBulletsIII…

          • Deep_Thinker

            I don't care what some court ruling said. Court rulings allow for many unconstitutional and unlawful precedents.

            You say crime prevention – but it's a misnomer.

            If you call it crime prevention, that assumes that a crime has been prevented. So if a crime has been prevented, then how come there is a criminal? Because the act of possibly doing the crime has been made criminal by the "law enforcers". So it's not crime prevention when a plot to commit a crime is caught. The plot itself is a crime! And again, I ask you to point out the victim.
            As you still have not done.

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

            If a spouse contracts someone to kill their wife, the wife is the victim even if the crime is prevented. How you can call that person innocent is mind boggling.

            It is not as if the husband changed his mind and or did nothing by think about the topic. He simply tried to use the wrong person to commit the murder. And that is a crime, whether you like it or not.

          • Deep_Thinker

            How is the wife harmed?

            What if the husband calls the contract killer a day before and says forget it, i've changed my mind.

          • Deep_Thinker

            Attempt and prepare are different. Don't mix the two. Attempted murder is different from buying a knife in which I might murder someone…

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

            They would not be attacking them simply based on what they have said, the concern is that they are building an atomic bomb. That in conjunction with their views is causing the government to consider what is needed to stop them.

          • Deep_Thinker

            Stop them from owning a weapon? Since when is that a crime?

            Oh and I'm pretty sure Iran has followed all IAEA agreements whereas Israel hasn't even signed an agreement, not to mention their arsenal of at least 200+ nukes…

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

            When the country involved with wanting an atomic bomb has threatened to wipe another country off the face of the earth, the threatened country has the right to make sure that does not occur.

          • Deep_Thinker

            They have a right to prepare to defend themselves, not go on the offensive…

            Self-defense is not pre-emptive action. I would ask again, who is the victim of the threat? Who was actually harmed? If you can't think of one, then it isn't a crime.

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

            Once again, preventing crimes is also part of law enforcement.

          • Deep_Thinker

            Again, unless there is no victim, no crime has taken place. Prevention does not somehow allow for physical force to prevent something before it MIGHT happen.

            It does allow for physical force against something that IS taking place. Might and is are two different concepts. You think prevention should be at the might stage, but that is not true. Defense is allowed for at the might take place stage.

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

            http://www.eurasiareview.com/09112011-game-change…

            The IAEA disagrees with you.

          • Deep_Thinker

            No, the IAEA neesd some clarification on a few things from Iran, who has signed an agreement with them, that again, Israel has not.

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

            Do you work for the IAEA? Are you involved with the discussions they have or the investigations they conduct? On what basis can you claim to know whether the IAEA needs clarification or not? You claimed Iran was not in violation with the IAEA. When shown that that they are, you once again wave your hands and dismiss the information provided.

          • Deep_Thinker

            Iran is one country out of how many I listed? I read the IAEA report, you linked to some foreign news source which i'm sure is highly credible.

            And you are also assuming Iran doesn't have a right to protect itself, which it does. Especially when we have approx. 20 bases surrounding them and spreading war propaganda daily!

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

            I did not ever say all the countries you listed want to destroy the USA. However, Iran most certainly does.

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

            Iran does have a right to protect itself. Every country does. That includes the USA and Israel as well. We also have a right to defend ourselves. And Iran is a country that needs to watched carefully to make sure it does not attempt to destroy us as they continually claim they want to do.

          • Deep_Thinker

            Watched carefully is different than attacking them because they might attack us in the future. Don't change your argument.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "Every country does"

            Hahhahahahaha
            Another golden nugget of wisdom from from self-proclaimed pantomath political strategist numb besserwisser. Yes (Dodxon expanding your nitwit vocab)

          • Deep_Thinker

            And that gives us the right to attack them? No it does not.

            A desire, which is subjectively viewed through your and our warmongering leaders eyes is not tangible. It does not have proof to be true. You can logically deduce that Iran might want to destroy us, but you until they actually attempt to do so, they have not done anything wrong. We have not right to base a militiary decision on subjective statements without proof.

            You think Iran is the only country that would love to see that? Keep drinking the kool-aid..