The Atheist Film Festival

There were no red carpets, no paparazzi, no celebrities and definitely no God at the recent annual Atheist Film Festival.

Instead, there were more than a dozen films, long and short, about separation of church and state, freedom of religion (and no religion), the conflict between science and religion in public schools and a couple hundred people eager to see them.

“If we don’t do this, who will? said festival organizer Dave Fitzgerald, as people picked up atheist-themed books and T-shirts at the Aug. 10-11 festival. “Atheists are not well-represented by Hollywood, and a lot of people don’t get any exposure to real atheist thought except through things like this.”

Fitzgerald, who calls himself “a freelance heretic,” started the festival four years ago. His main criteria for including a film is that it shows at least one atheist figure in a positive light.

Continue reading at www.religionnews.com

« Previous Article

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.

If you find a comment offensive, please flag it as inappropriate by hovering over the down arrow to the right of that comment and clicking on the "Flag as inappropriate" text. Once a comment receives three "flags," it will be hidden from further view.

millergroup2

No comments. Shows that we do not give a crap!
- Evermyrtle
  
  I do disagree, GOD'S people are very concerned by the anti-GOD practices that are so prevalent in this world to,day. This is only the latest,traversity. These things will continue and likely get worse as we get closer to HIS return.
  - Taquoshi
    
    We also need to pray for these people. They are lost.
    - Chris
      
      Nope – we've found reality. It's pleasant – no threats from preachers. No hypocrisy in the congregation.
      - petroskhan
        
        No, you've found a self-contradicting fantasy, riddled with hopelessness and devoid of meaning. But it's your lie, tell it how you like.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        It is the religious who by pretending they can believe the absurdity of revealed religion truly live a life devoid of meaning. People find great joy in life from family, friends, work and play. A belief in an imaginary deity does not make it better. Mankind always strives to make life better for themselves. While we fall sometimes, we have improved our lot in life tremendously. And we did it all by ourselves.
      - petroskhan
        
        Your lack of faith is well known, and noted. Like you, a Christian derives great joy from those same things, family, friends, etc. That is a simple fact.
        
        You err in attempting to impose your personal belief that believing in God doesn't make it better. As a Christian, I find that my life IS enriched by my belief. You stating that belief "does not make it better" is an opinion of yours, not that of Christians. Why can't you just accept the fact that not everyone is going to agree with you, and move on? Is your life not filled with enough "great joy" that you can simply leave well enough alone?
        
        Since you've been kind enough to share your opinion, I will do the same. Here's my opinion. It seems like you need to prove to someone that God doesn't exist. You fear and hate the very concept of His existence, the very possibility of Him existing, because you lack the courage to take the leap, and believe. You know that you're wrong in your virtual "worship" of science, and the evidence all around you, even the evidence your god Science, screams out that God is real, and He exists, but you refuse to accept Him, and you feel if you can convince someone that you're right, that God does not exist, then you will be justified in believing it yourself.
        
        You're going to deny what I've said, and that's fine. Like I said, it's my opinion. But let's be scientific, since you seem to like that approach. You are on a religious website, continually bashing the religion on which the website is based. You claim that your life is filled with "great joy", yet you put an inordinate amount of time and effort into attempting to discredit something you claim means nothing to you. Do I need to point out the contradiction here? If you life is so "improved", and "tremendously" at that, what is there that drives you so that you must, day after day, attempt to convince people who won't listen to you that they are wrong on something that is important to them?
        
        My previous paragraph holds, I believe, the answer. You are driven by your fear, forced to attempt to justify your position by shaking someone else's faith. If you can prove it someone else, that makes you right, in your mind. It makes you a sad and frightened man, in my mind. But we each have, and are entitled to, our opinions.
        
        Let the denying begin! LOL
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        For the bulk of my life, I did not concern myself with what theists believed. I took the approach of why bother. But over the past few years, I have come to realize that change never happens unless someone takes a stand. And it often takes seeing someone else to take a stand, for another person to decide to do it as well.
        I really am not arguing in any real attempt to make you change your mind. I argue for people who are on the fence, for them to see that there is a rational reason to oppose the delusion of religion.
        
        And by the way, I do not have a lack of faith. I have an abundance of rationality.
      - petroskhan
        
        Saint Jeff! Struggling to save the oppressed. LOL Just kidding…
        
        But seriously, if you want to use "reason" and science, why not pay attention to ALL of science, instead of cherry-picking what supports your contentions? It is, as I have stated, the very science you espouse which shows that your stance is wrong. Don't take my word for it.
        
        "Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."– Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.
        
        On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
        
        Science journalist John Horgan, a former senior writer at Scientific American (1986-1997) and regular columnist for Scientific American online summed it up after an Origins Project conference at Arizona State University. Here is part of what he wrote in a Scientific American online blog on February 28, 2011: "[S]cientists don't have a clue how life began." "Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life." "RNA, DNA's helpmate, remains the most popular answer to this conundrum". "But the 'RNA-world' hypothesis remains problematic. RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize under the best of circumstances, in a laboratory, let alone under plausible prebiotic conditions. Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of chemical coaxing from the scientist." "The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out — literally — speculation."
        
        I'm not on the fence. I'm on the side of truth, logic and science. Oh, and justice and the American way.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
        
        photosensitive cell aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin pigment cells forming a small depression pigment cells forming a deeper depression the skin over the depression taking a lens shape muscles allowing the lens to adjust
        
        All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
        
        Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
        
        Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You show a comment from the beginning of the
        article where they continue to show how modern research into ecology and other
        areas have shown him to be correct.
        
        Here is the conclusions (which is
        very long) from the article:
        
        Nature Vol457, Issue 7231 12Feb2009
        wrote:
        
        Although Darwin might have erred in some of the details of his
        principle of divergence, particularly the generally agreed starting point of
        reproductively isolated species, his basic idea has merit. The fundamental truth
        of his principle of divergence has emerged in different facets of evolutionary
        ecology; a field in which the same principle, in the form of character
        displacement or some models of sympatric speciation was discovered independently
        in different contexts over a centrury after the publication of On the Origin of Species. Darwin's linking of
        extinction to diversification did not re-emerge as the study of extinction rose
        to prominence in conservation biology. Competitive replacement leading to
        extinction was once generally and uncritically accepted by palaeontologists
        before fading into the background after the discovery of mass extinctions. There is compelling evidence, however, of a role for
        biotic interactions in at least some extinction events and a complementory
        relationship between divergence and extinction finds enough support for Darwin's
        proposal to merit further consideration as a viable link between microevolution
        and macroevolution.
        Darwin's Proposal carries a more general message
        for contemporary discussions of macroevolution, namely that microevolution
        cannot explain macroevolution. Understanding macroevolution requires the
        integration of ecology, evolution and the role of history in shaping the
        diversification or decline of lineages. Other investigators, most recently David
        Jablonski, have conveyed similar messages.
        
        …
        
        …Many
        people see On the Origin of Species as a beautiful fossil, but we view it as a
        living document that continues to offer insights and to enlighten modern
        research. It contains a wealth of ideas that have slipped through the cracks of
        modern synthesis and, when appropriately updated, can provide inspiration for
        addressing some of the major unanswered questions in evolutionary biology.
      - petroskhan
        
        It's easy to sit there and say that Darwin might have been right about this or that, but there are several glaring flaws in what Darwin wrote.
        
        If there existed such a huge number of mutations that so much benefit has resulted, where are the failures? There would have to be, in simple math terms, thousands, if not millions, of failures for each and every successful mutation. Yet there exist none. We should also see many examples of emerging beneficial mutations today. We do not.
        
        Breeding generation after generation of bacteria has resulted in…bacteria. No higher organisms have resulted. Breeding generations of fruit flies has resulted in what? Fruit flies. Even when artificially induced mutations are introduced, they do not hold, and the result is shorter life spans, lesser resistance to famine, etc.
        
        The simple fact is, 'like produces like'. No higher organism has ever resulted from the breeding of a lower life form. If anyone wants to show that evolution is a valid scientific principle, show me a lizard bred from a worm. Show any species that can result from the breeding of another species, since that is the fundamental claim of evolution.
        
        And, while you're at it, show life from lifelessness. Attempting to address higher issues is like discussing the floor plan of the penthouse without having the foundation planned.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You showed part of an article which seems to be on your side of
        the argument, but the full article shows it to be on my side, when you asked
        that I consider all of science. You are the one cherry picking and quote mining
        as well.
        
        Failures based on mutations? Try the millions of embryos that result
        in miscarriages every year.
        
        It takes millions of years for evolution to produce new species
        and you demand results based on experiments for hundreds of years. Nothing
        unrealistic about that. However, these experiments have shown change.
        Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution.
        
        Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following: the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985); adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975); the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980); evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998); modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984); evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);
        There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins: Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).
        Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)
        
        For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
        Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following: the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985); adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975); the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980); evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998); modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984); evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);
        
        There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins: Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).
        Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)
        
        For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
        
        Scientists are working on how life was created. They are getting
        closer all the time. Finding the answers to questions is what drives science.
      - petroskhan
        
        Showing that breeding for a certain is possible is NOT showing that it's possible for one species to give rise to another. Any traits bred for is selecting a trait, and breeding only those organisms which exhibiting that trait. It existed before, and was therefore part of the genetic structure of the organism, unless artificially introduced by scientists.
        
        As I said, evolution claims that one species can give rise to a completely different one. This is illogical, and unprovable.
        
        As for how life started, I am afraid the great god of science will hit one dead end after another. As for "finding the answers is what drives science", I am reminded of the words of Robert Jastrow, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the
        story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance;
        he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the
        final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting
        there for centuries."
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        No actually, the idea of one species giving rise to another species is one thing which makes complete sense. If all animals were created together and most became extinct over several thousand years (or even hundreds of millions of years in old-earth creationism), why don't all animals show up together at the earliest geological level, with the number of species decreasing as time goes on? If creationism were true, this is what we would expect. But instead, the nature of the fossil record supports evolution. Simpler organisms are found at lower levels and more complex ones at higher levels, and different species of animals appear at different times. Furthermore, the total number of species living at any particular time varies. There are numerous peaks and crashes, corresponding to numerous extinction events, both minor and major. After each mass extinction, many new species begin to appear. But if these subsequent animals were specially created at the beginning of earth's history along with all other species, where is the record of their prior existence?
- petroskhan
  
  I agree 100%. There is no reason whatsoever for Christians to be concerned about this sort of nonsense. Our minds are (or should be) on what comes AFTER this world, not the foolish ramblings of those who choose to blind themselves to the truth.
Evermyrtle

This is part of the gigantic group that will bring JESUS back to gather HIS people and take them to safety until GOD cleans the world and make it fit for HIS people to dwell hers. The time is coming very close to this great event. HIS people are looking for it any day.It has to be soon to save the earth from destruction, from a nuclear war. This IS from "THE WORD OF GOD"
Michael G.

I'm afraid they were preaching to their "choir." A true believer isn't going to waste his time on this stuff.
petroskhan

I find it humorous that they use the word "Reason" in so much of their propaganda. If they were to use true reason, they would abandon the empty and false claims of atheism in a heartbeat. It's their very lack of the ability to reason that has led them down the road they choose to follow.
- http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
  
  You are spot-on, petroskhan. The existence of a universe that could not possibly have created itself is the most glaring example of their willingness to abandon reason in their zeal to reject God.
  - petroskhan
    
    That may be the most glaring, but my favorite is the whole "life from lifelessness" thing. They teach you in biology that life has to come from life. Then they turn around and tell you that life started from non-living material. C'mon, guys…make up your mind…LOL
    - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
      
      Yes, and if that argument is rejected, they then claim that life came from another planet somewhere in outer space, but all that does is push the unanswerable question off to a different location. Then it gets into an infinite regress whereby the life on the (presumed) other planet would have had to have originated on yet another unknown planet, and so on, into infinity.
      - petroskhan
        
        Yeah, I've run across that one. But eventually, there must be an "original" life form to answer for, and that one usually goes unanswered.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        It does not go answered at all. The concept that life does not occur from lifelessness refers to the idea that life cannot spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature, not the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections.
        
        The concept of life from outer space is not simply that life originated on another plant, but that some of the elements or chemicals needed for life here on earth came to this planet from outer space. They may never have been on a planet, but could have been part of an asteroid.
      - petroskhan
        
        No, the concept of life from lifelessness refers to the idea that something NOT living can produce something that IS living. This is, to any logical person, ridiculous in the extreme, and violates the laws of biology and chemistry.
        
        No matter how you attempt to explain the "origin" of the requisite chemicals, the facts remain that there are no intrinsic properties of the chemicals that force them into forming the requisite complex proteins required for life, nor would they, under the conditions required for their formation, survive the formation. The exact same conditions that could, conceivably, produce some of the basic building blocks would also destroy them at the same rate. This makes the spontaneous and simultaneous production of the plethora of requisite proteins in virtual contact with each other so mathematically remote that the universe is simply not large enough or old enough to allow for it to happen.
        
        It simply doesn't matter where one attempts to claim the pieces of Lego came from. Someone had to put them together.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The religious have always claimed certain concepts are impossible or that man cannot grasp them. Every year, science discovers information that shows that idea is wrong. The Miller-Urey experiment was a good example of showing that the necessary amino acids for life can form naturally. The laws of chemistry is all that needed to put the amino acids in the right sequence.
      - petroskhan
        
        Jeff, as you well know, the Miller-Urey experiment proved nothing. Even Urey himself acknowledged that. There was nothing "natural" about the experiment, and it even used the wrong mixtures, which simulated nothing. Even the amino acids formed had to be isolated and protected from the very environment which produced them.
        
        We've gone over this before, and you know as well as I do that the experiment not only proved nothing, but no honest, reputable scientist today gives its results any credence. You can make your arguments have a bit more credibility by ceasing to cite such a flawed example of "scientific progress." The vaunted science you worship has discovered information, true. And one piece of that information is that Miller and Urey discovered nothing. Seems like you need to catch up with your "religion" of science, and its advances.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Yes, of course, No honest, reputable —blah, blah, blah. The
        only reputable scientist you recognize is one that accepts the absurd views of Creationism. We have gone over this before, and your refusal to accept the information in no way negates it. The scientific community has not dismissed the experiment as bad science It continues to be taught in science classes;
        hardly the benchmark of a scorned idea that discovered "nothing".
      - petroskhan
        
        Of the 20 amino acids needed, the experiment yielded 3. And those three had to be "preserved" and protected from the environment which produced them through the use of a cold trap. That's hardly simulating nature, now, isn't it?
        
        And let's not forget that Miller's first experiment, without the cold trap, destroyed the acids as soon as the were produced.
        
        Also, the mixture of gases he used is NOT what scientists now theorize composed the early atmosphere of earth, nor was the surface being continually blasted by lightning, as Miller theorized at the time.
        
        Now, tell me again…who's denying information?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Since you are not reporting correct information, it would appear to be you.
        After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
        The issue is not whether the experiment showed eactly the conditions that existed in the early environment. Scientists are not completely sure what that environment was. However, it showed that the formation of the amino acids was possible.
      - petroskhan
        
        Okay, let's play…
        
        One of the common “proofs” that the evolutionary origin of life
        is possible, is the Miller-Urey experiment (“Question science
        instead of beliefs,” Sept. 1) in which they prepared certain
        chemicals in an apparatus and then applied a spark at random to
        simulate lightning striking in an early Earth atmosphere. Amino
        acids were formed — the very building blocks of life.
        
        There are, however, many problems with their methodology.
        According to Scott M. Huse, Ph.D.’s “The Collapse of Evolution,”
        page 153:
        
        “1. The concentrations of methane and ammonia were carefully
        selected to ensure the production of organic molecules. There is no
        evidence to suggest the Earth’s atmosphere was so
        characterized.
        
        2. There is no evidence to indicate the Earth’s early atmosphere
        was reducing. There is, however, considerable evidence to suggest
        the Earth had an oxidizing atmosphere during most, if not all, of
        its history.
        
        3. A methane-ammonia-reducing atmosphere would be fatal to
        life-forms.
        
        4. The simulation of lightning by mild spark discharges is
        unrealistic. Actual lightning would have destroyed any organics
        that may have been present.
        
        5. The molecules produced in the Miller-Urey apparatus would
        react detrimentally to life forms that were trying to evolve.
        Chemically, they would destroy all hope of producing life.”
        
        The other problems with the experiment are as follows:
        
        1. They cheated. They designed the apparatus to separate amino
        acids from the mix once they were formed. If they hadn’t done that
        as soon as an amino acid was formed, the next electrical spark may
        have rearranged the atoms into some other form.
        
        2. The amino acids they did produce were half left-handed and
        half right-handed, just like you would expect from a random process
        like electrical sparks in a gas mixture. The trouble is, only
        left-handed amino acids are used in organisms.
        
        3. Additional molecules were formed other than amino acids.
        Namely, formaldehyde and cyanide, which are destructive to
        life.
        
        So, we have a rigged "experiment", that produced, at best, marginal results, that don't even show what the researcher was trying to prove. Yeah, it's a real landmark in science, all right.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        These issues have been reviewed and countered. For example, take claims #1 &2. You should read from science sources.
        1)The claim is false. Other atmospheres also do give rise to amino acids (Schlesinger and Miller 1983).
        Since his first experiment, Miller and others have experimented with other atmospheric compositions, too (Chang et al. 1983; Miller 1987; Schlesinger and Miller 1983; Stribling and Miller 1987). Complex organic molecules form under a wide range of prebiotic conditions.
        
        2)The claim is false. Current evidence indicates that the early earth had a mildly reducing atmosphere (Kasting 1993). It was probably rich in hydrogen due to the escape of hydrogen from the atmosphere being much lower than previously thought (Tian et al. 2005). Calculations of the outgassing expected from chondrites (which the earth was largely formed from) also indicate a reducing atmosphere (Thomas 2005).
        
        Even if the earth's overall atmosphere were neutral, there would have been many local areas that were reducing, such as areas near active volcanism (Delano 2001; Kasting 1993).
        
        It is possible that life arose well away from the atmosphere — for example, around deep-sea hydrothermal vents. This could make the atmospheric content largely irrelevant.
        
        The early atmosphere, even if it was oxidizing, was nowhere near as oxidizing as it is today. It was likely high in hydrogen, which facilitates the formation of organic molecules (Tian et al. 2005).
        There is a variety of evidence that the early atmosphere did not have significant oxygen (Turner 1981).
        
        Banded iron formations are layers of hematite (Fe2O3) and other iron oxides deposited in the ocean 2.5 to 1.8 billion years ago. The conventional interpretation is that oxygen was introduced into the atmosphere for the first time in significant quantities beginning about 2.5 billion years ago when photosynthesis evolved. This caused the free iron dissolved in the ocean water to oxidize and precipitate. Thus, the banded iron formations mark the transition from an early earth with little free oxygen and much dissolved iron in water to present conditions with lots of free oxygen and little dissolved iron.
        In rocks older than the banded iron formations, uranite and pyrite exist as detrital grains, or sedimentary grains that were rolling around in stream beds and beaches. These minerals are not stable for long periods in the present high-oxygen conditions. "Red beds," which are terrestrial sediments with lots of iron oxides, need an oxygen atmosphere to form. They are not found in rocks older than about 2.3 billion years, but they become increasingly common afterward. Sulfur isotope signatures of ancient sediments show that oxidative weathering was very low 2.4 billion years ago (Farquhar et al. 2000).
        
        The dominant scientific view is that the early atmosphere had 0.1 percent oxygen or less (Copley 2001).
        
        Free oxygen in the atmosphere today is mainly the result of photosynthesis. Before photosynthetic plants and bacteria appeared, we would expect little oxygen in the atmosphere for lack of a source. The oldest fossils (over a billion years older than the transition to an oxygen atmosphere) were bacteria; we do not find fossils of fish, clams, or other organisms that need oxygen in the oldest sediments.
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html
        And yes I know I have not countered every one of the claims you listed. However, it is easy to provide a list of issues. It takes much longer to find the information that refutes each one. However, as I have shown with your first two "problems" your list of issues is nothing of the sort.
      - petroskhan
        
        Not sure how you're claiming that #2 is false…
        
        For a long time it was thought that the early Earth had a reducing
        atmosphere. A reducing atmosphere contains reductants, or molecules
        saturated with hydrogen atoms, which are able to reduce other molecules.
        Many scientists believed that the atmosphere consisted of CH4, NH3, and H2.
        This is the mixture of gases Miller and Urey used in 1953 to mimic the
        conditions of the early earth. Their experiment showed that abiotic
        molecules could be used to create important biotic compounds thought to
        be necessary for the origin of life.
        
        However, most of the scientific community now believes that the early
        Earth's atmosphere was not reducing. Instead, scientists beleive the
        atmosphere was full of oxidants, such as CO2 and N2. An oxidizing atmosphere is essentially neutral, and does not permit organic chemistry to occur. (From the Chemistry Department at Duke University's website.)
        
        Further comments on the early atmosphere:
        
        A study of rocks of all ages shows overwhelmingly that they were formed under the influences of an atmosphere containing oxygen. As this is the case, the early atmosphere definitely contained oxygen. Therefore, the 'primordial soup' could never have happened.
        Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick acknowledges this fact. New Scientist, Vol. 87, July 10, 1980 p:112; Geology, Vol. 10, March 1982 p:141
        
        If the atmosphere was not oxidizing, and therefore lacking in oxygen:
        
        The 'first cells' could not have survived the high solar ultraviolet radiation levels that would have existed in an oxygen-less environment, as there would have been no ozone to absorb the rays and shield them.
        Science News, December 24 & 31, 1988 p:423
        
        Also, "….. in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. The soup would have been too dilute for direct polymerization to occur. Even local ponds for concentrating soup ingredients would have met with the same problem."
        Written by biochemists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley & Roger L. Olsen as a statement that biogenesis (chemical evolution) could not have formed in the way evolutionary theory demands. Written in their book "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories", Philosophical Library: New York, 1984 p:66
        
        And lastly (for now):
        Although amino acids may form in watery conditions, the next step where amino acids spontaneously joining to form peptides, requires dry conditions. Under dry conditions, the subsequent steps to form cells containing a large percentage of water could not proceed.
        Science News, Vol. 134, 1988 p:117; Nature, August 18, 1988 p:609-611
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The information I reviewed stated this. However, it also stated additional information which I had posted above
        Even if the earth's overall atmosphere were neutral, there would have been many local areas that were reducing, such as areas near active volcanism (Delano 2001; Kasting 1993).
        It is possible that life arose well away from the atmosphere — for example, around deep-sea hydrothermal vents. This could make the atmospheric content largely irrelevant.
        I will get to the rest later today.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        And just so I know, are you a young Earth Creationist, or an old Earth one?
      - Dave
        
        So which Jeff are you out of this goup of yours?
        How about putting out rest of the factual infomation and not so much of the opinionate statements from your comments above Jeff Dixon group!
      - Mary Wood
        
        Hi Dave:
        
        Dave: We have only one Jeff Dixon. The Lord threw away the pattern after He made ours.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Hi Dave, Still not going to argue with you. Hope all is well.
      - Mary Wood
        
        Jeff, are you addressing Petros here?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        yep
      - petroskhan
        
        If you're addressing me with that question, I haven't decided yet. I can see logic on both sides of it, but have to state unequivocally which I believe.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Which part of believing that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old makes logical sense to you?
      - petroskhan
        
        That would be a very long discussion, with many, many pages needed. Let it suffice to say that on that side of the issue, you could sum up the position by saying that it seems to be what the Bible is saying. It says creation took six days, so it took six days.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        However, those 6 days could have been millions of years ago. The bible does not say how long Adam and Eve lived before they ate the forbidden fruit.
      - petroskhan
        
        LOL That's a very, very good point. I'm going to have to check into that. I must admit, I don't have a ready answer for that. Thanks for giving me something to think about and really dig into. Much appreciated.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Well, you know that even blind pigs get lucky occasionally. :)
      - petroskhan
        
        Actually, for a good breakdown, you could look into a book by Dr. Hugh Ross, called "The Genesis Debate". He believes in an old earth, but the book has an argument/response format, wherein old earth and young earth believers list their main points, counter the other sides' arguments, etc. Very good read, actually.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        All of your examples rely on considerations that are unable to be known.
        
        The "primordial soup' concept relies on unknown factors. To claim it could not occur with oxygen is silly. You cannot say it could not occur with oxygen.
        
        If there was no oxygen, the first cells could have been formed underwater where the ultra-violet light would not harm them.
        
        You state "in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals"
        
        Just what are these destructive interactions? On what basis can you say they would prevent chemical evolution?
        
        Here is the problem. The process we are discussing occurred over a millions of years. We do not know all the conditions of the planet over that period. We do not know what elements came to the planet from meteorites during that period. We do not know what the first chemical composition of self replicating forms was. We have no idea how many millions of different combinations occurred during that period.
        
        But we do know life started around 3.6 billion years ago. It did not start as fish and birds and other animals as the bible claims. It was far more simple.
      - petroskhan
        
        Actually, I never stated anything. I was quoting those with advanced degrees in the fields germane to the topic. No offense, but I value their opinions more than yours, or mine.
        
        I will agree that we don't know exactly what happened, nor do we do know what the conditions might have been. We have to go with what is known, or provable. And that is what is lacking. Proof. Therefore, we need for evolution, specifically this whole "life from lifelessness" thing, to be taught in schools for what it is. An unproven, and unprovable, hypothesis, rather than an established fact. It is one possible explanation, but by no means the only one. Since it can't be proven one way or the other, there is no logical foundation for calling it a fact.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Evolution does not comment on, care about or address where life came from. It could be from natural processes, the biblical god or Count Chocula. Evolution describes how life changes after it already exists.
      - petroskhan
        
        While I agree with your stated position, I disagree that it doesn't "comment on…or address where life came from." Every biology and/or evolution textbook on the shelves states the origin of life from non-living material as a fact. I simply wish that it would be presented as one hypothesis, alongside alternatives. It is possible to present different, and divergent, theories without advocating either one.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Yes, the biology books do mention that most scientists accept that life came from chemical processes. They are referring to the theory of Abiogenesis when they do so.
      - Mary Wood
        
        Do you mean like starting up a corpse with the application of an electric charge? All parts are there but not operational without the thrust of thermodynamics? 'just wondrin'
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I do not follow your question. Can you re-state it?
      - Mary Wood
        
        Jeff, you
        stated: “The concept that life does not occur from lifelessness refers to the
        idea that life cannot spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in
        nature, not the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by
        way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections.” I am referring to the chemical steps that
        require a spark to have this latter thing happen… an electrical charge to
        initiate the chemical reaction… similar to the process of which we are all
        familiar, as I said, like starting up a
        corpse (I meant a person who has just died) charging the person with the application
        of electricity …. Since in a corpse, all
        of the necessary parts are there for life, but not operational without the
        thrust of a power source, to initiate the required thermo- or electro-dynamics
        of the heart which… after all … is an electric pump.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        However, a corpse is the dead remnant of a complex creature. That is not the same thing at all.
      - Mary Wood
        
        relatively speaking perhaps
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        While electricity is believed to have a part in the creation of the first life, it did not jolt it into life. But yes, it would have one of many catalysts.
      - Mary Wood
        
        combustion – same as what happens in your car – thermodynamics – metabolism, its called in the study of nutrition, but basic thermodynamics nevertheless, of food, which happens continuously in our bodies in small steps … it is the controlled flow of electrons, the production of energy in the mitochondria, i.e. electricity… look up Hess's law
      - Mary Wood
        
        numerous sites on Hess's law:
        https://www.google.com/search?q=HESS'S+LAW&sugexp=chrome,mod=14&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
      - Mary Wood
        
        regardless of the complexity, which I used because most people have heard of a person "coming back to life after" being charged with an electric current, reactions can be induced by the addition of a catalyst of some kind, not necessarily electricity
      - Mary Wood
        
        Every reaction required some sort of co-factor(s) or conditions present even if it's just a temperature, pressure, or concentration changes.
      - Vladimir
        
        I like your comment, keyboardshark, that the very existance of a universe that could not have created itself renders atheism absurd. Or words to that effect.
Taquoshi

I find this baffling, to say the least. These people are celebrating what they don't do. What's the difference between this film festival and the films shown at Cannes or the Tribeca Film Festival? The goal is to show atheists in a positive light, but at whose expense? And if the films are to exalt atheists, how long before it turned into religion-bashing?
- Chris
  
  Well – you haven't noticed the atheist and gay bashing going on here?
aceituna

Don't bother about those who invest themselves in actions such as this film festival. Rather show your faith by the way you live, and share with any who will listen to what Jesus has done for you. Jesus instructed the disciples when sent out two by two to shake off the dust from their shoes on the doorsteps of those who refused to listen.
- Chirs
  
  We've seen "the way you live". Greed, materialism, war mongering, misogyny, homophobia, child abuse, adultery, letting women die so as to not hurt the fetus that is going to die anyway, promotion of overpopulation, breaking "God's Holy Union by getting a divorce, abuse of the planets resources, lack of interest in the environment, denial of global warming, killing animals for fun…… Do you want me to go on.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

The article quotes, “Atheists are not well-represented by Hollywood…."

Depends on what he means by "well-represented", but trying to find a Hollywood-produced film showing people of faith, especially Christians, worshipping, praying or reading the Bible is a difficult chore at best. I would say the atheist position is the default choice for Hollywood by virtue of their exclusion (or outright mockery) of faith practices in most films, when in fact the vast majority of the population believes in God.
Mary Wood

Don't you love it when the Calvinist Christian tells you what you believe?