User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
Big Bang, Evolution, or Intelligent Design

My challenge questions to the atheist community is simply: 1. If there was no designer involved in the making of the known universe - then where did the gigantic primordial mass that was proposed as the source of the Big Bang come from? Also - if evolution or Darwinism, in parallel or contrast, were true - then why aren't we still evolving? (I was wondering if we'd have an extra ear by now - or the amoeba that became an astronaut forte!) Please send a reply - I am eager to read or hear your feeble, finite-minded answers! :)

Shawn,

You neglected to tell me who created your designer. I think a universe with matter is much more easily understood than a self-creating creator, wouldn't you agree? What evidence do you have that the "natural" state of the universe is nothingness? Why do you think there couldn't there have been matter before the big bang?

The existence of a god has nothing at all to do with my (or humanity's) knowledge or lack thereof. If you'd like to convince anyone that you god exists, it would be good to have some positive evidence. Since you have no evidence for your god, why not say the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe? I have exactly the same evidence for that as you do for your god. Nothing.

On the evolution question, we are still evolving. See <!http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/11/evolution>. Evolution acts on genes, not body parts. I would go back to wherever you learned about evolution and ask for your money back. You were robbed.

--Don

Don,

Just because a baby can't reach everything from his play pen, doesn't mean that man's attempt to unravel the mystery of the universe with his imagination - unfounded by truth - will he reach his parent's hand - and the parent pick the baby up for him to get a better look around - if you can follow what I am saying.

To ask the right questions about what we are and why we are - will not come from what you perceive with your senses. To theorize the existence of ordered atoms to molecules from disorder or chaos is like assuming that you can whip -up a car by a tornado passing through a parts warehouse!

Even the possibility or even the probability of ordered subatomic disspensation from disorder is ludacrous! If you can't accept its design or your design - send it back - if you can - because it all came from "the some how - truth" that men have denied to support their convenient lifestyles for years. A man will try to hide behind his education or his educated guesses.

After all, when babies get upset with their reality they often just need to be "changed!"

Shawn,

Your claptrap about children is nothing more than an emotional smokescreen. Either you have evidence for your god and you can present it, or you don't and you can quit whining.

Asking how we got here is a good (and important question). Your questions assume the existence of a god. I'm asking for the evidence of that god.

My link got dropped. Here it is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/11/evolution

You're saying order is impossible. I guess if you're clueless about attractive forces, it would seem impossible. I find your straw man arguments pretty lame. Does it take Jesus to make every snowflake? You do know that snowflakes exhibit order, right?

What an amazing pile of crap about not believing because I want to live my "lifestyle". Christians have systematically killed for years. Jesus is both an excuse to kill Jews and a free pass from any consequences. Tell me how believing in claptrap nonsense helped the Catholic church solve its pedophilia problem.

As for "educated guesses", I'm wondering if you're aware that those guesses created electricity, the computer, the Internet, and just about every other technology. I dare you to live without them (and stop being a hypocrite).

--Don

Don, I must say that I am disappointed in your lack of bravery. No matter. I like that. It's very human of you, but let me talk with your secretaries first. Jen's argument is a slap and run - she showed me to a bone-filled cellar without any talking, articulating, missing-link forte - hairy primates, introducing themselves. Our cousins must have been dead a long time! Great cop-out, though. Linda thinks she can scare me with her "neener - neener - neener - I know how to write a mega -topic dissertation on Big Bang - cosmic radiation - Powder Residues and Evolving - panda thumbs?!" What? - and no primates grumbling? Where's the homo-sapien connection here people?! And BTW - Linda - Just accept outer space for the vacuum that it is - nothingness - even the singularity had to pop out of somewhere - a big cigar maybe - But in you words - Nowhere! - especially if scientists had to conjure IMAGINARY TIME???!!! - I'm pretending it's 38 O'clock and a panda thumb pops out of nowhere and falls on my keyboard! No wonder you can't spell curse words - you're missing a thumb. rofl Why are you trying to pull something out of nothing unless you are trying to sell me some "Startrek" anti-matter bit? It's either Matter or Energy or Nothing at all. Remember - the smaller you are and the universe you know is - the less visible is anything else beyond. Don't hurt your brain on that. Now Don: Presenting the evidence you asked for is easy: Everyday we are using something we never think about. You had the audacity to sit down in a chair, thinking it would hold you up. A downed power line - you wouldn't pick it up. You'll go to bed, thinking you'll wake up. (You know what it is - but if saying it out loud makes you uncomfortable - fine.) The things we all have come to depend on are made of things WE CANNOT SEE. Think beyond the Big Bang, beyond Evolution - - for a moment- - Subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules were indeed scientifically revealed. I've never denied these discoveries. Our universe must indeed fit the relativity equation - whichever part the scientists are done debating about, that is. But how to find the source and "scaffolding" that keeps those subatomic dynamics on their courses - which are exponentially yielding our reality its consistency - cannot be traced. Why? We don't have the equipment nor are we fast enough. Science alone cannot reveal what's on the other side of 'this reality.' Thus, I am saying : every human being was intricately programmed with an 'implant of knowing', deeper than just what we 'think' for granted. The answer is already coded-into you, Don - as we all. I'll show you how this is true -! Ready? Your closing statements with its numerous anti-religious overtones, particularly toward one religion, has revealed an obsession in you and this entire organization. You obviously think about it every single day, don't you? It's in your forceful demonizing of one culture based upon the mistakes of its fallible, everyday human particles - - - how base and typical is that! Surely - your potential is so much more than this intellectual "scratch n' sniff ranting" against cracks in religious charters! Isn't our universe polarized? And while some things are finite - others are infinite! - - - unless you're afraid to think that way. It's been fun.

Shawn, you asked a mind-numbingly stupid question, and I gave you a link that directly addressed it. Sorry if there weren't enough cartoons for you, but Discover isn't considered a particularly challenging read for most of us.

Now quit whining and provide evidence for your claims. Temper tantrums and watery-eyed navel gazing don't count.

If you have never heard of imaginary time or imaginary numbers - then you don't have the necessary knowledge to understand the science that has been presented. Imaginary time is a concept derived from quantum mechanics and is essential in connecting quantum mechanics with statistical mechanics. Imaginary time is also used in cosmology. It is used to describe models of the universe in physical cosmology.

You also don't know anything about evolution. If someone tells you that DNA would have falsified evolution but it supported it, then they don't need to tell you much more. DNA does support evolution, and it was recently announced on the National News that there is a consensus of opinion that evolution is now a theory and a fact.

The LHC experiments will uncover new perspectives on the deepest secrets of the universe, from new forces of nature to new dimensions of space. There are experiments to find the Higgs boson particle known as the "God" particle. Scientists hypothesize that the Higgs boson is what causes mass to exist. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva, Switzerland will send a proton beam around its 16.57-mile-long tunnel. These experiments may help scientists unravel some of particle physics biggest mysteries such as the origin of mass and the identification of dark matter and possibly identify the Higgs boson particle that is frequently referred to as the "God" particle. Scientists hypothesize that the Higgs boson is what causes mass to exist.

If they are successful the "god of the gaps" will have to find another place to hide.

Your "faith" in chairs comment is like all your comments. Anyone who makes too many assumptions might fall on their ass.

Shawn,

I have experience with chairs and waking up in the morning. Experience is evidence. Your analogy doesn't hold. Sorry.

As for particle physics, take a look at the standard model, which is very accurate at making predictions about subatomic particles. If your god is using them as playtoys in the other side of woo-woo, he must not be very creative. Don't you guys believe that your god is not testable?

Yes, we have some innate knowledge from our evolutionary history. We get our sense of empathy and many of our core morals from that. Too bad your god is having trouble stealing credit from our 4 billion years of evolutionary history.

Thank you for admitting that self-righteous thugs armed with the Bible, prayer, the holy moley ghostey, relics, miracles, and God have been systematically wrong in the past. When did the train of Christian thuggery jump on the tracks of morality exactly? What makes you think you know any better than those people? You've been pretty consistently wrong so far. If you don't answer these questions, I will continue to hold my belief that Christianity is inherently evil. (I have lots of evidence for this belief, by the way, unlike you and your beliefs.)

I have a bias against religious belief because it organizes morons into dangerous hoards whose main talent is evading responsibility. Christianity is a disease. You seem to think it's great. Why is that?

I'm not afraid of you or your god. If you're so brave, why don't you go meet Jesus personally and come back and write us about it? Why not start your perpetual orgasm today? I think you're the one who's afraid.

--Don

SHAWN DUNCAN SAID, QUOTE: "Just because a baby can't reach everything from his play pen, doesn't mean that man's attempt to unravel the mystery of the universe with his imagination - unfounded by truth - will he reach his parent's hand - and the parent pick the baby up for him to get a better look around - if you can follow what I am saying."

You're the one who doesn't get it! This stupid prattle is spewed by most televangelist addressing ignorant American audiences. It's big spoon baby xian pablum with a huge dose of xian rhetoric and idiocy to go along with it. Those who make claims should be able to back them up; otherwise you really don't know what you are talking about. There are scientific explanations for the origin of the Universe, and the origin of life in that Universe, and the origin of new types of varying life forms. Most people who don't believe in the theory of "evolution" don't actually know what it is. They wouldn't understand a scientific theory if it were painstakingly explained to them. The subject of where did it all come from is answered for them with the "god did it" theory because it's so easy. Fortunately, a few people on this planet decided that the bible didn't answer anything, and they started looking for real answers with scientific explanations.

A "theory" is not accepted without exhaustive testing. If anything is not what should be expected you start over. As soon a new theory is presented other scientists start trying to disprove it. If they can't only then does it become a theory. That's not the way televangelist work. They don't have to prove anything they say is true.

Intelligent Design was created to help the preachers convince the stupid that "god did it" and circumvent the scientific method in order to resolve questions about the origin of the universe and the origin of humans. But ID is not science and there is no theory. If evolution is happening, Intelligent Design suggests that evolution is guided by a supernatural intelligence (that is not a theory) and it's not new. They have no evidence of this. A 'theory' is not credible unless it can be tested. You have to be able to prove or disprove something for it to be a real theory. How do you test something with no palpable evidence?

If you were a judge of the correctness of a scientific theory I would think you could point out our mistakes.

SHAWN DUNCAN SAID, QUOTE: "To ask the right questions about what we are and why we are - will not come from what you perceive with your senses. To theorize the existence of ordered atoms to molecules from disorder or chaos is like assuming that you can whip -up a car by a tornado passing through a parts warehouse!"

Free energy, the ability to do work, is the most universal currency known in the natural sciences. In an expanding, non-equilibrated Universe, it is free energy that drives order from disorder, from big bang to humankind, in good accord with the second law of thermodynamics and leading to the production of entropy. On all scales, from galaxies and stars to planets and life, the rise of complexity over the course of natural history can be uniformly quantified by analyzing the normalized flow of energy through open, non-equilibrium, thermodynamic systems.

The ID er's and creationist's argue that Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy (disorder) is always increasing. Since order does not arise out of chaos, evolution is therefore false. Scientists have answered these questions, but they ID er's conveniently ignored the fact that you can get order out of disorder if you add energy. The Sun is the source of energy input to the Earth's living systems and allows them to evolve. Sunlight, via photosynthesis, provides the energy input that propels evolution. In the sense that the Sun is losing more energy than the Earth is gaining, entropy is increasing. After death, decay sets in, and energy utilization is no longer possible. What does represent an increase in entropy, as biologists have pointed out, is the diversity of species produced by evolution.

Those scientists who do not use the "god of the gaps" to explain things have developed theories. One is 'The Cell Theory' and it is not the only theory, because this lead to other theories (that's how science works). There are very different theories on the definition of Life. The Theory of Negentropy (Life must comply with the laws of physics as it exists in the physical world.) This theory is based on the observation that living organisms possess the ability to remain in a state of order, or low entropy, against the natural tendency for all things to decay into disorder, or high entropy. Living things feed on matter "negative entropy" and use them to avoid decay. The phenomenon of resisting decay towards greater entropy can be seen in generally accepted to be non-living materials too. Crystals have the ability to create "order from disorder" and "reproduce" other crystals similar to themselves if a piece of the crystal is placed in a suitable environment. This lead to the discovery of DNA.

SHAWN DUNCAN SAID, QUOTE: "Even the possibility or even the probability of ordered subatomic disspensation from disorder is ludacrous!

The spelling of the words are (DISPENSATION) and (LUDICROUS). According to the theory of evolution, the Universe is self-contained. Everything in our Universe has come into being through mechanistic processes without any kind of supernatural intervention. The origin and development of the Universe and all of its complex systems living and non-living organisms can be explained on the basis of continuing natural processes, innate in the very structure of matter and energy.

SHAWN DUNCAN SAID, QUOTE: "If you can't accept its design or your design - send it back - if you can - because it all came from "the some how - truth" that men have denied to support their convenient lifestyles for years. A man will try to hide behind his education or his educated guesses."

There are many bible passages that would appear to be immoral by today's secular and religious standards. There are passages where God expressly commands others to kill people, and several stories where God irrationally kills or tries to kill for no apparent reason. Violence is easily the most often mentioned activity in the bible. Just type this in search (Criminal Ponzi Scheme Shockingly Run By Christians) "SEC has finally released the good stuff on Stanford Financial the mini-Madoff Ponzi scheme that made $8 billion disappear. Incredibly, the company's Southern Christian leaders were big hypocritical frauds"! All done under the cloak of moral superiority! This is just one story there are many more. I don't think anyone needs to be pushing fake Xian morality on people who probably have a greater since of what morality is than most of the liars that are pushing Xian values on our Nation! Take a look at jerks like Ted Haggard or Ralph Reed!

SHAWN DUNCAN SAID, QUOTE: After all, when babies get upset with their reality they often just need to be "changed!"

Babies are fed pablum not adults. I suggest you change your diet and stop pissing Jesus. You're the one that needs changing.

Dear Linda, Has it come to name calling now. You do have a problem with infinity. It's haunting everyone. Draw an oval of the theorized universe and add infinity symbols on all four sides. . . See what I mean. Not everything you imagine has a beginning nor an end.

SHAWN DUNCAN SAID, QUOTE: "Dear Linda, Has it come to name calling now. You do have a problem with infinity. It's haunting everyone. Draw an oval of the theorized universe and add infinity symbols on all four sides. . . See what I mean. Not everything you imagine has a beginning nor an end."

A dunderhead could see what you mean! A sphere (such as) planets and stars is the most steady and effective form for a massive object to take since gravity pulls towards the center of mass. This effect of gravity to make objects above a certain mass assume a spherical shape has NO CONNECTION TO THE SHAPE OF THE UNIVERSE, since the universe did not form from the accumulation of separate clusters of matter which gradually amalgamate into a sphere due to the force of gravity; the universe expanded from a singularity.

There is no space outside of the universe; there is NO "nothingness" that the universe exists inside of. Everything is inside the singularity. We are inside the singularity. The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary. The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed.

As far as your off the wall notion that the word "infinite" has any affect on anything or anyone, all I have to say is, YOU'VE GOTTA' BE KIDDING. Especially since that's your only answer so far. The word infinite - Well, it doesn't matter what was going on before the Big Bang -nothingness - or for how long - because the universe had a beginning (Big Bang). Nothingness could have existed forever, but the universe didn't need to a creator.

The Big Bang theory explains what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. At the big bang itself, the universe had zero size, and was extraordinarily hot. But as the universe expanded, the temperature of the radiation decreased. One second after the big bang, it would have fallen to about ten thousand million degrees. This is about a thousand times the temperature at the center of the sun. About one hundred seconds after the big bang, the temperature would have fallen to one thousand million degrees, the temperature inside the hottest stars. Within only a few hours of the big bang, the production of helium and other elements would have stopped. And after that, for the next million years or so, the universe would have just continued expanding, without anything much happening.

There are something like ten 1,000,000 to the 14th power or (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. Where the energy came from; the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. The gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space. This negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy. The universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge; it would have neither beginning nor end- it would simply be. No need for a creator.

Religion was simply man's attempt to understand the world before there was science. When the Greek philosophers began to develop science they also began to become skeptics, and that's what led to the burning of the library of Alexandria. Similar to the struggle that is going on today between teaching ID or real science.

Being offended is the consequence of leaving this message: SHAWN DUNCAN SAID, QUOTE: "I AM EAGER TO READ OR HEAR YOUR FEEBLE, FINITE-MINDED ANSWERS! :)" Ending it with a smiley face. How trite! You can get off your self-righteous throne and stop talking dawdle. Anyone who draws a sphere to represent the Universe and then puts CORNERS on it as a scientific answer, should not be insulting other people.

You haven't answered any of the rebuttals to your ID arguments, and I will assume it's because you can't. By the way- the ID arguments are very old arguments. I also asked for the ID scientific theories that explain things better than the real scientists explanations, which you haven't provided.

Shawn asked: "why aren't we still evolving?"

We are. See this: http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to

Try harder Shawn. It isn't very difficult to find this stuff.

SHAWN DUNCAN SAID, "My challenge questions to the atheist community is simply: 1. If there was no designer involved in the making of the known universe - then where did the gigantic primordial mass that was proposed as the source of the Big Bang come from?"

The ID'ers (creationist) try to prove scientists wrong about Evolution or The Big Bang Theory because they think if they prove there is a 'designer' that will proves there is a god. But science has answered far more than you seem to know, as well as, the fact that evolution is stronger today than it was when it first started because of DNA. If evolution was an erroneous theory DNA would have falsified it, but instead DNA is confirming evolution. What I have written explains evolution - the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE for the Big Bang to have occurred.

ANSWER TO BIG BANG:

The Cosmic Microwave Background is incontrovertible evidence that the Universe experienced a "Big Bang".

Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. British astrophysicists Stephen W. Hawking and James B. Hartle were trying to understanding such things as what came before the "Big Bang" at the beginning of the universe as well as what laws were true at the beginning of time itself. By combining Einstein's ideas about time and space (from the theory of relativity) with the known laws of quantum physics, they developed a mathematical description of space-time that used imaginary time. One wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, that we observe.

NOW YOU GIVE US: THE ID ER'S ALTERNATIVE THEORY THAT CAN BE FALSIFIED ON THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE.

ID er's try to prove scientists wrong by confiscating Evolution or the Big Bang theory (scientific theories) to prove that there is a designer. Everything that exists is either matter or energy. Did "the designer" make the Universe from something or nothing? If the apologists can't tell us what god is made of or what god made the Universe from than they haven't answered anything. The creationist unsuccessfully tried to get around the fact that this is an argument for a creator by arguing that the concept of a "creator" wasn't necessarily religious but could be treated scientifically. The IDers apparently learned a lesson from those creationist failures. Instead the ID er's refuse to present or discuss their "alternative theory" at all. What is the alternative theory to the Big Bang that is offered by the ID er's? I can tell you that they don't have one. Because to say that the Big Bang could not have happened without a designer is not true and is not science. ID er's say that Intelligent Design provides empirical scientific criteria for detecting design in nature. Detecting design but not detecting the designer. They say that science doesn't have to be in the business of saying who the designer is. A solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or it is just irrelevant hand waving. Any theory about design must somehow address the agent and purpose, or it is not really about design. No intelligent design theorist has ever included agent or purpose in any attempt at a scientific theory of design, and some explicitly say they cannot be included. Even if intelligent design theory were able to prove design, it would mean practically nothing.

SHAWN DUNCAN SAID, QUOTE "Also - if evolution or Darwinism, in parallel or contrast, were true - then why aren't we still evolving? (I was wondering if we'd have an extra ear by now - or the amoeba that became an astronaut forte!) Please send a reply - I am eager to read or hear your feeble, finite-minded answers! :)"

I can only assume that the ID literature does not include 'natural selection' due to your display of benightedness that you seem to be proud of? Evolution operates by 'natural selection': traits that help an organism survive to reproductive age, and that help it to produce offspring that do the same, will be in evidence in those succeeding generations. Traits that did not do this will disappear with the organisms that died before they could pass them on.

The ID er's or creationist who denounce or criticize the theory of Evolution have not shown that they have a theory that can account for any of the data evolution accounts for, and they have not provided any reason for believing that their theory (intelligent designer) even has the potential to produce anything useful to science. There are all sorts of findings and experiments that could have falsified evolution. In the century-and-a-half since Darwin published his theory, not one has. Proponents of intelligent design (ID) assert that certain complex biological systems could not emerge from a gradual evolutionary process. They argue instead that such structures are best explained via the deliberate action of an unspecified intelligent designer. Real scientists understand that the prolonged action of natural selection can be expected to leave traces behind in the structure of modern organisms. And when scientists go looking for those traces they invariably find them in droves. Natural selection operates by preserving small, favorable variations that occur naturally in any population of organisms. Over time these variations accumulate to the point that large-scale change is the result. This implies that natural selection works by modifying structures already present in the organism. It does not craft new, complex systems from scratch. This observation is crucial in distinguishing between those systems that could have been crafted by selection and those that could not have been. If we find that a particular organism possesses a complex system made from parts wholly distinct from anything to be found in the organism's closest evolutionary cousins it will be difficult to explain that system via selection. But if we find that the system appears to be cobbled together from parts that were readily available, then natural selection remains a strong candidate. Charles Darwin employed this principle in his studies of the complex systems used by orchids to attract pollinating insects. He discovered that these contrivances, as he called them, were indeed fashioned out of modified versions of parts present in closely related flowers. Stephen Jay Gould famously used the panda's "thumb" to illustrate the same principle. The panda possesses a sixth digit on its front paws that it uses to strip the leaves off of bamboo. This digit is not a true opposable thumb like that possessed by apes and humans. If it were, we would have a strong argument against natural selection in this case, since the panda's closest relatives have nothing like such a thumb. In reality, however, the panda's thumb is cobbled together from alterations in the bones found in the paws of other bears. Since examples like these are ubiquitous in nature, natural selection passes its first big test.

The picture has cleared up dramatically in the past few years thanks to large-scale studies of mammal DNA. These studies indicate that giant pandas and red pandas are only distantly related. Their common ancestor lived 40 million years ago. One lineage gave rise to bears, including giant pandas. Another lineage gave rise to red pandas as well as skunks, raccoons, and weasels.

The upbeat side of this is that there is no evolving in America only devolving, since they need brainwashed drones to continue the decline.

I would like a detailed rebuttal to every point that I've made otherwise I will consider my answer absolutely correct on every point, and you have decidedly lost the argument! And don't come back with some off the wall sh*t!

Where is Don? Our conversation was getting interesting. Of course, I do understand that we all need assistance from time to time... Hmm - oh well.

The Ethereal Enigma QUOTE: "Where is Don? Our conversation was getting interesting. Of course, I do understand that we all need assistance from time to time... Hmm - oh well."

What are you talking about? I answered his first post that was not addressed to anyone in particular. Shawn Duncan's "challenge questions" were addressed "I am eager to read or hear your feeble, finite-minded answers! :)" is that someone in particular. What he supposedly wanted was to know if anyone could answer these typical ID questions - I did answer every question. He didn't answer any rebuttal or give any theory that ID has come up with that is better than science. Then he addressed me by name and I answered the silly comeback that was not an answer to any scientific rebuttal. And the reason for that is he knows I answered the questions and he knows that he does not have any rebuttal.

I think it is a little disingenuous to imply that Don needs assistance when he did answer his questions. The one who didn't answer the rebuttals was Shawn Duncan. His responses were unscientific issues that had nothing to do with the original questions that he posed.

We answered each argument of his with science; he did not answer or dispute one single scientific answer that anyone gave him. When someone can't answer the rebuttals with anything useful - when the questions were answered - then the argument is over until he does.

All viewpoints were explored - as it should be!

Who are we? Where are we coming from? Where are we going to? this questions humans tryed to answer for ages.

1. Are we the effect of Big Bang? 2. Are we part of evolution? 3. or Intelligent Design?

Scientists, atheists and many other intellectual people would choose option 1 and 2.

Religiouse people, will answered god.

But there are some people who are not belong to any church or religion and also not atheist - they believe in Intelligent Design or Designer.

Our opinions, beliefes are determined by our consciousness. To seek the truth withing ourselves, and by understanding of the nature and its rules.

In this discussion Christians say, there is god, but atheists says please prove it? Is it really the matter we should concentrate on? Christians say - can tornado make a car by pasing car factory? Atheists says - this is humans, who invented the electricity, computers, etc. So its all about us humans. I would like to ask the atheists - if it would be possible to transfer you back in time 2000 years, and you would find that time an airplane, would you believe like all the ancient people it is a miricle, or rather use it if you know how to fly... You know it is build by engeneers in the future...But if you an ancient citizen, maybe you would say it is god or someone build it? Same today, all the tremendouse progress the sience has been made, more understanding of natural process, its copmlexity, shouldnt we say it is just the prove of an Intelligen Designer, or rather say it was Chaos? Evolution? Well maybe evlolution of consciouseness, but yet we need engeener to make the projects. Regarding the Church, Christians and all the religions - is it not the truth that among all the known history of mankind -eighter from the Bible, Koran, Myths etc. poeple never wanted, to seek the Truth, they wrote books, and made them holy, to cover the real human nature.. The real human nature dont like to seek the Truth, we affraid of it, as we affraid of responsibility for others, for ourselfs.. it is way to easier to open the salvation path for our destructive nature through Jesus or god, seen from human point of view. etc.

MarkyMark said, "Who are we? Where are we coming from? Where are we going to? this questions humans tryed to answer for ages. 1. Are we the effect of Big Bang? 2. Are we part of evolution? 3. or Intelligent Design? Scientists, atheists and many other intellectual people would choose option 1 and 2."

Linda Answer: New findings from meteorites show that the raw materials to make the first molecules of DNA and RNA came from stars.

MarkyMark said, "Religiouse people, will answered god. But there are some people who are not belong to any church or religion and also not atheist - they believe in Intelligent Design or Designer."

Linda Answer: The ID'ers (Intelligent Design) do not admit that the 'designer' is god because they want it taught in science class (along with dinosaurs and cavemen cavorting together) they say it's not religion. ID is not science, but a form of creationism. The latest version of ID maintains that a 'Designer' must intervene miraculously to accomplish certain natural scientific events. The verdict in the case in Dover PA. over ID being taught as science in the School was a landmark decision of American jurisprudence. That decision prohibited the teaching of ID as science (it's not science) and identified it as religiously based, and forbade it from being introduction into public school classes as science.

In the case ID is creationism (the courts say it is) - why would an omnipotent (unlimited power) god had to design anything when the bible says he just spoke "let there be" and things just appeared. No design was necessary. Scientists know that some organisms didn't continue to evolve because they were too defective and became extinct - a designer deliberately designed defective organisms?

MarkyMark said, "Our opinions, beliefes are determined by our consciousness. To seek the truth withing ourselves, and by understanding of the nature and its rules. In this discussion Christians say, there is god, but atheists says please prove it? Is it really the matter we should concentrate on?

Linda Answer: Consciousness is an old technique used by the clergy for union through common purpose. Throughout history the clergy has used every technique known to religious mysticism to entice people to believe that human consciousness does have some kind of unearthly purpose. Without any evidence to prove it, the most common strategy has been to craft myths in order to uphold the kinds of moral values that bring strangers together to work selflessly for the pursuit of some perceived common cause. In Ancient Egypt it led to the building of the Pyramids by slaves and workers who were told it was to preserve the immortal soul. Most of them died building the Pyramids. Today the results is a Mega Dome Church that is making some fake "holy man" fabulously wealthy. There would be much better social programs without the middleman (clergy) to pay off.

Opinions and beliefs are not scientific and they are not proof of anything. I can believe something is true but if it can not be proven then it isn't the truth. Consciousness comes from a long process called evolution. Intelligence evolved in organisms in order to survive - the harder it was to survive the more intelligent the species became - and these traits were passed on to through reproduction to the next generation. When evolution scientist look for those traits they find them in droves. There is no scientific theory for a "god consciousness of the gaps" it has absolutely nothing to do with anything scientific. It is ID'ers pseudo-science.

MarkyMark said, "Christians say - can tornado make a car by pasing car factory?"

Linda Answer: The ignorant gullible people who are hoodwinked by ID er's and have no concept of anything scientific think ID explains how the universe and life came to be. It is not scientific. No instance of a supernatural explanation supplanting a natural cause has ever been observed. And yes we have observed the 'natural cause' in the laboratory. Go back and read what I wrote on that.

MarkyMark said, "Atheists says - this is humans, who invented the electricity, computers, etc. So its all about us humans. I would like to ask the atheists - if it would be possible to transfer you back in time 2000 years, and you would find that time an airplane, would you believe like all the ancient people it is a miricle, or rather use it if you know how to fly... You know it is build by engeneers in the future...But if you an ancient citizen, maybe you would say it is god or someone build it?

Linda Answer: Science is doing away with superstition and supposed supernatural explanations that is why science is the ID'ers (creationists) enemy. The concept of supernatural beings is not reality it is a fantasyland of gods, demons, angels, spirits and wizardry. Like any myth or fairytale, because that's what it is.

There will always be persons like Galileo who look for the answer even if the Church puts them in prison. That is the answer - man will always have people smart enough to find out the truth - and it won't come form ID.

MarkyMark said, "Same today, all the tremendouse progress the sience has been made, more understanding of natural process, its copmlexity, shouldnt we say it is just the prove of an Intelligen Designer, or rather say it was Chaos? Evolution? Well maybe evlolution of consciouseness, but yet we need engeener to make the projects."

Linda Answer: It would need a constant engineer to make ID work out for this project. There is no proof of an Intelligent Designer. Evolution is proof that there was no need for an Intelligent Designer. Everything in the Universe evolved from the Big Bang. And the CMB is incontrovertible proof that there was a Big Bang. DNA would have falsified evolution - instead if has confirmed it. Scientists have proven that there is no "abrupt appearance" we know this from the transitional fossil record.

MarkyMark said, "Regarding the Church, Christians and all the religions - is it not the truth that among all the known history of mankind -eighter from the Bible, Koran, Myths etc. poeple never wanted, to seek the Truth, they wrote books, and made them holy, to cover the real human nature.. The real human nature dont like to seek the Truth, we affraid of it, as we affraid of responsibility for others, for ourselfs.. it is way to easier to open the salvation path for our destructive nature through Jesus or god, seen from human point of view. etc.

Linda Answer: Sorry, but religion is the most violent and destructive whore ever invented by man, and there is plenty of proof of that. It was invented to control people and it all comes from various sources including ancient Egyptian mysticism. If you are looking for the truth I suggest you look into Science instead of Pseudoscience and ancient history instead of holy books - Ugarit - Mesopotamia etc. Several of the Psalms were simply adapted from Ugaritic sources; the story of the flood has a near mirror image in Ugaritic literature

El was the chief god at Ugarit. Yet El is also the name of God used in many of the Psalms for Yahweh; or at least that has been the presupposition among pious Christians. Yet when one reads these Psalms and the Ugaritic texts one sees that the very attributes for which Yahweh is acclaimed are the same for which El is acclaimed. In fact, these Psalms were most likely originally Ugaritic or Canaanite hymns to El which were simply adopted by Israel. El is called the "father of men", "creator", and "creator of the creation". These attributes are also granted Yahweh by the Old Testament.

Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament. What this means is that the Hebrew theologians adopted the titles of the Canaanite gods and attributed them to Yahweh in an effort to eliminate them. If Yahweh is all of these there is no need for the Canaanite gods to exist! This process is known as assimilation. Getting rid of someone else's god - making their god the SUPREME god so that they can rule. That's all it's ever been about - divine rule - organized religion that supports corrupt leaders.

Linda said: 'Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament. What this means is that the Hebrew theologians adopted the titles of the Canaanite gods and attributed them to Yahweh in an effort to eliminate them. If Yahweh is all of these there is no need for the Canaanite gods to exist! This process is known as assimilation. Getting rid of someone else's god - making their god the SUPREME god so that they can rule. That's all it's ever been about - divine rule - organized religion that supports corrupt leaders.'

That is a very good point Linda and an often used tactic in the art of statecraft. Religion is and has always been a powerful string in the bow of rulers. It is a way to control and assimilate peoples without having to spend too much capitol via the sword. It also makes people more fanatical and willing to sacrifice themselves for the goals of those at the top. Marx made a stunningly accurate statement in my opinion when he likened religion to opium. Marx's point was that religion is a drug that people are given so they will accept the lot that is given them by those in power. In colonial times it was common for Christian missionaries to either assimilate beliefs and rituals or outright destroy them. The motive was simple; a Christian population is easier to control. But all such religions serve the same purpose.

Hi Linda. First of all, yes science is the key to explain unexplored processes, reactions, within the Universe and on Earth. Also science itself is devided into many different fields. I believe you concentrate more on the material part of science, which try to understand Univers, Earth, on all the evolutionary process. But maybe it also would be wise to consider the non-material part of science, such as psychology, etc.., which try to understand Us as Humans. Yes, it is true that either religion, or ID it is part of Creationism teachings. And this is polarised from the science. But from the other hand can we really reject the idea that we are not alone species in the Universe? According to your opinion, we can understand as much as the science can reviel for us. But it is still a small part of all the Universe secrets - dont you think. So if I ask myself are there can be other species, anything, which can be more developed then us - humans - it will be not reasonable? If we evaluate as a species, using science, why do reject the idea that there can be something else, developed more then us. Well I would distance myself from the religion point of view,, and rather wait for science to answert too. But how about the human nature. You wrote: "religion is the most violent and destructive whore ever invented by man". Before i was understanding religion same as you. But lets take this example : knife as also invented by humans, has such alot of usefull atributes, but can be used for such a horrific crimes. So can we really blame knife or someone who use it? Maybe religion before, it was a poor scientific answer to define humane society and its needs for knowledge? Long time before the material science could explain to us so much as now. And religion itself just revield the real human nature - cruel and agressive? I would say religion tryed to give the answers for human questions and concerns, yet try to guide them and build strong society. We know that together with tremendouse progress that science has been made, religion became an archaism, and really sould pass away with the dinosaurus. But can we really blame religion itself for all the crime been mad by all mankind. Non-material part of scientific research, such as human mind, his nature, partly explored by psychology. Its try to understand human behavior, and explain the reason for our emotions etc. As you said before, it is irrational and naive to believe that our heart is the place for emotions. This all cames from our mind as we know. We explored and try to understand more of humans nature. Yet we, didnt make any progress to built strong society, with strong social virtues, and values. Why? Linda, I dont really concern about origins of Israely,s God's name, or any Gods, as it will be non scientific to me at all. As a Scientist I would rather explain religion as the institution, and it is role in society. As we know now religion in its creationistic views - is non adequate in any fields to the science progress .., But how about the moral values, and social virtues? Why both - religion and sciency, failed to improve our societies. It is looks like we are self destructive species, going to destroy our all scientific legacy. We have technology, that can provide enough security, food, medicines etc, for all of us. But we still teared apart by individualism, greed, agression, crues, etc. So my point is either the science in research of the material field has been made a hudge progress, and in evolution as you said "Intelligence evolved in organisms in order to survive - the harder it was to survive the more intelligent the species became - and these traits were passed on to through reproduction to the next generation". However, the same Intelligence shouldnt evolve and appeared in the improvement of human behavior and nature to build strong societies. We do not have any enemies externally, we are Supreme species, but yet why we selfdestructive? Is our life dictated only by egoistic need to survive? If yes, maybe we dont need then any moral rules, values and virtues, cause we are nothing else than animals try to survive in the 21 century jungle.....

Hi MarkyMark,

MarkyMark, said, "Hi Linda. First of all, yes science is the key to explain unexplored processes, reactions, within the Universe and on Earth. Also science itself is devided into many different fields. I believe you concentrate more on the material part of science, which try to understand Univers, Earth, on all the evolutionary process. But maybe it also would be wise to consider the non-material part of science, such as psychology, etc.., which try to understand Us as Humans.

Linda Answer: My answers were to the posts on this thread that were about Intelligent Design. If the poster had been talking about psychology I would have answered that. When someone says an Intelligent Designer has to be the first cause then they need to prove that. I think everyone, but the creationist, proved their points with scientific proof, god did it isn't proof of anything.

My conclusion (after much reading) on the psychology behind religion in early man was that it evolved for survival, later religions were used to rule over and control the masses. There is scientific research into the part of the brain responsible for creating religion. There are many articles, studies and books on that topic.

MarkyMark said, "Yes, it is true that either religion, or ID it is part of Creationism teachings. And this is polarised from the science. But from the other hand can we really reject the idea that we are not alone species in the Universe? According to your opinion, we can understand as much as the science can reviel for us. But it is still a small part of all the Universe secrets - dont you think.

Linda Answer: When religion is masquerading as science it is not something that is beneficial to our society. Religion has historically impeded science as was witnessed in the case of Galileo.

In 2001 the Human Genome was Mapped (ge·nome - one haploid set of chromosomes with the genes they contain; the full DNA sequence of an organism.) The human genome mapping provides indisputable proof that Darwin was right. This has lead to incredible things to help mankind through gene research. Of course there is a lot we can still learn (there always will be) but religions will never provided those answers. It is clear that throughout its history religions main goal was to protect it's own interest, and that was not necessarily what was beneficial to mankind. Even since Galileo violated a law that stood in the way of honest scientific work nothing has really changed that much. The history of religion throughout the world is a history of wonder-working images, and miracles that stands in the way of human progress. Don't be too sure that the Dark Ages are over, since, even though a court ruled that ID is not science there are those who still want to introduce it into education as science.

MarkyMark said, "So if I ask myself are there can be other species, anything, which can be more developed then us - humans - it will be not reasonable? If we evaluate as a species, using science, why do reject the idea that there can be something else, developed more then us. Well I would distance myself from the religion point of view,, and rather wait for science to answert too.

Linda Answer: Astrophysicist Carl Sagan (an atheist) thought it was possible that there is life on other planets and they could be much advanced to ours. I agree with that. He is only saying that there could be other planets with life. Astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. Our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. After its initial appearance, it inflated the Big Bang, expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn't appear in space; space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. If there is something besides us it's some form of life, not a supernatural being - biological life.

MarkyMark said, "But how about the human nature. You wrote: "religion is the most violent and destructive whore ever invented by man". Before i was understanding religion same as you. But lets take this example : knife as also invented by humans, has such alot of usefull atributes, but can be used for such a horrific crimes. So can we really blame knife or someone who use it? Maybe religion before, it was a poor scientific answer to define humane society and its needs for knowledge? Long time before the material science could explain to us so much as now. And religion itself just revield the real human nature - cruel and agressive? I would say religion tryed to give the answers for human questions and concerns, yet try to guide them and build strong society. We know that together with tremendouse progress that science has been made, religion became an archaism, and really sould pass away with the dinosaurus. But can we really blame religion itself for all the crime been mad by all mankind.

Linda Answer: Lets just put it this way indoctrination (brainwashing) is never for any good reason. I am reading a book by Jon Lee Anderson 'Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life.' I highly recommend it. Che Guevara was an atheist. His cause was to end once and for all the poverty, injustice and petty nationalism. I would think that if any god ever walked the earth he would make poverty and sickness impossible. Poverty, sickness and horrible injustice done to peasant people are not happening because they sinned. What sin has a newborn dying of cancer ever done - the sins of the father? That's crap - a more likely cause is the 'sin' of industrial pollution. I don't believe in Santa Claus for the same reason that I don't believe in god. There are many impoverished children that Santa never visits.

MarkyMark said, "Non-material part of scientific research, such as human mind, his nature, partly explored by psychology. Its try to understand human behavior, and explain the reason for our emotions etc. As you said before, it is irrational and naive to believe that our heart is the place for emotions. This all cames from our mind as we know. We explored and try to understand more of humans nature. Yet we, didnt make any progress to built strong society, with strong social virtues, and values. Why?"

Linda Answer: I think it is evident religion does not bring about justice or an ethical society, and the perpetuation of ignorance through religion is for control over the masses by the power-driven.

MarkyMark said, "Linda, I dont really concern about origins of Israely,s God's name, or any Gods, as it will be non scientific to me at all. As a Scientist I would rather explain religion as the institution, and it is role in society. As we know now religion in its creationistic views - is non adequate in any fields to the science progress .., But how about the moral values, and social virtues? Why both - religion and sciency, failed to improve our societies. It is looks like we are self destructive species, going to destroy our all scientific legacy. We have technology, that can provide enough security, food, medicines etc, for all of us. But we still teared apart by individualism, greed, agression, crues, etc. So my point is either the science in research of the material field has been made a hudge progress, and in evolution as you said "Intelligence evolved in organisms in order to survive - the harder it was to survive the more intelligent the species became - and these traits were passed on to through reproduction to the next generation". However, the same Intelligence shouldnt evolve and appeared in the improvement of human behavior and nature to build strong societies. We do not have any enemies externally, we are Supreme species, but yet why we selfdestructive? Is our life dictated only by egoistic need to survive? If yes, maybe we dont need then any moral rules, values and virtues, cause we are nothing else than animals try to survive in the 21 century jungle.....

Linda Answer: Religion is the same barking and howling hound in every time and place. Today religion is the same as it has been throughout the ages. There has never been a constructive dialogue about the truth of, or the role of, religion in establishing social justice. Religion and politics are bedfellows, and the wealth of the world is still in the hands of a very few.

P.S. Your questions are very insightful and intelligent.

We are still evolving. Green eyes are a relatively new addition to the human species.

Which one?

Nothing -> Expanding Bubble -> Big Bang -> Universe -> Cooling -> Earth -> Abiogenesis -> Evolution -> HERE WE ARE

OR

God -> Nothing(God's canvas) -> Expanding Bubble -> Big Bang -> Universe -> Cooling -> Earth -> Abiogenesis (God mixing chemicals) -> (God's script)Evolution -> HERE WE ARE

(Forgive me if I got something wrong but I'm trying to point out a basic flow)

I believe in the latter, why? Because I value humanity so much that I believe we are truly eternal. When someone passes away I believe they are too valuable to just be lost.

Atheists believe that once you die that's it. A very discouraging belief that reflects poorly on an atheists personality.

Mr. T.,

Anyone who lives in the real world knows that a theory has to have testability, and make prediction, to be of any value in the explanation of anything scientific. "God did it" is not a theory because it does not meet that standard. Anything base on the "God did it" assumption can't make a prediction, or be a falsifiable theory, it can not be called science. Intelligent Design is not science it is a belief in something that can't be proven to exist. Science makes decisions based on testing claims; they don't just accept them because it makes them feel good. Science is not "happy talk". Science uses the strongest construct to test it's claims.

Before something becomes a scientific theory they have already done many, many years of scientific research and only then is it offered to the scientific community to be tested and falsified. If it can't be falsified it becomes a theory and theories are always being improved upon. Intelligent Design or Creationist advocates have never done this. In science a theory is a construct that has stood up under painstaking attempts to debunk it, and has survived all of them.

Changes can be made in a theory and still be a feasible theory, but not the basic premise that the theory is based on. If that has to be changed, it didn't happen, such as, "God did it". Using "God did it" about anything means you can say just about anything. That's not science. It's not; it is a way to avoid the evident explanation in all its forms.

There is no other side to this issue. Intelligent Design is a PR campaign to promote Creationism - they have not presented any useable theory.

However, we are making huge breakthroughs in understanding our Universe and life in that Universe, and that is coming from science. That drive to understand things is what has greatly advanced technology. All of this has come from scientific information.

The only way we get legitimate answers to questions is to base the answers on evidence. Anything else is a waste of everyone's time. Beliefs are not evidence and when facts do not confirm them they are not equal to scientific theory.

Where is the evidence in support of the "God did it" theory? Nothing that you have written is an explanation of a theory. If someone chooses to hold a belief without any evidence, it is a personal choice, but it is not based on anything logical or rational. It is not acceptable as proof. Science will not accept unsupported beliefs like "God did it", which has not been subjected to the same standards of evidence as is requires for science. It's not science. All that the Intelligent Designers or Creationists have done is try to find fault with scientific theory, but they have never produced one. If they had a theory they would present it just like every scientist does, because scientists could not prove a scientific theory by just running down brainwashing, as bad as it is. Supernatural explanations have no basis in reality.

You haven't proven anything with your word copying. The "god did it" theory can not be used to understand a thing.

Obviously "God" is the difference between those two flows. While science can explain most of the rest of it, God can explain all of it. But how do you explain the existence of a god? The only reason to have god in all of that is to explain the rest. So why do we need god if we can explain it with stuff we already understand? Adding god into the mix infinitely complicates everything.

At the end of your post you give your reason for believing in god, which from what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) is because you want to believe in god. I value LeBron James' athleticism so much that I believe he can jump over a 10 story building, but that does not make it true. I value Chuck Norris so much that I believe his tears can cure cancer (if he ever cried), but that does not make it true.

Also, I think that believing "that once you die that's it" reflects very well on atheists' personalities because they only accept things once there are good reasons to accept them. They know that wanting something to be true does not make it true. Observing something, making guesses, testing, retesting, making more guesses, retesting, coming to conclusions, refining those conclusions, and having other people go through the same process and getting the same results makes something probably true (assuming the testing is done honestly and intelligently, along with whatever else I missed in the process).

Some of us think exposing bullshit is a worthwhile endeavor, but I don't think that wacky information is all that helpful. MR. T. could handle it if all his rebuttals were vague and dim-witted. A hypothesis is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion. A hypothesis is not used just to dump weird ideas into our heads. A hypothesis is based on things that have been observed. For instance: Why do apples fall from trees - the answer is gravity. That's why apples don't float, but a scientist making wild ass guesses is not how gravity was discovered. The evidence implied that there was a (reason apples fall) or a force that was involved. Science is not based on "guesses". Scientists use observed evidence to formulate a hypothesis. A hypothesis is not an educated guess alone; it is an educated guess about the cause based on evidence and observations. When you hypothesize something, you are not asserting anything about whether the hypothesis is true or not. It might be completely unknown or false. The intention is to determine at some point (one way or the other) the truth or falseness of the hypothesis.

Religious types want to discredit science by putting out a lot of woo-woo and saying it is real in order to gain tolerance of their beliefs, but they don't want their beliefs tested because what they are dishing out is pure hooey. That is why there is no Intelligent Design or Creation theory that has ever been submitted for testing that would explain anything scientific. They only deny what scientists and scholars have found through investigation and very harsh critical testing.

There is fakery, trickery and outright lies concerning pseudoscience that is circulated for the soul purpose of promoting beliefs. If they want the respect of secular society for their beliefs then they should meet the same requirements as anything else does, and they never do. The simple fact of the matter is that pseudoscience was created to cover up the mistakes in the bible; particularly the Creation story in Genesis, but there are all kinds of mistakes throughout the bible including math and science. Even if there was any rationality behind this trickery the premise that the bible is a holy and inspired work can not be true. The most logical conclusion is; the group who decided what would be in the bible didn't know a lot about science, and that means the bible is not an inspired holy book (a revelation from a Creator) who created everything but couldn't do math.

A person's personality does not have much to do with whether or not they can use critical thinking. It probably has more to do with their intelligence. The nature of a person has more to do with what that person accepts as true. No one should accept something as genuine or authentic just on the word of someone that has done absolutely no research and is not a scholar. There are many things that would have to be demonstrably verifiable before any educated person believes it. That is the only method of knowing what is nonsense and why it is nonsense. Using empirical evidence (observable), logical reasoning and maintaining a skeptical attitude about presumed knowledge is the why to determine the truth of anything.

You don't ask someone to disprove something, for which there is no evidence, in order to prove it's true. This is not how you go about finding out what is true and what is nonsense. If you have a phenomenon, you provide evidence to support it. That's evidence, not vague claims based on authority that I couldn't be verified. Creationist or Intelligent Design advocates have not produced the kind of research or empirical evidence, or papers that have been published in mainstream refereed journals, so that qualified scientists could study their claims.

Scientist's do have imaginations, but they are smart enough not to let that get in the way of finding a true answer. They also don't let things they hope or wish were true influence the outcome. Otherwise we would have a lot of scientists coming to false conclusions, but the scientific method prevents anyone from doing this.

A scientific hypothesis must be stated in such a way that it is testable. A scientific hypothesis is an informed, testable, and predictive solution to a scientific problem that explains a natural phenomenon, process, or event. If the hypothesis fails the test, it must be rejected and either abandoned or modified. A modified hypothesis must be tested again. If the hypothesis passes the further tests, it is considered to be a corroborated hypothesis, and can now be published. A corroborated hypothesis has passed its tests, and the predictions have been verified. Now other scientists test the hypothesis. If it is corroborated by subsequent tests, it becomes highly corroborated and is now considered to be reliable knowledge.

A scientific fact is a highly corroborated hypothesis that has been so repeatedly tested and for which so much reliable evidence exists that it would be stupid or irrational to deny it.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv

From the officers:

The audio and video from Steve Bratteng's July 13th lecture are now available.