HomeReligionKirk Cameron Attempts to Out-Think Stephen Hawking and Fails Miserably

Kirk Cameron Attempts to Out-Think Stephen Hawking and Fails Miserably

Rocket scientist and world-renowned unparalleled genius Kirk Cameron – just ask him, he will agree – challenged Stephen Hawking in an interview with TMZ regarding the answers to life, the universe, and everything.

“Professor Hawking is heralded as the ‘genius of Britain’,” said Cameron, “Yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life.”

While even a five-year-old has some glimmer of a clue how chemicals come together to create amino acids, Cameron seems to have missed that lesson, however Cameron continued, “[Hawking] says he knows there is no Heaven. John Lennon wasn’t sure. He said to pretend there’s no Heaven. That’s easy if you try.  Then he said he hoped that someday we would join him.”

Clearly those of us who attempt to separate ‘fact’ from ‘belief’ are in error.  Cameron added, “Such wishful thinking reveals John and Stephen’s religious beliefs, not good science.”

Cameron has a long history of insight into science that the rest of us do not possess. While filming Like Father, Like Son” in 1987, co-star Dudley Moore was  suffering from a terminal degenerative brain disorder, progressive supranuclear palsy. Symptoms of the disease mimicked drunkeness and delusional episodes. Cameron credits one of these delusional episodes as God speaking to him through Moore.

The event played a pivotal moment in Cameron’s decision to convert to fundamental Christianity. Yes, talking to people of diminished mental capacity experiencing delusional episodes, for Cameron, is a scientific manifestation of God.

What a brilliant man.

Editor’s Note:  A previous version of this article incorrectly cited the date of the comments made by Kirk Cameron to last week.  The comments were in fact made in 2011.  We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusreddittumblrmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusreddittumblrmail

About Simone Sanner

Simone Sanner
Simone Sanner, the descendant of a long line of politicians, hails from the corn fields of the US, surrounded by neo-conservatives and klansmen. Among her many hobbies and interests are marketing, statistics, gardening, medicine and of course cats. They really rule the world, you know.

159 comments

  1. “Professor Hawking is heralded as the ‘genius of Britain’, yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that EXACTLY what Christians do?

    • If you were a deist who believed God created the universe 14 billion years ago and let it do its own thing it would be somewhat the same as Hawking, but that’s not what you’re talking about. You believe the world is created 6000 years ago by God who then committed mass murder by flooding, killing every man woman and children except a few on the earth. Then you believe, when that didn’t work, man became wicked again, he got a woman pregnant with himself and then had himself killed, but not really killed, you’re not dead if you’re having tea and crumpets with dad/yourself in heaven three days later, because of some twisted little game that that need to be done to save people souls. Then, going away and expecting people to believe all this without any evidence. Basically leaving things in a way that every ConMan and Government to come along and use it to manipulate people.
      So in answer to your question, NO, what you believe and what Hawking believes have absolutely zero in common. The man studied for years to learn what he knows you simply believe what your mom and dad told you to believe.

      • So if deism is a logical philosophy, why the resistance of public schools from at least having a one hour unit in the science curriculum for pointing out the problems with evolution theory? No need to mention anything about god, a creator, or the bible. I’ll answer that question for you. The scientific “clergy” are against anyone who questions their lock-step doctrines, and any challenger should be excommunicated.

        • Deism is not a logical philosophy, it’s just more logical than most Western superstitions.
          “…at least having a one hour unit” If you can ‘t convince your children in the first 5 years that you have them a 100% of the time and all weekends, summers, before and after school, from 5 years old and on… How is “one hour unit of selective bible reading” going to convince them evolution science is wrong? Or is it just the idea of putting the government stamp on a superstition what your aiming for?

          • Deism isn’t a logical philosophy? Then why did you state the following:

            “If you were a deist who believed God created the universe 14 billion years ago and let it do its own thing it would be somewhat the same as Hawking, but that’s not what you’re talking about.”

            And I’m not talking about one hour of “selective bible reading”. I’m talking about in a classroom setting talking pure science. That is, given the evidence, what are the problems with existing theory of what might have happened. But in reality, the orthodoxy will not even permit that. Why? Like a religion, deviation from the narrative is considered heresy. In short, it itself is a religion. In 1959 at the centennial in Chicago of the publishing of _The Origin Of Species_, keynote speaker Julian Huxley stated:

            “The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion….Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to decern, however incompletely, the lineaments of the NEW RELIGION that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era.” (emphasis mine)

            New religion indeed. The clergy will not even permit one hour.

        • “Then why did you state the following:” the following doesn’t say Deism isn’t a logical philosophy.

          You are not talking about science, you’re talking about creationist propaganda. Science is already being taught in schools.

          Your Huxley quotes are out of context and from two different pages of the same book. It isn’t calling evolution a new religion, it suggest a new religion will come from the knowledge of evolution, Just like we stopped “bleeding” people once we understood bacteria. Perhaps with this new knowledge, existing religions would stop being evil. This is a good example of what you would do if we let you into a science class, you would try to deceive. This is what happens when religion steps from faith and tries to claim science; you have to lie. Faith and science are two different things and have nothing in common. Here are the two sections you edited to make it sound like something it is not …it’s a great book, you might try actually reading it…

          Page 18
          And he must face it I unaided by outside help. In the evolutionary power of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabited it, including our human cells, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. Religions are organs of psychosocial man concerned with human destiny and with experiences of sacredness and transcendence. In their evolution, some (by no means all) have given birth to the concept of God’s supernatural beings endowed with mental and spiritual properties and capable of intervening in the affairs of nature, including man. The theistic religions are organizations of human thought in its interaction with puzzling, complex world with which it has no contend–the outer world of nature and the inner world of man’s own nature. In this, they resemble other early organizations of human thought confronted with nature, like the doctrine of the four elements, earth, air, fire and water, or the eastern concept of rebirth and reincarnation. Like these, they are destined to disappear in competition with others, truer, and more embracing thought organizations which are handling the same range of raw or processed experience.

          Page 26
          Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the liniments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era. Just a stomachs or bodily organs concerned with digestion, and involving the biochemical activity a special juices, so are religious psychosocial organs concerned with the problem of human destiny, and involving the emotion of sacredness and the sense of right and wrong. Religion of some sort is probably necessary. But it is not necessarily a good thing. It was not a good thing when the Hindu I read about last spring killed his son is a religious sacrifice. It is not a good thing that religious pressure has made it illegal to teach evolution in Tennessee, because it conflicts with fundamentalist beliefs.

          https://archive.org/stream/humanistframe017703mbp#page/n23/mode/2up

          • “This is a good example of what you would do if we let you into a science class, you would try to deceive.”

            That’s right….let nothing interfere with the lock-step group think. Parish the thought that young minds should be exposed to a heresy. By the way, I have stated numerous times that this one hour unit would say nothing about a god, a creator, or the bible. Just pure science.
            But you are obsessed with the anthropic principle that basically postulates the cosmic bootstrap which states the universe produced its own dust, and its own self-assembly ultimately manifesting itself in us, highly complex and organized “finite state machines” who query “where did all this organization come from?” According to this tradition, the order of the cosmos is ultimately a matter of chance and we need to seek no further explanation. This line of reasoning is, of course, impossible to refute. This is not a strength, but rather a serious defect since irrefutable claims are outside the realm of science.

        • Yes you stated this “I have stated numerous times that this one hour unit would say nothing about a god, a creator” I don’t believe you. It is the nature for evangelicals to lie in support of their belief. For example your Huxley quotes, dishonest… and yes, in spite of you just pretending you didn’t just get caught misquoting to push your religious point, you did.

          You haven’t made any scientific arguments against evolution. All you have done is stated old creationist talking points. I think since you live in that evangelical echo chamber, you don’t realize how transparent your blabber is. I’m sure the ignorant creationist that you use these talking points with, thing the are all the bomb, but in the way monkeys thing tossing their own feces is all the bomb.

          This babel, I have heard, except for a few changes, many times, always creationist trying to “Dazzle someone with bullshit” :

          “But you are obsessed with the [anthropic principle] that basically postulates the [cosmic bootstrap] which states the [universe produced its own dust], and its own [self-assembly] ultimately manifesting itself in us, [highly complex and organized “finite state machines]” who query “[where did all this organization come from?]” According to this tradition, the order of the cosmos is ultimately a [matter of chance] and we need to [seek no further explanation]. This line of reasoning is, of course, [impossible to refute]. This is not a strength, but rather a serious defect since irrefutable claims are outside the realm of science”

          I’m sorry, the reality is, you have based your life on a silly story some man told you. I known it’s hard, for some it’s impossible to ever get a reasonable mind back. But you need to understand, your damaged mind, is your problem and we can’t let you into our schools, to try to damage them. Your mind thinks everything it knows is a fact and if anyone shows you evidence that proves you are wrong, you simply tell yourself, everything you know is a fact. It’s in a terminal loop. Even now, as you read this, your thinking of ways to keep tricking yourself into believing your outrageous dishonest nonsense. I’m sure you will babble more nonsense that only makes sense to you and other creations.

          Anyway, after that quote you tried to pass off, I’m note interested in any more of what you have to say.

          • “It is the nature for evangelicals to lie in support of their belief”

            My God! I am a deist, not an evangelical. This is at least the third time you have stated something about me that is exactly the opposite of what I wrote. It’s obvious that you are barely skimming my comments. The only other explanation would be that you have an IQ in the single digits.

            As far as Huxley, feel free to put your own spin on it, but it is not just Huxley. Many have postulated that the lock-steep belief in Darwinism is defended with religious zeal..for example:

            “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.” H.J. Lipsom; Physics Bulletin; Vol 31; 1980

            I can literally produce dozens of quotes like this. Feel free request them.

            “You haven’t made any scientific arguments against evolution”

            LOL. Your religious zeal is clouding your logic. I have given you a number of examples of serious flaws in the THEORY of evolution. Not only can you not respond to them, but neither can Darwinists with phd’s after their name. But you are so blinded by anthropic thinking that like a fundy trying vainly to support his rigid belief system, you refuse to accept anything that questions the orthodoxy.

            The anthropic principle can actually be subdivided. Pay attention for a change and learn:

            weak anthropic principle — If it weren’t so we wouldn’t be here.

            strong anthropic principle — There are an infinite number of universes. Of course, there is no proof so this belief must rest on faith rather than observation.

            participatory anthropic principle — There is no reality in the world until it is observed.

            final anthropic principle — Life will evolve toward telefinalism. That is an all-knowing being.

            What should one make of this quartet of WAP, SAP, PAPA, and FAP? Simple…it’s CRAP (Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle).

        • Jack King, “My God! I am a deist, not an evangelical” simply, I don’t believe you. You quack and waddle like a duck, you’re probably a duck. As I’ve pointed out, evangelicals can’t help them selves but to lie. Your argument, your terminology, the obvious propaganda, is right out of a evangelical creationist hand book.

          I didn’t spin the words of Huxley, I quoted exactly and extensively from the paragraphs you selectively pulled a few words from, I gave the pages they are on, and the link to a free on-line copy of the book. And then in my words, explained what he was talking about. You pieced two small groups of words together, out of context to suggest a meaning and then lied about the meaning. That is exactly what evangelicals do. That is exactly what you do to your own children and what you want to do to the children in our schools. If anyone wanted to verify my interpretation, I made it easy for them to just click open the page number and read the entire chapter. Liars do the exact opposite, they do what you did here.

          You’re a phony, and again, you think you’re being clever, but to anyone who is not a slave to religious indoctrination, you are an evangelical conman, with a neon sign over your head saying so, every time you open your mouth.

          • “Jack King, “My God! I am a deist, not an evangelical” simply, I don’t believe you. You quack and waddle like a duck, you’re probably a duck. ”

            My God! You are more of a TRUE BELIEVER than I originally thought. You have no answer to the scientific issues I raise, so you dismiss it with hand waving and anthropic CRAP.

            “I didn’t spin the words of Huxley, I quoted exactly and extensively from the paragraphs you selectively pulled a few words from, I gave the pages they are on, and the link to a free on-line copy of the book”

            That you did, but I’m sorry I don’t see where your spin maps up with how you are interpreting Huxley’s “new religion”. That is precisely why I provided the other quote. Do you want more? How about this one:

            “Neo-Darwinism will be judged as a minor 20th century religious sect
            within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology.”
            Lynn Margulis (Univ of Massachusetts). Science, 252, 378-81.

            Do you want more….not from “evangelicals” but from scientists?

            “You’re a phony, and again, you think you’re being clever, but to anyone who is not a slave to religious indoctrination, you are an evangelical conman, ….”

            You do realize that this means that you are waving a white flag. Whenever someone resorts to insults instead of logic, I know I’ve won.

          • You already established with your first quote that you lie, and now your rattling off even more and still no sources. Yawn, go away troll.

          • Mike, you jumped in just in time because bayhuntr was seriously listing in the water. Yes I am a troll, but am not going away. Why? because it pisses you off. So did you like the Lynn Margulis quote? Would you like more?

          • Actually, I enjoy trolls for the entertainment value, it’s useful when I come across decent people who have just been listening to the wrong people; makes debunking the BS easier. You just stopped being clever, therefor the yawn. Your’re on your own now.

          • You’ll love this one…very insightful:

            “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

            Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], “Billions and Billions of Demons”, Review of “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,” by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997. (Emphasis in original)

  2. Cameron would fail miserably if he tried to out-think a slime mold.

  3. the joke going around is… the two men of arrived for a debate… However, Kirk arrived without his main took (took) His brain!

  4. Simone,

    I apologize. I don’t think it was your article per se, but rather the debate that has now resulted from your article which I think altered my perception of what you were trying to say. I’m sorry.

    The problem I have with the God vs. Science nonsense, is that quite frankly it bores me. I am equally bored when I hear a fundamentalist Christian deny evolution, as I am when I hear an atheist compare God to the tooth fairy. It’s all the same thing, over and over, and it’s all based off nothing. The idea that a fundamentalist Christian will ever accept evolution is just as absurd as the idea that an atheist will ever convert when presented with “evidence”. What atheists are looking for is something that can not be produced, they want eyewitness observations. Of course in science it isn’t always possible to witness EVERYTHING firsthand, including all aspects of evolution, but that doesn’t mean it’s not sound science. So it’s getting a little old hearing certain atheists insist they’d be swayed with comparable evidence. No, they won’t. Nobody that gets so enraged over the slightest mention of God is anybody that will ever change their minds about what they believe is true. Much in the same way, no radical Christian will ever accept real science, and trying to convince or debate them is a waste of time. That ship has sailed into the sunset a long time ago.

    There are however plenty of people (including myself) that love science and are also interested in learning about spirituality. These are not the same subjects, and they never will be. Trying to prove God through science is like trying to learn mathematics by studying numerology. They may have comparable elements, but they are very different things. This doesn’t mean that one makes the other any more or less significant. For example, there’s techniques rooted in numerology that allow for rapid mental calculation (without the use of a calculator) that are as true as applying the chain rule in calculus. However, these techniques are esoteric in nature, and outside the scope of studying any branch of mathematics. It is not the same thing. Like you said, one of the biggest problems people have when it comes to the Bible is the assumption that the Bible is meant to be taken literally. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The Bible is riddled with symbolism, both numerical and otherwise, and that has allowed some very fascinating studies to take place. This isn’t the same type of fascination I experience when learning science, like Natural Selection, it is very different. Take the work of political scientist Steven Brams. I am fascinated by his work on the fair division procedure, or “Surplus Procedure”, a mathematical formula that solved the “cake cutting” problem. I am also fascinated by his work that applied Game Theory to the Hebrew Bible. Both have comparable elements, but are also very different subjects, to where I experience a different form of fascination from.

    I think another major misconception that both extreme Christians and Atheists both make, is when they try to evaluate the existence of God based off the scientific reality that the universe was created from nothing. This is an idea I believe and endorse, and I feel the overwhelming majority of the scientific community does as well. However, this says nothing about God. In order to draw a conclusion about God from this information, one must believe that God is a “thing” to begin with. This is something that neither scientists nor theologians agree with. They are two very different fields. Although, it may be important to note that there is an International Society for Science and Religion that was formed in order to promote certain research methods in both fields. What’s interesting here is that The International Society for Science and Religion along with EVERY major scientific society (including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest in the world) ALL released consensus statements on the intelligent design nonsense. The American Association for the Advancement of Science said :

    “”The lack of scientific warrant for so called “intelligent design” theory makes it improper to include as a part of science education.”"

    The International Society for Science and Religion said :

    “We believe that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology.”

    So there you have it. Neither expert scientists nor expert theologians endorse intelligent design as anything other than nonsense.

    From my experience, anytime you have two opposing groups with two extreme views of reality, the truth is often somewhere in the middle. This is to varying degrees depending on the situation, but more often than not the value tends towards a median. This is true of the Bible, which offers extreme accounts of both compassion and violence, and also evidenced in science. I think we all can agree that the Sermon on the Mount is a radical speech that makes no sense to most people, whereas the teachings of Jesus Christ which promote fairness and compassion and forgiveness are lessons we all should live by regardless of what we believe is out there. In science, we also see opposing forces complimenting each other and finding an equilibrium. Take the sun for example. The only thing that keeps the sun from imploding is the beautiful balancing act created by the massive structure that is the sun itself and the nuclear fusion taking place inside it’s core.

    Darwin wasn’t an atheist. He was actually adamantly opposed to aggressive atheists that try to push their beliefs on theists. The only connection that Darwin has to atheism was that he, for the first time in history, gave atheists an intellectual license. Prior to Natural Selection, there was no such thing as an intelligent atheist. If you didn’t believe in God, you were an idiot. It was that simple. Natural Selection is sound science, and there is no need to believe in a God when you understand it. This does not mean it promotes atheism or was intended to do so. The first quote is from Darwin, in response to an aggressive atheist :

    “Why should you be so aggressive? Is there anything gained from trying to force these ideas on the mass of mankind?” Charles Darwin

    Or this:

    “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an Evolutionist.” Charles Darwin

    Finally, let’s close with a quote from Stephen Hawking himself :

    “What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.” Stephen Hawking

    I completely agree with all these statements. It is time to start accepting people of all faiths or lack of faith, and it is most definitely time to end the God vs. Science crap.

    • Jonathancf, I disagree and a couple points, first I believe evolution has produced more atheists. The reason you don’t find very many deist around today is because Deism allowed intelligent men to believe in God and to explain the diversity of life in the world. Also, I believe you’re correct when people are raised and indoctrinated into a religion is very hard to change that mindset, even if you accept evolution. On the other hand being indoctrinated with full knowledge of evolution, I believe does prevent the indoctrination from taking effect and therefore producing more atheist. In general, education, information, knowledge produces atheists or produces those with an atheist view.
      Second, you tend to equate radical “atheist” and radical theist as being equal, I disagree with you on this. How exactly do you define a radical atheist and radical theist? I’ve never heard an atheist claim that science is religion based, but I have heard religious extremist claim that religion is science-based. We have Evangelicals taking seats on school boards and then pushing to have Thomas Jefferson removed from the history books due to his unfavorable view of religion. This is exactly what happened in Texas. Exactly what have “radical atheists” done that compares to that? Uncontrolled religion will always radicalize, exactly how would that take place with atheist? Radical religion demand censorship, look at Russia, it now bands any positive discussion of homosexuality, a policy promoted by the church; the church is free to lie. How does that equate to “radical atheist”? How many religious schools teach Darwinism in their science classes? What group of atheists is trying to ban theology from being taught in public schools in theology class? On the political front, how many open atheists are there in Congress? We make up 8 to 15% of the population and we have zero. In the Republican Party, how many of those that ran for president in 2012 denounced evolution? Do you consider them radical? How many running for president from either party denounced God?
      Simply being an outspoken atheist does not make you radical, it appears that is what you’re trying to say.

      • Bayhuntr,

        I wasn’t trying to be offensive. Based on your response and the other response I received, I don’t think I was clear and I don’t think you guys understood what I was trying to say. I’ll try to shed some light.

        To answer part of your first question, I think a radical Theist is best illustrated by this article. I would define a radical Theist as somebody with no understanding of science, and no regard for scientific experts. These are people who think science challenges their belief in God, and will stop at no lengths to undermine scientific research. They are people who will deny Evolution, which is undoubtedly scientifically valid, as well as the work of Stephen Hawking on how the Universe came into being, which is equally valid. These are not the majority of Theists. The majority of Theists support Evolution. It is only when you look at radical forms of Christianity, such as the mormon faith or Jehovah Witnesses do you see this consistent denial of reality at all costs. Don’t take my word for it, check it out. Go look at the percentage of Catholics or the percentage of people within the Jewish faith that accept, for example, Evolution. Then compare these numbers to more “extreme” types of faiths. What you seem to be doing is grouping in people of faith as if all people in the Islamic faith are extremists and terrorists. This is an ugly stereotype and just flat wrong. There’s over 270 mill. people in this country that are not Atheists, the overwhelming majority. Are you really trying to say that the ~ 16% of Atheists are the only ones who accept Darwinism? I certainly hope not, that is laughable. I went to private schools my whole life and I was always taught Evolution and Natural Selection. The past few Catholic Popes have all come out publicly and endorsed Evolution. Although I admit going to private schools in the Northeast like I did and going to a “religious” school down south are probably two completely different things. However, it is really down south and the Midwest where you see this type of religious extremism.

        Now on to what I define as a radical Atheist. Let’s be clear first. Atheism is a faith. There is nothing “scientific” about being an Atheist. I will illustrate why in a little bit. I also want to make clear that I do NOT consider an outspoken Atheist as “radical.” In fact, I encourage Atheists to be much more outspoken. They are consistently denied their rights, which is evident when you look at the tax code. I am against any and all parts of the tax code that favor religious organizations, and the only way I would accept this is if Atheists were included in these favors as well. There was controversy recently over a billboard the Society of American Atheists put up around the holidays that said something to the effect of “You don’t need Christ in Christmas.” Atheists had every right to put that billboard up. They are constantly barraged with Christians that attempt to claim an exclusive right over the holiday season. Fox News perpetuates this bigotry with their “War on Christmas” nonsense. The Christmas tradition is Pagan in origin first of all, and in a very diverse country it has become a holiday that all people enjoy. Nobody should be left out of the holiday season. It just is not right. That said, the same way I object to this type of discrimination against Atheists, I also object when Atheists taunt and harass people of faith. Go check it out for yourself. Go look up any message board or youtube video on Jesus Christ, or anything based in religion, and you are bound to find a few Atheists there harassing and making fun of what people of faith believe. I said in an earlier post, I don’t consider these real “Atheists”, and I mean that in the same way I don’t consider Islamic terrorists representative of Islam. It was actually in defense of Atheists. I don’t think Atheists want these people associated with them just as most Christians do not want terrorists that bomb abortion clinics associated with them. I also don’t consider the latter examples of real “Christians.” Extremists can exist anywhere, Bayhuntr. This isn’t a property unique to religions. Any and all systems of belief can produce radical extremists.

        The only area of science currently capable of providing some insight into the existence of God is quantum mechanics. Although, as I’ve been saying, the existence of God is not a scientific question, and I’d be very surprised if quantum mechanics could even begin to propose an answer. Naturalists, and those that study Evolution, don’t even touch the surface area of where you need to look. They have yet to put the puzzle pieces together of one very important aspect to this philosophical question, which is subjective consciousness. All people of faith that believe in a soul believe a soul is immaterial in nature and can’t manifest itself in ways scientific inquiry can examine.

        Science is not about finding truth or facts. One of many distinct differences between classical physics and quantum mechanics is that quantum states are expressed as “superpositions” of different possibilities you’re presented with in classical physics. When we look at things in reality as we know it, we don’t see wave functions, and we don’t think about probabilities and amplitudes. As I said a few days ago, it was only after the Atomic Theory of Matter was proven that Newton’s laws had to be redefined, and wave functions can best be observed on the atomic level. They are not observed with the larger objects Newtonian Mechanics deals with. We are in fact looking at an approximation of the position of those larger objects, whereas in classical physics, the assumption was the exact position and exact momentum of objects can be both known simultaneously. As it turns out, quantum mechanics shows this isn’t the case (see the Uncertainty Principle if you’re not already familiar with it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle). The mathematics in quantum physics starts to get so abstract, that you will literally need to re-wire your brain to develop intuitions and deal with these new parameters. These intuitions weren’t inherited biologically the same way a dog can “do” calculus as he’s chasing a Frisbee. Now of course the dog isn’t really “doing calculus”, but he is “acting as if” he is in the same way a pool player “acts as if” she/he knows trigonometry and physics (angles, components of force, etc.) when he or she plays pool.

        Even Naturalists that study Evolution, when speaking “scientifically correct”, will not say that Evolution is a “fact”. Of course you and I both know and believe Evolution to be a fact. But in the realm of science, it is proper to say “scientifically valid”, as opposed to intelligent design which is “scientifically invalid”. There’s simply no credible evidence that supports intelligent design. While we didn’t observe Evolution firsthand, we still can observe important aspects of Natural Selection and conclude that Natural Selection on all levels is the best and most complete explanation to all the biodiversity that exists on this planet. Let’s look at one aspect of Natural Selection, such as when an organism which plays a specific role in an ecosystem goes extinct or leaves an ecosystem for some reason, and we see that another organism immediately pops up and takes it’s place. We don’t need to go back billions of years to observe this, we see this all the time today. Look at the incidence of rabies in India as an example. All of a sudden, vultures started to drop dead out of the sky. It was a complete mystery why this was happening. It turned out that cattle were being given Diclofenac, and vultures would eat the dead cattle which resulted in kidney failure. They were literally dropping dead out of the sky. Now, the vultures played the role of a scavenger there, and after they disappeared, they were immediately replaced by another scavenger. That scavenger happened to be rabid dogs. Then came a dramatic increase in the incidence of rabies. We see these examples and other examples all the time. We all have an impact on each other. What humans do most certainly has an impact on not only the environment, but on biodiversity, which in turn directly impacts our health.

        I’d like to attest to Karl Popper, who was a professor at the London School of Economics & Political Science, and his philosophy of science. As I’ve been saying, it’s not about proving the truth or the facts in science, which is something that belongs in a courtroom. It is more important to prove what isn’t true. For example, since numbers are infinite, it would not be possible to say “all calculations evaluate to rational numbers.” However, as soon as you come across a calculation that evaluates to an irrational number, or expose a quadratic equation as having complex roots, you can then say ” the idea that all calculations evaluate to rational numbers is false.” This is the heart of science, and is what Karl Popper called Falsifiability (I’m not sure if Popper coined this term or just advanced the reasoning behind it). Nevertheless, science has to be falsifiable, otherwise it is pseudoscience. Let’s look at the Stephen Hawking quote again:

        ““What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.”

        This doesn’t mean that “you now have a scientific license to not believe in God.” What is much more important from the perspective of science is that Hawking is saying “We have not shown the existence of God is falsifiable.” So when an Atheist says something like “well science hasn’t proven God doesn’t exist but hasn’t proven God does exist”, this is true. But when an Atheist says “so there’s no need to believe in God”, fine. That’s fair enough. But that is NOT a scientific conclusion. Anything an Atheist says after they say God isn’t falsifiable is not a statement backed by any science, but is in fact a philosophical statement and one that shows the same degree of faith many Atheists bash Christians for. This is a double standard. You can’t use the scientific method to prove or disprove God, as if God were quantifiable. You would need to appeal to experts in Theology, and experts in philosophy (namely, Epistemology) in order to get some type of an idea as to what conclusion you seem so sure of. Or don’t, I don’t care. But this isn’t a scientific question.

        So what is an extremist? Just look at the Tea Party. You’ll find an abundant amount of religious extremists there. These are people that think they have a religious right to put an arbitrary limit on what defines life, and then use that to deny women reproductive rights. The really extreme ones not only think women shouldn’t have reproductive rights, but actually attack abortion clinics. You’ll also find these supposed Christians promote a culture of violence and try anything they can to prevent gun control. These people also deny climate science and could care less about the environment. They will deny healthcare coverage to millions just to uphold this dark clueless 18th century ideology. But don’t think for a second there’s no such thing as a radical Atheist. People react differently to indoctrination. Some people are brought up in strict religious families and communities and grow up and reject all of it in extreme ways. Other people embrace all of it in extreme ways. Neither direction is rational or level headed. Prison populations are filled with people that are supposedly Christian, and also with people that believe in no higher power or anything else. It is also an extreme position when an Atheist turns to science to form an opinion about God. Like I said before, God isn’t falsifiable. To use science and ignore Epistemology and ignore the humanities and all these other disciplines that are much more relevant to spirituality and the beliefs of other people, is quite frankly extreme.

        Sorry for the lengthy post, but I don’t wish to keep posting on here. Hopefully I explained this better. I actually did some digging around and checked out the International Society for Science and Religion out of curiosity. I found an interesting piece by a man who is an expert in philosophy and theology, and also well versed in science. This came from Oxford University, so it’s not random and an unreliable source. He’s actually saying a lot of the stuff I’ve been trying to say, although he puts it much more eloquent than I ever could. Hopefully you can take the time to check it out. Take Care.

        http://www.issr.org.uk/latest-news/the-new-atheism/

    • International society for science and religion eh, sounds pretty high brow. You’re wrong about most things but thing you are wrong about more than anything is to say atheists are trying to disprove the notion of a first cause. The idea that something can spring from nothing is not new. Krauss is just getting around to demonstrating how this could be theoretically possible baesd on our understanding of the way the unverse works. You don’t need to be an atheist to appreciate this either. When you are not trying to find gaps to fill with god you see, it clears the way for you to examine the facts free of any bias. Peace.

  5. I believe in miracles and an unknown power in the universe, simply because I myself cannot explain how 2 years ago I was able to survive a 130 ft fir tree falling on me and crushing me and I survived! That does not mean that I don’t understand that the well trained doctors and nurses that treated me had a lot to do with that! But all of the circumstances surrounding my survival cannot be explained, at least not well enough to me! I saw things and heard things while laying under that tree that convince me that I don’t know everything! That there are things that occurred that no one can explain to me! So I will continue my quest for knowledge and understanding and not question anyone else’s belief either way! Peace to all in your quest!

    • Kathy! I love this comment and everything about it, it is hard to see what the world has come to.. But if you have not yet read I urge you to read “Proof that heaven is real” You may feel very close to this book! God Bless you!

  6. Simone says: “First you say that creating life in a lab will never happen, and then you eschew it when you’re provided with proof that it already has.”

    Are you referring to the bogus link you provided that discussed putting something into an ALREADY LIVING CELL?! At any rate your insistence that “It is possible (probable)” shows profound faith, and the high priests of Darwinism would be very pleased.

    • dude you can just go back to bashing people in the head with a bible, now. if you can’t wrap your tiny little head around the fact that man-made DNA THAT WORKS is the creation of life, you have no business eating at the adults table. By the way, moron, Wired is a credible source. if you don’t know what news sites are credible online, plz do us all a favor and go back to watching Fox.

      • First, who mentioned anything about the Bible? Second, petty and pejorative insults are tactics of those who have no other valid points to make. Third, you are not “creating” a living organism if you use an already living entity (in this case . Mycoplasma capricolum).Fourth, I made no comments about the source . The article was, in fact, interesting. But it is describing something very very far from creating a living entity from organic chemicals.

        • First, you have with every post. Duh. Second, that’s a load of crap. Prove with statistics that insulting means people have nothing valid to say, and while you’re at it, prove that me calling you a huge, steaming pile of sanctimonious ‘excrecion’ is not valid. Third, the ability to create DNA is the ability to create life. How sad for you that your lack of background in the sciences and determination to make this about GOD won’t allow you to acknowledge what everyone else knows to be true. To quote that guy you probably loathe, “We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society today.”

          • “First, you have with every post. Duh. ”

            Produce one post that I have made where I have mentioned either the bible or a god.

            “Duh. Second, that’s a load of crap. Prove with statistics that insulting means people have nothing valid to say, and while you’re at it, prove that me calling you a huge, steaming pile of sanctimonious ‘excrecion’ is not valid. ”

            LOL…there you go again. Have you ever had any training in logic, or been on a debate team? If you tried using language like above I guarantee you the debate would be over.

            “How sad for you that your lack of background in the sciences ”

            Before we go any further let me ask, have you had an course work in microbiology or genetics? Be careful how you answer because I have.

          • Atheist spells Eatshit.

          • Seriously, are you saying that your posts are devoid of the arguing points of a Christian arguing for creationism?? Is Google not working for you? Because it works just fine for the rest of us, and is pretty easy for the rest of us to find out just how fulla shit you are.

            Is that the best you can do? Ad hominem attacks based on your assumptions about my education? Everyone’s shooting down your arguments with updated facts and hard science and all the best you can muster is “CUZ CUZ CUZ CUZ I SAID SO AND YOURE A BIG MEANIEHEAD!” If you’ve worked in microbiology and genetics, it was during the Cold War era. You, pal, are /irrelevant/.

  7. Easy – there is zero evidence to suggest that your god(s) of choice exists. Consequently, I will say (and continue to say) that there is no god(s). Should you think that you can present evidence to the contrary, there are numerous people who will be happy to commit you to a mental hospital

  8. Kirk Cameron is a buffoon. I’d like to point out, however, that PSP, progressive supranuclear palsy, Mr. Moore’s disease and also my mother’s, is most definitely not a mental illness. Just FYI.

  9. I don’t understand how atheists can be so absolute in their beliefs that there is NO God. They sound just like fundamentalists and THEIR absolute knowledge that there is a God. I don’t think you really know and cannot know. It’s like you’re saying that everything that will ever be known about the universe, YOU now know. I’m not a religious person, I think Jesus was a good man with many wise things to say, and I try to follow all the good things he said. I don’t pay that much attention to the Bible, which says a lot of evil things.

    • Simple. We are as convinced that your God is non existent as you are that Thor in non-existant. Or leprechauns, for that matter. There simply is no evidence. To believe without evidence is not a virtue, it’s foolishness.

    • When evidence is provided for the existence of God, atheists might change their tune (although most of us haven’t been convinced enough to WORSHIP any god.) Devout theists, however, ignore this lack of evidence. The devoutness of theists in the belief of god is FAR more absolute than the knowledge of atheists that there is no god.

    • Are there leprechauns? Dragons? Unicorns? Elves? God deserves just as much scrutiny as the rest of these fictional characters. Plenty of people claim that these things do not exist and no one bats and eye, but when we claim that a mass hallucinated invisible friend is just a means for you to feel better about yourself, you all lose your minds. You need to also look into the definition of fundamentalism. The fundamentals of atheism are that there is no god or gods…which makes every atheist a fundamentalist. The fundamentals of Christianity are that women should be seen and not heard, rape is a form of marriage, slavery is A-OK, and killing children because ANYONE told you to is normal. If you can’t follow the FUNDAMENTALS of your religion, why are you following any part of that religion at all?

    • Well, most atheist understand that science can reveal new info all the time, so for me I am an atheist and I feel confident that their is no god, but I understand that I could be wrong and that when new information is presented I will observe that information and adjust my views accordingly. But if I had to decide right this second and lay everything on the line, I would so that god isn’t real.

    • The fact is that most Atheists do not make the claim that there is no god. Most simply believe that they have never been shown any compelling evidence for the existence of a god…and therefore have no reason to believe that one exists. In fact, the most used words of a true, thinking atheist when it comes to the existence of god are “I don’t know.” Because that is the truth – we do not know with certainty how to explain certain things that have happened (though various scientific disciplines can take us a long way) – and while we don’t know, we also don’t feel the need to create something mystical and magical out of whole-cloth in order to explain the things that we don’t know…for us, “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer. And, for my own personal interest, what is the purpose of believing the word of god when you have to throw out half of it because it is awful and evil? Wouldn’t the word of a truly benevolent, all-knowing, all-powerful god be perfect for consumption without being reader-censored?

    • If it matters, my atheism is not based on an absolute belief that there is no god. I just don’t have enough evidence to support a notion that any god exists. Not all atheists are gnostic. Many of us are agnostic atheists who just don’t have reason to believe.

      Though, I am certain that the Christian god does not exist, but that doesn’t preclude other gods. They just aren’t interested in being known, should they actually exist.

      • If I had a dollar for every time I’ve tried to make that point to a theist, only to have the theist smugly insinuate that he knew what I really believed better than I knew it, I’d be a moderately wealthy man.

    • The reason you don’t understand is due to the fact that you appear to have a misinformed opinion about what Atheists believe. We simply don’t believe in god, we do not claim to have absolute knowledge about the existence of god, that’s what the religious do.

    • No sharia no islime

      @Dan Vickers, I think you miss the point as to why people are Atheist. They do not see any physical evidence of a creator or god/deity . Just though’s that were invented in the minds of people for political & psychological reasons. Yes, there are obvious living manifestations of life but there is no evidence of a creator. Only people & living things drive to live and then they finish by dying. That is what is observed & that is what supports the evidence thus far….

    • Most atheists are not absolute in their lack of belief in gods. Most will admit that they can’t prove a negative; that only existence produces evidence of that existence and that nonexistence produces no evidence.

      The problem then is the utter lack of evidence that proves that gods exist. In fact, I will go one further and tell you that there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed either. Stories are claims, not evidence. If a story is evidence of existence, then Superman exists; Spiderman exists. Sounds pretty dumb…doesn’t it…to claim that Superman and Spidey are real. But it’s no more true than to say the magic miracle man of Galilee, impossibly born of a virgin, who walks on liquid water and turns water into wine, was a real person. But it is a neat fable with lots of good ideas….the best ones being the golden rule and loving your neighbor as much as you love yourself.

      Critical thinkers understand the rules of logical deduction and reasoning. Once you know how to think critically, you’ll realize that more than likely god is little more than a faerie…a figment of human imagination.

    • Don, it’s the lack of objective evidence.

      Explain to me all the Christians like Kirk who “know” that their god is real, and is the correct one to be worshipping. That’s the whole difference.

      An atheist presented with objective proof of god would change their opinion based on the evidence. Kirk’s good buddy Ray Comfort has stated on his Facebook that if presented with absolute proof there was no god, he would pray to god (who has been disproven in this scenario) for guidance.

      Atheists do not believe due to lack of objective evidence, Christians believe in spite of a lack of objective evidence.

    • how can you be so certain there are no pink unicorns? no santa clause? no Zeus or Thor? We just don’t believe because we see no reason to. its not like we’re absolutely certain there is no god/pink unicorns/Zeus. there’s just no reason, no substantiel evidence to believe these things exists. But by all means you are free to believe in these things. just keep it out of the schools and our governments.

    • How can you be sure there’s no boogey man? Your lack of direct observation of said nighttime closet lurker doesn’t exclude the possibility of his existence. So, since we can’t prove that he doesn’t exist, is it irrational to be absolutely certain that he’s just the product of mankind’s collective imagination?

    • Well we dont really know there is not a santa claus or tooth fairy do we?

    • “I don’t understand how atheists can be so absolute in their beliefs that there is NO God.”

      That’s a question worth asking. The answer is, you can’t, but the default position has to be that gods don’t exist, and for one to accept their existence, you’d have to prove that they exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the claim that a god – any god – exists is about as extraordinary as they come. The problem is that people have been raised in a culture that accepts god(s) as real, so rejecting the god hypothesis now takes proof, rather than the other way around.

    • You’re confusing the difference between “strong” and “weak” atheism. What you’re talking about is “strong” atheism (“there is no god”) but the majority of atheists are “weak” atheists (“I don’t believe in god”). Strong atheism makes a statement about the universe, weak atheism makes a statement about the self.

  10. So, according to Kirk Cameron, my chances of hearing God speak to me are greatly increased if I get myself assigned to the ‘serious ward’ at a psych facility.

    I hope he takes this to its logical conclusion and checks himself in for a protracted and hopefully ultimate discussion with his Big Guy in the Clouds.

  11. It is my thought that Cameron is a closeted homosexual. As many closet cases do, he has armored himself with religion to keep from facing that side of himself. If pressed, I might say that he is taking the banana from RayRay, checking the comfort level, again just to be sure.

    • from what I understand, there is a rather cruisey section of Griffith Park he frequents…

    • I definitely think Kirk Cameron is gay. His inability to accept this has driven him to be a religious fundie jerk. If he ever comes out, that will certainly shake things up among the fundies. I am sure that half of his every day is spent by Kirk “praying the gay away”.

    • Love the puns sir, well played!

  12. To this day, no one can point to a claim or assertion that Kirk has made that is rooted in reality. The way he dissed Hawking further points out his abject poverty of the understanding of chemistry or science (evidence) in general.

    Remember, he’s the ***stupid*** sidekick of Banana Man (Ray Comfort) who assured us that a banana is an ‘atheist’s nightmare’. He decribed the Cavendish banana as the perfect creation of his deity for Mankind, all while totally not knowing that the Cavendish banana was INVENTED by human beings.

  13. I know a five year old who can whip Cameron’s ass intellectually. In fact , the kid could kick Cameron’s ass physically too (he excels at Tae Kwon Do) .

  14. For those who thing ignorance is bliss, or otherwise the lazy ignorant… The creation of life has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution only explained the diversity of life. And there are thousands and thousands of facts that support evolution.

    • This is a common misconception. There is an entire separate field called paleobiology which deals with prebiotic evolution. Before you start calling others ignorant it would be best if you didn’t put your foot in your own mouth.

      • Your words: “…an entire separate field”. Yes, entirely separate field …from evolution. Again, evolution only deals with the diversity of life, not the creation of life. The misconception is yours.

        • Nice fancy footwork…it’s still under the same umbrella. Organic chemicals would have to have “evolved” into Archea bacteria. Of course they appeared too early in earth’s history to be able to pull the miracle of life off. Must have been aliens that planted them here.

          • Yes and my milk evolves into sour milk and iron evolves into iron oxide in the presence of oxygen, but that’s not Evolution and the start of life is not under the umbrella of evolution idiot. If it wasn’t for evangelicalism, you all would be kept in the shadows as ignorant and, oh so bad, con men. As it is you surround yourself with like-minded fools. Reminds me of those monkeys at the zoo, there always tossing their own feces and then prancing around arrogantly. You need to find someone else to sell your personal brand of snake oil too I’m done with you.

          • Well, for organic chemicals to eventually pop up DNA, one of two things had to happen. 1.) It evolved into DNA, or 2) a Designer created DNA. Take your pick. Since you reject the first, I guess you have been converted to the fundy position.

          • Dude, you can make up anything you want, you argue like an evangelical creationist, and their entire belief system is based on lies. Evolution explains the variety of life in the world, not the creation of life, this is a fact, If you need to delude yourself to keep your belief, go for it. It’s laughable how you think your arguments aren’t transparent.

          • Ya, ya, sure sure….so which is it Bayhuntr? #1 or #2?

          • Abiogenesis is the study of how life was started. It is a completely different field from evolution. Evolution has never tried to explain how life came into being.

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

            http://www.universetoday.com/41024/abiogenesis/

            This could start you to understand the difference between the two fields. You are trying to merge two separate fields and say they are the same. They aren’t. You can’t claim that evolution explains how life began when it doesn’t try to do that at all.

          • So Skipereno….the origin of life is not part of evolution? Note the following from your talk.origins link:

            “Based on research in the field it is proposed here how, once a self-replicating genetic molecule existed, life might have started and gradual evolution of complexity was made possible ”

            Do you see that little word “evolution” in the above quote???

          • Yes, the word evolution does occur, right after the words after life might have started. Obviously not being a scientist or a student of science in any way, you missed that little part. In fact you seem to not understand much about science at all. But every definition of evolution is after life has started. It has never tried in any way to explain the origins of life. And if you had really comprehended the links they discussed the field that did try to explain how life happened.

          • Ya, I can see your point with that quote. Try this one from the “Introduction” under “Origin of Life”:

            “……we can reasonably extrapolate that they would also allow life itself to originate spontaneously, by chemical evolution of suitable structures – regardless if we believe these laws are designed or undesigned.”

          • That’s still abiogenesis. Stop beating a dead horse. They are two separate fields.

          • Yes…abiogenesis EVOLUTION. You do see the word “evolution” in the talk origins quote, do you not???

          • This Jack guy is a creationist or a creationist in a tuxedo (intelligent designer) pretending to be something else. If it quacks and waddles it’s a duck, these people don’t think it’s obvious. He claims there’s no intermediary steps leading to the Cambrian explosion, A typical evangelical God of the Gaps claim. Point out an intermediary fossil with hard body parts, he proclaims that doesn’t count. You point out some very obvious facts to support evolution, he states not all the data isn’t in, nothing more than another God of the gaps claim. When scientist don’t want to go one direction it’s because they believe there’s another direction, that there’s better evidence for, this guy only terse down he speaks of no alternative.
            Evangelicals can’t debate evolution directly, they lose every time. The alternative they believe in as a joke, literally laughable so they pretend to be scientists so they don’t have to defend what they believe and just try to tear holes in evolution. They just end up sounding rather stupid. He just reference the Origins of Life, by Freeman Dyson as evidence that thr creation of life somehow falls under Evolution. By that example the evolution of dance would also fall under the study of Evolution.
            One of the first signs that your belief system is a joke, is when you have to lie and deceive people to promote it. Evangelicals do this all the time.

          • “He just reference the Origins of Life, by Freeman Dyson as evidence that thr creation of life somehow falls under Evolution.”

            Nope…I was referring to his link to an article in the one-line group called “talk.origins”. The heading in the article in question was titled “Origins of Life”. GONG.

            I am not a fundamentalist as you claim above. I am a Deist. If you don’t know what that is, google it, but basically we don’t believe in the inerrancy of any “holy books”, and have come to our beliefs through logic, reason, and science. Have-a-nice-day.

          • “He just reference the Origins of Life, by Freeman Dyson as evidence that thr creation of life somehow falls under Evolution.”

            Yep.

            You can call yourself Liza Minnelli, but you still quack like a evangelical creations duck.

          • So Bayhuntr…for the 3rd time, is it #1 or #2??? Your audience is waiting.

          • Is what #1 or #2? My views are clear, you have not asked anything that you don’t have an answer for. I think maybe you’re trying to be what you feel is clever, kind of like how monkeys at the zoo think it’s clever to toss their own feces at people when they walk by. If you have a real question ask it, otherwise don’t waste our time.

          • Oh dear….Bayhuntr it does seem like you are trying to avoid the question. What will your fans think?! Well if we have to paint by the numbers let me reproduce this down below:

            “1.) It evolved into DNA, or 2) a Designer created DNA. Take your pick”

            Oh…I just thought of a 3rd option…..maybe some aliens planted life here.

          • Yes I know and agree with you. All he has is word games. I’m thru arguing with him, it’s like talking to a rock or beating your head against a wall. Either way you are foolish for expecting something intelligent to happen.

          • Skip clearly states after life starts, evolution begins, again, just because you need to delude yourself to keep your dilution going, don’t expect others to put up with your dishonesty.

      • Jack, please stop flaunting your ignorance. You’re remarkably clueless even for a creationist.

  15. What I flush down the toilet is smarter than Kirk. MUCH smarter.

  16. First of all, people that study science aren’t in classes that teach you “how to be an atheist”. Out of all the courses I have ever had to take, I have had one physics professor hint at the idea he was most likely an atheist. That’s it, just one. In fact, in a climate science course, I heard a professor blurt out that we were altering the environment in ways “God” did not intend. Neither class had anything to do with God vs. Science. The opinions of scientists on God vary to the same extent you see with all people. However, like the majority of people out there, the majority of scientists do believe in a higher power. This of course is contrary to what you read on the internet, but Stephen Hawking is just one physicist that happens to be in the limelight. God vs. science is something Christians invented when they charged Galileo with heresy and embarked on numerous inquisitions as they attempted to convert the known world to Christianity. Today, the God vs. Science paradigm is perpetuated by radical Christians and also by people who are supposedly “atheists.” The reason why I say “supposedly atheists” is because if you view the following :

    http://www.atheists.org/

    You’ll get an idea of what real atheists dedicate their lives to. It doesn’t involve blogging anti-God comments all over the net and criticizing the beliefs of spiritual people. That is inherently a Christian approach to indoctrination, and just the opposite of what devout atheists do with their lives. Real atheists are all about preserving their own rights as atheists, not bashing the rights of others as non-atheists. As much as I love to criticize the founding fathers and who they really were as people (not the tea party version of the founders), I will say that one thing they did get right is that there should be a separation of church and state. Of course there is a never-ending list of tea party members who violate this fundamental principle, but we all know the tea party has taken it upon themselves to interpret the constitution the way they see fit and selectively choose which parts to honor and which parts to ignore. That said, a separation of church and state means that people are free to believe and free to worship, and all of it stays out of government and political affairs. As a Democrat, I am equally offended when I see articles on left wing political websites that attempt to start the God vs. Science debate as I am when I “see” this nonsense started on right wing sites (although I don’t read right wing sites, I can just imagine all the nonsense started by the people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old). This is in fact the first left wing site I have seen this on, and I’m pretty disappointed. AATTP is a great site with great articles.

    Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, nobody can deny that. You know what though? So was Albert Einstein. Even today, Einstein’s theories are still considered, some of which were only regarded as valid well after his death. He was truly remarkable. So was Georg Cantor. How many mathematics students studied transfinite set theory and thought to themselves, “Man, Cantor was an idiot.”? I certainly didn’t. Cantor was the guy who discovered a set whose number of elements was greater than infinity, and he was also deeply religious. I wasn’t surprised to learn this. Cantor then presented his theory that the greatest set of infinity was God himself. If you compare Cantor to Hawking, you have two brilliant men with two very different views to spirituality. The irony is, most of the work Hawking conducts involves quantum theories. Most quantum theories, from the quantum foam hypothesis and beyond, contain much of the meta-physical elements of a good Twilight Zone episode. He’s into time machines and wormholes, all that stuff. He’s an example of a brilliant physicist with a very adventurous mind, and very outspoken. One could make a sound argument that a lot of those theories take the same leap of faith as, well, you get the idea.

    You can find an abundant list of modern day scientists, equally as brilliant as Hawking, who also have very different views on spirituality. Why is this? It’s because when you study science, the impression most scientists get is that we really don’t know anything about the universe. This of course contradicts the impression the internet gives on science, but what can be found on the internet and what exists in reality can often be two very different things. People read science articles online or books and think scientists have all the answers, to a point where we can draw definitive conclusions to seemingly impossible questions. In reality, we know next to nothing about all existing forms of matter out there. “Dark matter” or “dark energy” we know pracically nothing about. As I always do on here, I will link official sites that are valid information sources. The following is from NASA:

    http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

    You will notice right off the bat, two key points I’ve made : 1. “More is unknown than is known.” 2. “It is a complete mystery.” What we do know about matter, “normal matter”, comprises only around 5% of all forms of matter known to exist. When you actually study science, this is a recurring theme. Take biology for example. When it comes to life on Earth, we know almost nothing. That’s because when it comes to microbial populations, we know next to nothing about them. Microbial life on this planet exhibit more biodiversity than any other known life form on Earth. All the classes and species we actually do know about comprise a tiny little fraction of all life forms on Earth. Expanding on this view, the same way the universe was created out of “nothing”, it can be annihilated into nothing in far less time. Less than a second. Yet here we are billions of years later with everything still in tact. When it comes to probability, the odds are certainly stacked against “chance”, however, there are very valid chance theories that are possible. It is certainly not “probability 1″ for either side. Point is, we possess just a fraction of knowledge about all life forms on our own planet. The idea that science has enough answers to prove or disprove God is just absurd. If God does exist, He/She (probably She) can’t be viewed under a microscope or by sending a space probe out into the unknown.

    Science is not about unlocking all truth and finding answers to questions like, “does God exist?”. The scientific method is defined by empirical and measurable evidence. You make an observation, and you try to express this mathematically in a way that explains natural, physical, or even social phenomena. This doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true, and if it does uncover what is regarded as truth, this certainly doesn’t mean it can’t change. Take Newton’s Laws of Motion for example. They were regarded as truth, and they still are, but they are only regarded as truth today after they were redefined. That’s because they were developed before the Atomic Theory of Matter was proven. After Jean Perrin won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for publishing “Brownian Motion and the Molecular Reality”, Newton’s Laws were challenged. That’s because Newton’s Laws didn’t hold for the motion of individual atoms. Probability Mechanics was then introduced, which attempted to explain individual atoms in motion. Einstein himself was opposed to Probability Mechanics, and was quoted as saying, “God doesn’t roll dice”. Of course you can find a never ending list of internet “sources” that claim Einstein was an atheist. This is laughable. “God doesn’t roll dice” wasn’t the only authentic quote we know Einstein said which referred to God, there were many. He had a firm belief that God existed where science ended, and “all we could do was chase him.” Einstein wasn’t brilliant because he believed in God, just as Stephen Hawking isn’t brilliant because he doesn’t believe in God. This brings me to my final point.

    Kirk Cameron is a fool. He’s not a fool because he believes in God, he’s a fool because he’s a religious fanatic who probably thinks the world was created in 6,000 years and other nonsense that we know is undoubtedly not true. Even religious experts that have Phd’s in theology and other spirituality based disciplines know this is nonsense, as they often head to the carbon dating lab every time a manuscript is dug up from the Middle East. If Kirk Cameron is right about God, he’s still a fool. Out of all the intelligent people that do believe in God out there, one couldn’t have picked a bigger fool to associate that belief with. Stephen Hawking on the other hand is brilliant. That doesn’t mean he’s right about God. At the same time, if Stephen Hawking is wrong about God, he’s still brilliant. Unfortunately, the world isn’t black and white and simple to understand. If that were true, the only numbers that existed would be a number line of integers. There wouldn’t be rational numbers, irrational numbers, complex numbers, etc. Take irrational numbers for example. Rational numbers are infinite, but irrational numbers are a greater set of infinity. Irrational numbers are like a vast infinite ocean that surrounds islands of rationals. They can’t be expressed as a ratio, they just continue to repeat with no clear pattern. But they not only exist, they are a set that contains some of the greatest and most mysterious numbers that were ever discovered. Both e and pi are found all throughout nature, and are found all throughout the universe. Because they repeat forever with no clear pattern doesn’t make them any less important. The answers to “real world” problems are rarely, if ever, some simple integer.

    Some things are just beyond our comprehension and probably always will be. I think as Democrats we have a responsibility to accept all people of all beliefs without criticizing their beliefs, as long as they do no try to influence our political system with those beliefs. Are we really any better than the radical tea party when we do this? It’s just a different side of the same coin, and the probability of either side being correct is 50%. There is no God vs. Science. Neither God nor Science has challenged the other. This, like organized religion, is something mankind invented. As Americans Against the Tea Party, we are better than this.

    • Simone Sanner

      You misunderstand. Cameron made it about God vs. science. For me, it’s all about the stupid. I also am amused that fundamentalists seem to be speaking for all people of faith these days. That motivates me to call them out for debate even more. Accepting that standing up to creationism is anti-religious is the same as saying that ALL people of faith are fundamentalists who believe in a LITERAL explanation of the happenings in the Book of Genesis. There are millions who would disagree.

    • It all boils down to this: God(s) are neither provable nor disprovable. They are also unnecessary.

  17. At 13 years old I suspected religion was self-delusion. By my twenties I was positive. And at 29, I can’t even fathom how anyone can believe a single word of the Bible or any other religious text. How people like Kirk Cameron sustain their ridiculous belief systems, and to that kind of fundamentalist level in particular, without ever thinking “are you effing kidding me??” is beyond me. If their influence wasn’t destroying our country, I wouldn’t care. But alas, that is not the case.

  18. Simone rocks

  19. I feel sorry for the late Dudley Moore. He didn’t need to be dragged into this.

  20. As far as I can tell from Hawking’s biography, Cameron’s knowledge equates to Hawking’s scientific knowledge when he was about eight year’s old, and as a child Hawking wasn’t academically outstanding.

    Why don’t we just find an average eight year old interested in science, and see how Cameron manages ?

    • I enjoyed Kirks little snide “Professor Hawking is heralded as the genius of Britian.” he’s british, how smart can he be?

      • “he’s british, how smart can he be?”

        Well, just so you know, a lot of the tech you use every single day is British in origin ;)

        In fact, I guarantee that you used at least one thing invented in Britain to post your comment.

  21. Also, there is a book called A Universe From Nothing, by Lawrence Krauss. It’s a heavy book to read, I’m about halfway through it and I’ve had to reread some chapters a few times, but it’s brilliant. I’m guessing for you, believing in magic is way easier then studying complicated concepts built around math and physics, but it’s there is you want to be more than a slightly more advanced ape.

  22. Why, in your attempt to disqualify the views of atheist, must people like you resort to dishonest claims? As an atheist, I never claim to know that god/gods don’t exist, all I ever claim is there is no evidence for a god/gods. Most atheist have no problem with the statement “I don’t know.”

    • Bayhuntr, then that makes you an agnostic, not an atheist. Atheists are SURE that there is no god.

      • Incorrect. Atheism is a lack of belief in God, not a lack of knowledge (gnosis) about God. Someone who KNOWS there is no God would be a gnostic atheist. Most atheists are in fact agnostic atheists – they don’t believe in God and they don’t know there is or isn’t a God. Most atheists are agnostic because the existence of God isn’t a thing capable of proof or disproof. When an agnostic atheist says there is no God he means there is no reason to believe in a God, same as there is no reason to believe in the Tooth Fairy or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They may exist, we can’t disprove their existence absolutely, but there is no compelling reason to believe that they exist so lack of belief is the rational position. This isn’t absolute proof that there isn’t a God, but we don’t need absolute proof. That’s the point. Agnosticism and atheism aren’t mutually exclusive positions; they are in fact complementary.

      • Annie- you are incorrect about atheists. I personally know many, and none claim to “know” that’s gods don’t exist . Atheism is simply the rejection of the claim that gods exist, based on a lack of evidence. Nothing more.

      • Annie, you’re describing a gnostic atheist, who “knows” that there is no god.

        An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn’t know if gods exists but places no belief in their existence.

        The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Bayhuntr’s description is accurate for atheism. He’s also agnostic.

      • Spoken like someone who isn’t an atheist. Don’t you dare speak for us. And, shocking! Atheists don’t have identical beliefs. As an atheist, I don’t claim to know, only that there is no convincing evidence of a god.

      • Annie, someone has misled you and they’ve done it on purpose. Atheist or not like you they are not like Muslims they are not like the Taliban they do not believe things based on faith. Those that want to deceive you and keep you deceived want you to think we believe there is no God based on faith, that is not the truth. We have nothing in common with you the Taliban or any faith-based religions. Atheists don’t reject gods they reject the people that make up stories about God’s. You believing your God because your parents told you so, just like the Taliban, just like all religious people. Again, atheists are nothing like you we don’t believe you because there’s no evidence that supports what you claim.

  23. Why is he standing in front of a burning KKK Cross?

  24. Why are people so compassionate about something that they don’t believe in? If my belief in santa Claus or the Tooth fairy has a positive impact on my behavior and my spiritual sense of self worth… what’s the problem. If you atheist are so intellectually gifted?… Then why do you overlook the fact that the belief in a higher power is a part of human evolution?

    • Atheists are compassionate toward believers because they don’t seem to understand that reality is tenacious and will not be avoided no matter how nice, old or widespread an ancient guess may be.
      Anyway, I think you meant “passionate about….” and there should be “?” after “what’s the problem”.
      Why do you care what atheists are passionate about?
      Besides, it’s Cameron who is smugly assuming he knows the motivations and “real” beliefs of 2 people he clearly doesn’t understand. He’s talking nonsense and someone should point it out.

      • I have NO problem with people who believe in a god or who have religion. I have a problem with them trying to put it in our federal buildings or our schools, or who claim that those of us without religion are immoral. I have a problem with those, like Cameron, who deny scientific FACT.

    • Learning that such belief is absurdity is another part.

      “If my belief in santa Claus or the Tooth fairy has a positive impact on my behavior and my spiritual sense of self worth… what’s the problem”

      It has a negative impact on society ,advancement and human value if you spread your non-sense by using false “logic” and circular logic.

    • Because we used to get burned and imprisoned by people like you. We’ve had to fight for just a semblance of freedom, or else we would turn into the next Uganda. Pure, unchecked Christianity. Don’t forget, most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, and wisely tried to remove your poison from government.

    • “If my belief in santa Claus or the Tooth fairy has a positive impact on my behavior and my spiritual sense of self worth… what’s the problem?”

      Absolutely no problem at all. That is, until you decide that your belief in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, rtc, was so good for you that it should be forced upon me, or used as the basis for laws that I must live by. THEN we have a problem.

    • “why do you overlook the fact that the belief in a higher power is a part of human evolution?”

      They don’t. That comes under a discipline of science called “cultural anthropology”. If you look into that fascinating area, you’ll find lots of scientists (some of whom are atheists, some of whom are believers) who have devoted lots and lots of study to the history of human religious thought.

  25. His pants were too tight during ‘Growing Pains’, causing brain damage

  26. One of the ways to understand people like this guy is to compare a person who only got as far as long division when studying math and then insisting, due to ignorance, anything more advanced can’t be true. It is the idea that anything not able to be understood with the limitations of out-dated “knowledge” must be false.

  27. Also, Cameron grossly misquoted John Lennon — Lennon said “Imagine there’s no heaven…,” not “Pretend there’s no heaven…”

    • and also when he called us to join him it was not a call to religion just a call to his vision of a peace and a better human experience. this idea that he uses john lennons music to back up his delusions is pathetic.

    • And he really was saying imagine there’s no heaven, he was trying to say imagine if we didn’t fight over heaven.

  28. I hate to say it, but according to modern theories of physics, the initial matter that created the Universe did, in fact, blink into existence from nothingness before cause, effect, and time existed. As a matter of fact, it was that very blinking into existence that create space/time in the first place.

    The fact is that atheists have no trouble accepting that explanation and will in nearly the in the same breath claim that God(s) do not exist because you cannot create something from nothing. It’s a level of utter hypocrisy that strains credulity.

    • “…(that atheists) claim that God(s) do not exist because you cannot create something from nothing.”

      I’m unfamiliar with that claim coming from atheists. Do you have any references to it, or did you just make it up?

    • Wrong, wrong, wrong, McKnight. Saying “atheists have no trouble accepting that explanation” but “claim that God(s) do not exist” is a lie. Most of us atheists, even those of us who understand science better than the average person can’t wrap our heads around “before time began” or how the universe was created because we can’t comprehend the math. But at least physicists have some some logical evidence for their arguments. And, they aren’t asking us to worship their idea of how the universe might have began.

      The truth is religious people are the ones who claim something can’t be created from nothing, and that something must have created the Universe. But, then they turn around and in the same breath claim “God” came from nothing, or that He has always been here and doesn’t need a progenitor! At the very bottom of all this is the fact that scientists can prove the Universe exists, but religious people can’t prove the existence of any “God”.

    • @ McKnight: Um-m-m-m… Hogwash. The universe (assuming the “Big Bang” theory is the correct explanation, and so far it seems to be) “sprang” from a near-infinite amount of energy compressed into a singularity in which the expansive force of the energy reached a point that overwhelmed the force of gravity that contained it and expanded explosively (and, fortunately, unevenly).

    • “I hate to say it, but according to modern theories of physics, the initial matter that created the Universe did, in fact, blink into existence from nothingness before cause, effect, and time existed”

      Um, no. That’s not what modern theories say at all. This is an argument from either incredulity or stupidity, your pick.

    • Richard Davis – I simply refer you to any posts on Huffpo, here, or any other site atheists frequent that talk about religion.

      Chuck and Ebon – http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch01a.htm#BIG BANG THEORY

      “FROM NOTHING TO EVERYTHING—By far the majority of evolutionary scientists say that matter and energy began with a Big Bang.”

      It continues on in that same vein for the entire article.

      You three assume that I am arguing from the standpoint of a religionist. Incorrect. I am arguing from the standpoint of a scientist. The reason Dr. Steven Hawking and others use phrases like “God”, as we see him in the religious sense,”was not necessary” is because in the end, the entire Universe is something from nothingness. Prior to the creation of space/time, matter and energy did not exists. We know from observations of the quantum universe that particles, specifically massless particles, can seemingly blink in and out of existence at will. Because we have observations of this, making the logical leap that the initial matter and energy of the Big Bang was created by the same natural process is not a huge leap.

      The utter ignorance of atheists when it comes to actual scientific explanation never ceases to amaze me. You would more accurately be called anti-religionists. You don’t study and know really nothing except what other “atheists” have said about one religion “Christianity”.

    • Are you really that ignorant of science? I don’t believe that something came from nothing nor do the scientists who study it ever say that. The best guess which has proof is that a singularity created the universe. A singularity is not a nothing, it is a black hole. Now while there are many guesses as to what came before, I have heard no one state with certainty what that something was. One of the guesses is that a black hole can reach a saturated point where it can hold no more and then explodes.
      Now I find that explanation far easier to accept than to imagine some god outside the universe (it would have to be that way, the cook does not make the cake from inside the bowl) made the universe. And that god created one people on a nowhere world in the nowhere part of a nowhere galaxy. And decided to grant them intelligence and mastery over everything. Just one in all of the entire universe it made.
      Now forgetting the super-ego it needs to believe that, we are also made in ‘his’ image. A race of very imperfect people created in the image of a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-everything god. Then we have to accept that a book was written by this god in which if one was to really analyze the mindset of this god, one would have to say that god is at least schizo, if not filled with other mental imbalances.
      In the first half of the book, you have a god who tells his people to kill, steal, rape and to take the land from the people who lived there. A jealous god who tolerates no one else or nothing but complete obedience into this mindset that anything is ok as long as god approves. Then in the second book, tells the people to love one another and inflict no evil towards others. And that second book says that the first book is to still be obeyed.
      So we are to accept that some inconceivably powerful and all-knowing being outside the universe who had no beginning and no end, who came from nothing, created an imperfect people in a out of the way place in a huge universe. All for them alone and then to further that, only one group of people on that planet became the god’s chosen people. And I haven’t even brought up the heaven an hell and living forever.
      And all of that is more plausible than a singularity exploding with all it’s energy into a universe, a universe that we have facts as to how it was created and how it works. A god for which there are no facts at all, no proof at all, compared to a universe where we have proof and facts.
      I would have to say your explanation is far more implausible.

  29. I loved Kirk in Growing Pains, and I did like the film he did with Moore, however he is batshit crazy.

  30. Johns’ statement wasn’t meant as science. He believed that the greatest atrocities since man walked where done in the name of religion. And he is right. We have been killing each other for thousands of years because the special books of each religion tells them to.

  31. “While even a five-year-old has some glimmer of a clue how chemicals come together to create amino acids,”
    Apparently your thinking is somewhat less than that because you fail to understand that chemicals are inert, lifeless substances, lacking either motility or volition. They CANNOT “do” anything on their own. They must be PLACED together (an act of both motility AND volition) by an outside force. Doing so in an organized manner to construct a specific result (in this case life) further requires an INTELLECT acting to a purposeful DESIGN.

    And excellent essay on the issue with citations FROM SCIENTISTS about the utter absurdity of Evolution from Chance is here:

    http://crl.i8.com/Evolution/Dna.html

    The only quibble I have with the essay is a partial wone with Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, who try to have it both ways by supposing that terrestrial life was created by an extraterrestrial source. This only places a remove on the issue. The SAME argument they make that renders RCE on Earth impossible would also apply to the putative ET creators.

    • Simone Sanner

      *patpat* It’s hard to accept things you can’t see as truth, especially without any sort of education on the subject. I understand, and sympathize. Let me help you, at least a little.

      What you fail to understand is that chemicals do indeed randomly combine to form amino acids and other complex structures, as evidenced by just about everything around you. Here’s a link with a little yellow school bus on it, just for you, since you seem to have slept through this grade school level science lesson: http://edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_37_151.html

      And something a little more advanced. Here we learn a lesson from the 1950′s about creating amino acids in a lab – let me know if you need assistance googling definitions for the bigger words: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html

      Finally, here is a list of ‘inert’ elements and a definition. It helps to know what ‘inert’ means before ‘gassing off’ aboout them: An inert element does not tend to react with other elements in order to form molecules. They can react with themselves to form stable compounds. The inert elements are helium, argon, krypton, radon, xenon, ununoctium, and neon. They are all gases at room temperature and are found in the far right hand column of the periodic table.

      This means that every OTHER element is NOT inert. Perhaps, my dear, before opening your yap to call someone else out for a diminished ability to think you will bust open the search engine for five minutes to make sure you’re not talking out of your sphincter.

      Happy New Year!

      • That is what we call a burn. Excellent, Simone.

      • Sure…we have produced amino acids in a lab. That was done half a century ago. But random amino acids are a very long way from a complex living organism like a self-replicating bacteria. They have been trying for decades to jump beyond amino acids with little success. Nobel prize biochemist Francis Crick knows a bit more than astrophysicist Hawking on this subject. He said:

        “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” “Life Itself”; p. 88

        • Seriously? For whole decades? The earth is billions of years old. Making the ASSumption that it is impossible because scientists haven’t been able to replicate it in decades is ridiculous.

          • The gulf between amino acids and self-replicating life is so wide that it best is expressed by Francis Crick above. Rather than focus on Stanley Miller’s 1953 “success”, look at the big picture. Don’t hold your breath about even the simplest life form being formed in a lab. It just won’t happen.

        • Simone Sanner

          You lost me at ‘miracle’. That is the point of science, dear Jack, to de-mystify the world around us by figuring out how things work and how they continue to work. While you scream “THERE IS NO PROOF!”, you, at the same time, turn your back on the mountain of surrounding evidence to support what we believe, because…. derp? Derp is great, and I love derp when puppies, kids, sunsets, and St. Germain’s with my favorite chardonnay is involved, but derp doesn’t explain away all the contrary evidence. Crick deserved his moment of derp. After that many Nobels, one gets to opine regarding science with little rebuttal. That certainly doesn’t make him the final word, or even the current word in the study of the mechanics of the beginning of life.

          When you are travelling a path, and come across a huge chunk missing from that path, there are questions such as “Why is the connecting path missing? What there ever a connecting path? How do I get the path to connect to the other end of the path once more?” One does not merely stand there, screaming, “THIS PATH NEVER CONNECTED AND NEVER WILL SO I SHALL NOT EVEN TRY AND FURTHERMORE I SHALL DENOUNCE EVERYONE WHO TRIES AS LACKING IN INTELLIGENCE AND A NON-BELIEVER….because God.”

          Self-replicating life created in lab: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/

          • To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to bacterium. Yet, we have evidence of ancient life dating back some 3.8 billion years ago. Remains of this age have been found in the Isua series in Southwest Greenland, the “North Pole” region of Australia, and the Pilbara Block in Western Australia. But this was almost directly after planet wide meteor bombardment which would lyse and sterilize everything. How could such a complex living entity with DNA have popped up so quickly?

          • Simone Sanner

            First you say that creating life in a lab will never happen, and then you eschew it when you’re provided with proof that it already has. We think the ice you’re standing on is quite thin. The question at hand is “IS IT POSSIBLE?” The answer, of course, is yes. “IS it probable? Moreso than any other convoluted naysayer’s nitwittery. So, yes, it’s probable. That we do not know HOW it happened is the puzzle we are attempting to solve, one scientific piece at a time.

    • Why do those who wish to deny science always trot out ‘experts’ who are not experts in the fields that they are insisting they know all the facts and the true experts who study the subjects are supposedly clueless? I would consider your ‘evidence’ to at least warrant a very thorough look then. But when dentists and engineers are trotted out to debunk climate change or other things, I find that it isn’t worthwhile. Now Holye and chandra are not dentists, but they are not experts in DNA, evolution, bio-chemistry, etc to have a real grasp of those subjects.
      Yes there are complex organic compounds out is space. And there may be life out there, I wouldn’t be surprised at all. And it is possible for life to have formed out there. Somewhere on another planet. But that doesn’t mean automatically that some god had a hand in it.
      You are very dismissive of science and show very little knowledge of it. Even a five year old knows more than you do apparently.

      • “Now Holye and chandra are not dentists, but they are not experts in DNA, evolution, bio-chemistry, etc to have l grasp of those subjects. ”

        True enough, however, whentever Stephan Hawking, who is in the subject header of this post, has something to say on this subject, it gets your attention. The word for this is cheerypick.

        • It’s actually cherry-pick and I don’t give Hawkings any more of a pass on the subject of evolution than I would anyone else. But on the big bang, he is an expert. And he doesn’t claim something from nothing. That is what the non-educated in science claim, but no scientist does. Otherwise the current best theory of the big bang wouldn’t be a massive singularity which is not a nothing. It would simply be a nothing exploding and causing everything. Which is not what current thinking about the creation of the universe states. Which is why Kirk is just blowing it out of his ass, cause he doesn’t have a clue as to what the science is actually saying. it’s just his ignorance speaking.

          • I’m not here to debate, but actually Stephen Hawking and many other scientists do claim something from “nothing.” To the “non educated in science”, as you say, “nothing” has a different meaning than what most people associate with “nothing”. Much like “theory” has a different meaning in science than in common speak. When Stephen Hawking says “nothing” he is referring to the quantum vacuum.

          • Fred Hoyle is also quite aware of all the theories around the Big Bang. As far as Kirk Cameron is concerned, he should stick to acting. As far as Darwinian evolution and the origins of life, the further we go back in time, the greater the speculation…the big bang being the biggest. But closer in time was the Cambrian Explosion where virtually every phyla we have today suddenly appeared in the fossil record in a geological millisecond. No theory how it may have happened has ever explained it….macro mutation, saltation, genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium….nothing.

          • Pretty much all of holye has been thrown away and disproved. One of the things evolution says is that when there are openings in the niches, life will fill them rapidly. The cambrian was one such period when there were many opportunities for life, openings in the sea and on land. There may not have been as explosive a period, but whenever there has been a major change in climate, life has jumped into the newly opened niches.
            You state that there is no explanation given for the cambrian, but that is not true. What is true is that no theory about it has been proven yet. That doesn’t mean one won’t be. There are mysteries and always will be, that is the wonder of science. For example we have no explanation of why someone like Kirk Cameron who has a head full of hot air can even put a sentence together. It’s obvious that intelligence isn’t there.

          • I see Skip…the old we-don’t-know-yet-but-someday-we-might argument. Look, evolution is all about slow changes over vast periods of time. The pre-Cambrian fauna had zero evidence of even pre-cursors to metazoans, Then suddenly large creatures with cardiovascular systems, skeletal systems, nervous systems, digestive systems, reproductive systems……let’s examine just one….reproduction. A male reproductive system would have to come together almost instantly in tandem with the even more complex female system. If that didn’t happen the result is extinction. Just how did nature pull this off.

          • Your lack of knowledge about the evolution of gender is not evidence that evolution is flawed, it only suggest you lack knowlage. Instead of asking on a comment board, look it up, let me get you started: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/sexual-reproduction-and-the-evolution-of-sex-824

          • Where in your link does it answer any problem that I raised in my post???!

          • Did you try to do the research yourself like I suggested in MY post? Apparently not. I gave you a link to get you started (I actually said that) Sexual reproduction evolved early in life on the earth, I’m guessing you are trying the BS game of “God of the Gaps” thinking if you keep asking about gaps in evolution, you can ignore everything else. Problem is, you will not find the lazy mans answer “It was magic” when studying facts. If you don’t want to do your own research, I’m not your mommy and can’t make you, I can only point in a direction. Here’s a heavier read on the evolution of the X and Y chromosomes, although I’m not convinced you read the last link… http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution-y-chromosome

            How about you explain something: If the giraffe was created by magic, why does the thoracic nerve detour 13 feet from the ear to the brain, all the way down the neck and back up again, it’s only a few inches as the crow flies. Evolution explains this perfectly, in fact it could have been predicted if someone had never seen a giraffe. Also, why is it as you dig deeper through the strata in the ground, do the fossils get less complex? Again, evolution explains this, it even demands it.

            It’s too bad you can’t cast off your indoctrination, evolution is fascinating.

          • You are missing the point. There are no gaps. Got it? How can there be any gaps when there are no precursors to new and unique phyla. Do you even know what a phyla is? Let me help you…it is a body plan, and there are 35 of them in nature. It is little more than taxonomical ignorance since there appears to be no relationship to other phyla. And in the early Cambrian fauna they suddenly appeared…FULLY FORMED…with functioning reproductive systems. The fossil record is glutted with them. In an evolutionary bio class I was in the professor when he touched this period spent almost the entire hour discussing how the exoskeleton may have formed. But nothing about how they could have popped up so quickly with no precursors. Why do you suppose that is? The answer is they avoid this because they have no clue. That is what is called a pregnant sidestep.

          • Jack, Let me see if I got it now. Life went from a primitive form to a highly complex …primitive form, (clearly they weren’t dolphins) in a “relative” short time otherwise 100 million years. Now, that gap between, one body type and the next, is not a gap. No gaps, right? I’m curious, when you say fully formed, what creatures are you talking about? Everything is “fully formed” at it’s point of existence. For example a Diania cactiformis was a fully formed Diania cactiformis when it existed, a little creature that is possibly a precursors to an exoskeleton. (oops!) Now I understand there is a gap between this creature with it’s hard legs and the earlier creatures. But I got it, “there are no gaps”
            You forgot to answer my two questions, Possibly a “gap” in your reading comprehension?

          • “Now, that gap between, one body type and the next, is not a gap. No gaps, right? I’m curious, when you say fully formed, what creatures are you talking about? Everything is “fully formed” at it’s point of existence”

            Let me repeat….they are fully formed metazoans…higher taxa..arthropods….about all the pre-Cambrian fauna had were worms. The “explosion” occurred in a 5 – 6 million year period. Creatures like Anomalocaris with fully formed and complex systems (such as male and female reproductive systems). There are no gaps because there is nothing to connect these creatures to something before them.

            Look, here is how evolution is supposed to work. You take an already existing body part and over 10′s or even 100′s of millions of years morph it into something else. For example, tetrapods morphed into lob fin fish with four fins. These fish liked to troll by the shore. Eventually it crawled on land and the fins eventually turned into legs. This doesn’t happen overnight, and it is only one body part. In the early Cambrian we have entire BODY PLANS suddenly appearing in the fossil record.

            “clearly they weren’t dolphins”

            Now you are showing your lack of knowledge. I am talking about PHYLUM. Dolphins are classified under the phyla Chordata which sprang up during the early Cambrian like everything else. Dolphins didn’t actually appear in the fossil record for about another 300 million years.

            As far as your 2 questions, I would need to study the anatomy of the a modern day mammal like the giraffe to give an intelligent response. I am not a zoologist…are you? And yes, we do see through different strata movement from the simple to the complex. This is precisely why the Cambrian fauna is a head scratcher since it does not follow the evolution narrative. At any rate, there is a certain elasticity in metazoans. No one is denying that. Call it micro evolution. But to assume genetic barriers can be broken and a Canidae can morph into a Felidae (macro evolution) is specious. There are also countless “living fossils”. For example the Port Jackson shark dates back some 350 million years and is virtually the same today as it was then. Why is it? Everything was in the water then, why do other creatures “evolve” but not the shark in the same habitat?

          • Jack, you’re looking for excuses not facts. You are also being nonspecific and specific strategically, a creationists ploy. Everything you’re stating follows the tactic of God of the gaps, the same excuse “but They’re not really gaps it’s too much changed to be a gap.” With creationists, it’s always too much change to be a gap. A new discovery place something directly in between the gap now we have two gaps, dude that argument as old as dirt. My reference to Dolphins was simply stating that there was nothing that complex, by any stretch of the imagination, back then, you not understanding that, goes to your reading comprehension, not my use.
            As far as the shark you say “in the same waters” what do you mean by that? the cold waters the warm waters, deeper waters shallow waters? Water with this kind of food, water with that kind of food, water with plenty of food, water with very little food, water with bigger predators, water with less predators. Some of his ancestors did change they became something else and if today’s shark hadn’t have been successful, it wouldn’t be here and you wouldn’t even know he had existed. This is exactly why religion does so well, it’s so much easier to explain magic, then to have to think about complex concepts.
            Why would someone have to be a zoologist to know of the thoracic nerve of the giraffe? I’m not an auto mechanic but I know the wiring for the headlights don’t go from the battery in the front, then around the back axel then back to the headlights in the front for no reason. No one would design it that way, but if the car had a evolved and at one time the back axle was in front of the headlights and slowly evolved over time to move to the back that would explain why the wire would go around the “now” rear axle. And for the record you not knowing about the zebra’s thoracic nerve, demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge on evolution and the fact that you never studied evolution in a way to understand it, but only to try to find holes in it,
            Let’s go with your issue, over a 600 million years period, that life evolved more regularly, there was a period of 10 to 100 million years 500 million years ago, that diversity and complexity of life exploded, what is your explanation for that?

          • “Let’s go with your issue, over a 600 million years period, that life evolved more regularly, there was a period of 10 to 100 million years 500 million years ago, that diversity and complexity of life exploded, what is your explanation for that?”

            First, the “explosion” was in a tiny sliver of time of 5 – 6 million years. “Dinosaurs In A Haystack”, S.J. Gould; p. 97. As far as complexity after, micro changes are indeed going on all the time. Look at the diversity in Canine. But Darwinists will assume all sorts of things as long as it fits their narrative. For example for years they believed whales came from a dog-like creature with hoofs, who decided he liked the water (a mesonychid). A generation of potential palentologists were fed this before it was thrown out for a newer theory. At any rate, a very interesting book on the subject is “The Independent Birth of Organism” by Periannan Senapathy. He is a geneticist who worked on the Human Genome Project, and his thesis is based on the limits of the morphology of a genome by outside forces (like mutations).

            “As far as the shark you say “in the same waters” what do you mean by that? the cold waters the warm waters, deeper waters shallow waters? ”

            With the exception of extreme polar regions, you will find sharks in niches all over the world. From the time shark fossils were discovered to today, man supposedly evolved from a fish.

            “No one would design it that way”

            We just don’t have enough data yet. For example for years geneticists thought that introns were just junk DNA. Now they are sure they serve a function. Besides, in any of my posts I have never said one word about god, a deity, or a designer. I am just showing the problems with Darwinism. That is all I would ask in the high school classroom…nothing about god…just a short brief unit highlighting the problems with the theory.

            “And for the record you not knowing about the zebra’s thoracic nerve, demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge on evolution and the fact that you never studied evolution in a way to understand it, but only to try to find holes in it,”

            BULL…..evolution cuts across many sciences. Molecular biology, dendrochronology, paleontology, geology, anthropology, oceanography, zoology, cosmology etc etc etc. Each field is highly specialized and takes years of study. No one can possibly be versed in all of them.

          • The biological record doesn’t support your ‘they just sprang up from nothing’. There are millions and millions of years of fossil record, that is not just suddenly appearing. And there were organisms pre-cambrian. But you are not going to look at the evidence. far better to say some ‘god waved a hand and they magically appeared out of nowhere. Sorry, there is no proof of a god nor hand waving or any magical means of appearance. there is proof though that they evolved. I prefer facts to magical waving.

          • Well Jack we don’t throw our hands up and say some god did it in some mysterious way that can’t be proven. And evolution doesn’t always work in a slow manner. Life can change rapidly when it has to adapt to changes or die. And life is remarkably able to change. We know far more in science than we did 100 yrs ago, questions about whether space was an ether answered and many others.
            So what we don’t know today is quite likely to be known in time. And your views of the cambrian explosion are antiquated.

            http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3733/skeletons-in-the-pre-cambrian-closet

            https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

            http://biologos.org/questions/cambrian-explosion

            We are learning more and more about that era. Will all the questions ever be answered? No for each question brings more questions to ask. But unlike religion, we search for answers instead of just saying some god did it all and not looking any further. It looks like you just stopped.

          • It is the height of either laziness or ignorance to just post a link and say “Here, read it.” Pick something from a link and say, “here, this proves my point”. Then we can debate it. I did read the first link and it provided no answers. Why? Because there are no explanations. Probably the best attempt is Stephen J. Gould’s punctuated equilibrium, but this doesn’t even explain the morphing of a body part in the time available, let alone an entire new body plan.

  32. Cameron is an actor that never grew beyond his teens…. & a moronic Christian with the brain of a stupid rock…

    • Aren’t you being a little harsh to the rock? It, at least, does no damage unless acted on by outside force, (i.e. being thrown by an idiot,) Kirk Cameron, on the other hand, promulgates his superstitions in the form of fundamentalist religious bullshit. Rocks can be quite useful in building, used as defensive weapons, and keeping things from blowing away in a windstorm. Cameron’s usefulness ended when his mediocre sitcom was cancelled. The only people I know of who give a rat’s ass about Cameron are the other right-wing religious nuts like the ones on “19 Kids and Counting”.

What do you think? PLEASE NOTE: AATTP has a no tolerance policy for comments containing racism, personal attacks, vulgarity, profanity or threats.

Scroll To Top
website security Website Security Test