God vs. Science (902)
StressFree: Actually you need to brush up on the facts out there about how sound travels in space. Nebula's offer a medium for sound waves to travel. Not sound coming from humans you dummies.lol
Oh You believing blindly in the big bang theory is like some religious zealots believing blindly in God(powerful man) as the creator.
Oh You believing blindly in the big bang theory is like some religious zealots believing blindly in God(powerful man) as the creator.
Yep sound can use gases, liquids, solids as a medium. I never suggested anything about humans being there, that's your tangeant my friend.
big bang zealot
No, I'm not a zealot, I am just more prone to following proven scientific data, criteria and guidelines than blindly accepting the faery dust creator fable and trying to impose it on others. There is a difference between imparting known facts and unsubstantiated claims. 
------ This thread is Archived ------
My point above about scientific methodology versus supernatural reasoning illustrates, I think, what the true nature of the dispute here is about.
Mike has written at some length about the supposed uncertainties or problems with certain modern scientific claims as though those uncertainties and problems have some relevance to believing in God. They don't. All the carping about the fallibility of science in fact does not advance one a single millimeter closer to a justified belief in God. It's like saying that because sometimes one can get wrong measurements with a measuring tape that one ought to abandon using measuring tapes in favor of prayers or consulting oracles.
To say that a divine being created the universe does not relieve us in anyway whatsoever from employing certain techniques for understanding how this universe works and how it - technically - came into being. To say that a god caused matter and energy to coalesce in certain ways according to certain rules, for example, adds nothing to our understanding of the principles and actions of said energy/matter.
A creationist class would logically begin and end with the teacher's pronouncement: "God created the universe. Class dismissed." After the class was dismissed then we'd have to roll up our sleeves and carry on with scientific methodology in order to actually learn anything of substance about the universe.
Mike has written at some length about the supposed uncertainties or problems with certain modern scientific claims as though those uncertainties and problems have some relevance to believing in God. They don't. All the carping about the fallibility of science in fact does not advance one a single millimeter closer to a justified belief in God. It's like saying that because sometimes one can get wrong measurements with a measuring tape that one ought to abandon using measuring tapes in favor of prayers or consulting oracles.
To say that a divine being created the universe does not relieve us in anyway whatsoever from employing certain techniques for understanding how this universe works and how it - technically - came into being. To say that a god caused matter and energy to coalesce in certain ways according to certain rules, for example, adds nothing to our understanding of the principles and actions of said energy/matter.
A creationist class would logically begin and end with the teacher's pronouncement: "God created the universe. Class dismissed." After the class was dismissed then we'd have to roll up our sleeves and carry on with scientific methodology in order to actually learn anything of substance about the universe.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Ambrose2007: Sound can't travel in a vacuum, of course - nothing to resonantly vibrate there - but it can in nebulae gas clouds, as you correctly claim, SF.
while very minimum there are indeed amounts of mass in the vacuum of space. There is enough to fascillitate energy travelling from one spot to another; but enough to fascillitate sound? I will take your word for it. I admit, it seems implauseable to me but I have no data to affirm or disaffirm.In response to:
Concerning the Big Bang...it is a scientific attempt to explain one part of this universe's origin - that is what technically occurred, not *why* it occurred or other teleological questions.
I don't know if B is "zealous" about this theory or not, but a certain belief in it isn't necessary. The point at issue is scientific methodology versus supernatural reasoning. When Aristotle, for example, hypothesized spontaneous generation, he was indulging in scientific not supernatural conjecture, regardless of how wrong or ill-informed that conjecture was. If on the other hand he'd speculated that tiny magical elves created life, then he'd be engaged in supernatural non-scientific reasoning/methodology.
That's really what is or ought to be at the heart of his debate - the process through which we reasonably adduce truth - not whether science offers absolutely certain explanations. Religious explanations are really not explanations at all - they're simply statements of belief.
Concerning the Big Bang...it is a scientific attempt to explain one part of this universe's origin - that is what technically occurred, not *why* it occurred or other teleological questions.
I don't know if B is "zealous" about this theory or not, but a certain belief in it isn't necessary. The point at issue is scientific methodology versus supernatural reasoning. When Aristotle, for example, hypothesized spontaneous generation, he was indulging in scientific not supernatural conjecture, regardless of how wrong or ill-informed that conjecture was. If on the other hand he'd speculated that tiny magical elves created life, then he'd be engaged in supernatural non-scientific reasoning/methodology.
That's really what is or ought to be at the heart of his debate - the process through which we reasonably adduce truth - not whether science offers absolutely certain explanations. Religious explanations are really not explanations at all - they're simply statements of belief.
In response to:
I sort of disagree with B's categorizing you as "right-brained," Tony. I think that's giving you rather short-shrift, since while you clearly have an imagination - and in my opinion occasionally let that get the better of you in some of your New Ageish speculations - you also have a very logical mind in the purely "linear" sense. Also, I don't think taking that brain division very seriously is a good idea. People are far too complex, and you're a prime example of that, in my view.
I sort of disagree with B's categorizing you as "right-brained," Tony. I think that's giving you rather short-shrift, since while you clearly have an imagination - and in my opinion occasionally let that get the better of you in some of your New Ageish speculations - you also have a very logical mind in the purely "linear" sense. Also, I don't think taking that brain division very seriously is a good idea. People are far too complex, and you're a prime example of that, in my view.
His communication is primarily right brained. How's that? It is not meant to demean the individual, nor diminish the other side of their faculties; he just leans to the right in communication most often. Not a bad thing or good thing, just a thing. While I take notice of such things, I would hope others aren't seeing it as demeaning, brain duality is an interesting subject, and we all have particular leanings and tendencies in that regard, complexities not withstanding. 
------ This thread is Archived ------
some of you may find this amusing - some not........
The Scientific Method of investigation
Vs
The Creationist Method of investigation
The Scientific Method of investigation
1. Initial Observation of Phenomena
From an initial observation of a phenomena, A shortcoming in knowledge is identified.
2. Data acquisition
Measurement, Observation, Evidence,
Collect any data that has any bearing on the phenomena under investigation.
3. Formulate Hypothesis
Formulate multiple hypotheses that explain the observed phenomena.
4. Test Hypothesis
Each hypothesis must be tested against the evidence. Various experiments can be devised to try to disprove and prove each hypothesis.
5. Reject, Modify or retain Hypothesis
Any hypothesis that:
fails to explain the phenomena
is contradicted by the evidence
fails experimental scrutiny
is rejected.
Contradictory evidence should also be scrutinised to ensure there is a valid contradiction and not just an explainable exception. Supporting evidence should also be scrutinised to ensure the supporting evidence is not just an exception. Experiments are scrutinised for the validity of their results.
A hypothesis may be refined or modified at any time so that it is consistent with the observed phenomena and the observed evidence. A hypothesis that explains the Phenomena and is consistent with the evidence may now be presented as a theory. More than one hypothesis may fulfil both these criteria therefore there can be more than one theory for any one phenomena.
6. Theory
The Hypothesis that best fits the observed evidence is presented as the explanation of a phenomena . This is known as a Theory.
7. Ongoing Testing of theory
The Theory is published and all interested parties are invited to test the Theory to destruction.
The theory is used to make predictions. These predictions are tested by experiments or further observations. This is an ongoing process.
8. Reject, Modify or Retain Theory.
During testing and investigation, new evidence may come to light that indicates the theory may be incorrect or subject to constraints. The Theory can be either rejected or corrected to make it consistent with all the evidence. Go back to step 7
Creationist Method of investigation
1. Start with a Conclusion
2. Propose Theory.
Only theories that support the conclusion should be considered. Little or no attempt should be made to test or disprove the proposed theory.
3. Collect Supporting Evidence
One single example of supporting evidence is sufficient, even if there are thousands of examples of evidence that do not support or contradict the theory. Only "supporting" evidence is considered.
4. Reject Modify or Retain Evidence.
If the evidence is undeniably proved to be faulty, then reject it and find some evidence that does support the Theory. The Theory is not normally rejected at this point because only one example of supporting evidence is required to justify the theory. Contradictory evidence is ignored.
If forced to abandon a theory then claim that you didn't believe it all along and that false Christians proposed it. Propose another Theory that supports your conclusion. Go to step 2
Golden Rule:- Conclusion is always the same regardless of evidence or the theory.
Corollary:- For Fundamentalist Christians. No evidence at all is required to support a conclusion.
The Scientific method is designed to discover the truth and eliminate falsehoods, lies, ignorance and misunderstanding.
The Creationist method is self delusional. It can never uncover a falsehood or prove a truth. It only reinforces existing perceptions of the truth.
The Fundamentalist Method is simply Blind Faith and has no bearing on truth whatsoever.
The Scientific Method of investigation
Vs
The Creationist Method of investigation
The Scientific Method of investigation
1. Initial Observation of Phenomena
From an initial observation of a phenomena, A shortcoming in knowledge is identified.
2. Data acquisition
Measurement, Observation, Evidence,
Collect any data that has any bearing on the phenomena under investigation.
3. Formulate Hypothesis
Formulate multiple hypotheses that explain the observed phenomena.
4. Test Hypothesis
Each hypothesis must be tested against the evidence. Various experiments can be devised to try to disprove and prove each hypothesis.
5. Reject, Modify or retain Hypothesis
Any hypothesis that:
fails to explain the phenomena
is contradicted by the evidence
fails experimental scrutiny
is rejected.
Contradictory evidence should also be scrutinised to ensure there is a valid contradiction and not just an explainable exception. Supporting evidence should also be scrutinised to ensure the supporting evidence is not just an exception. Experiments are scrutinised for the validity of their results.
A hypothesis may be refined or modified at any time so that it is consistent with the observed phenomena and the observed evidence. A hypothesis that explains the Phenomena and is consistent with the evidence may now be presented as a theory. More than one hypothesis may fulfil both these criteria therefore there can be more than one theory for any one phenomena.
6. Theory
The Hypothesis that best fits the observed evidence is presented as the explanation of a phenomena . This is known as a Theory.
7. Ongoing Testing of theory
The Theory is published and all interested parties are invited to test the Theory to destruction.
The theory is used to make predictions. These predictions are tested by experiments or further observations. This is an ongoing process.
8. Reject, Modify or Retain Theory.
During testing and investigation, new evidence may come to light that indicates the theory may be incorrect or subject to constraints. The Theory can be either rejected or corrected to make it consistent with all the evidence. Go back to step 7
Creationist Method of investigation
1. Start with a Conclusion
2. Propose Theory.
Only theories that support the conclusion should be considered. Little or no attempt should be made to test or disprove the proposed theory.
3. Collect Supporting Evidence
One single example of supporting evidence is sufficient, even if there are thousands of examples of evidence that do not support or contradict the theory. Only "supporting" evidence is considered.
4. Reject Modify or Retain Evidence.
If the evidence is undeniably proved to be faulty, then reject it and find some evidence that does support the Theory. The Theory is not normally rejected at this point because only one example of supporting evidence is required to justify the theory. Contradictory evidence is ignored.
If forced to abandon a theory then claim that you didn't believe it all along and that false Christians proposed it. Propose another Theory that supports your conclusion. Go to step 2
Golden Rule:- Conclusion is always the same regardless of evidence or the theory.
Corollary:- For Fundamentalist Christians. No evidence at all is required to support a conclusion.
The Scientific method is designed to discover the truth and eliminate falsehoods, lies, ignorance and misunderstanding.
The Creationist method is self delusional. It can never uncover a falsehood or prove a truth. It only reinforces existing perceptions of the truth.
The Fundamentalist Method is simply Blind Faith and has no bearing on truth whatsoever.
------ This thread is Archived ------
trish123: some of you may find this amusing - some not........
The Scientific method is designed to discover the truth and eliminate falsehoods, lies, ignorance and misunderstanding.
The Creationist method is self delusional. It can never uncover a falsehood or prove a truth. It only reinforces existing perceptions of the truth.
The Fundamentalist Method is simply Blind Faith and has no bearing on truth whatsoever.
The Scientific method is designed to discover the truth and eliminate falsehoods, lies, ignorance and misunderstanding.
The Creationist method is self delusional. It can never uncover a falsehood or prove a truth. It only reinforces existing perceptions of the truth.
The Fundamentalist Method is simply Blind Faith and has no bearing on truth whatsoever.
------ This thread is Archived ------
That is one of the best things I've read in a long time. So glad you poasted it. Keep up the good work. 
Bev
Bev------ This thread is Archived ------
trish123: some of you may find this amusing - some not........
The Scientific Method of investigation
Vs
The Creationist Method of investigation
The Scientific method is designed to discover the truth and eliminate falsehoods, lies, ignorance and misunderstanding.
The Creationist method is self delusional. It can never uncover a falsehood or prove a truth. It only reinforces existing perceptions of the truth.
The Fundamentalist Method is simply Blind Faith and has no bearing on truth whatsoever.
The Scientific Method of investigation
Vs
The Creationist Method of investigation
The Scientific method is designed to discover the truth and eliminate falsehoods, lies, ignorance and misunderstanding.
The Creationist method is self delusional. It can never uncover a falsehood or prove a truth. It only reinforces existing perceptions of the truth.
The Fundamentalist Method is simply Blind Faith and has no bearing on truth whatsoever.
Scientific Method=Ana Account being constantly examined and Updated!
Faith/Creationism=Account Closed.
------ This thread is Archived ------
crotalus_p: It’s something like a billion to one , now there are about a billion billion planets in the universe (that is a very conservative estimate) which means that there may be a billion other planets capable of sustaining life ,By your logic Mike because the chances of winning the lottery are so small no one ever wins it , however we know people do win it ,Just think of earth as having won the lottery
No Cro, only in the pure imagination of a few select men calling themselves scientist is the chance a billion to one. Try 1X10^64 (that is a 1 followed by 64 zeros) to one. I am sorry, but there are a ton of galaxies, and solar systems, and planets, but there are not anywhere close to that number.
------ This thread is Archived ------
trish123:
Creationist Method of investigation
1. Start with a Conclusion
2. Propose Theory.
Only theories that support the conclusion should be considered. Little or no attempt should be made to test or disprove the proposed theory.
3. Collect Supporting Evidence
One single example of supporting evidence is sufficient, even if there are thousands of examples of evidence that do not support or contradict the theory. Only "supporting" evidence is considered.
4. Reject Modify or Retain Evidence.
If the evidence is undeniably proved to be faulty, then reject it and find some evidence that does support the Theory. The Theory is not normally rejected at this point because only one example of supporting evidence is required to justify the theory. Contradictory evidence is ignored.
If forced to abandon a theory then claim that you didn't believe it all along and that false Christians proposed it. Propose another Theory that supports your conclusion. Go to step 2
Golden Rule:- Conclusion is always the same regardless of evidence or the theory.
Corollary:- For Fundamentalist Christians. No evidence at all is required to support a conclusion.
The Scientific method is designed to discover the truth and eliminate falsehoods, lies, ignorance and misunderstanding.
The Creationist method is self delusional. It can never uncover a falsehood or prove a truth. It only reinforces existing perceptions of the truth.
The Fundamentalist Method is simply Blind Faith and has no bearing on truth whatsoever.
Creationist Method of investigation
1. Start with a Conclusion
2. Propose Theory.
Only theories that support the conclusion should be considered. Little or no attempt should be made to test or disprove the proposed theory.
3. Collect Supporting Evidence
One single example of supporting evidence is sufficient, even if there are thousands of examples of evidence that do not support or contradict the theory. Only "supporting" evidence is considered.
4. Reject Modify or Retain Evidence.
If the evidence is undeniably proved to be faulty, then reject it and find some evidence that does support the Theory. The Theory is not normally rejected at this point because only one example of supporting evidence is required to justify the theory. Contradictory evidence is ignored.
If forced to abandon a theory then claim that you didn't believe it all along and that false Christians proposed it. Propose another Theory that supports your conclusion. Go to step 2
Golden Rule:- Conclusion is always the same regardless of evidence or the theory.
Corollary:- For Fundamentalist Christians. No evidence at all is required to support a conclusion.
The Scientific method is designed to discover the truth and eliminate falsehoods, lies, ignorance and misunderstanding.
The Creationist method is self delusional. It can never uncover a falsehood or prove a truth. It only reinforces existing perceptions of the truth.
The Fundamentalist Method is simply Blind Faith and has no bearing on truth whatsoever.
Trish, I am sorry...
but you made me laugh.
You more described the way the thoery of evolution was derived than than what creationists have done. Thank you.
------ This thread is Archived ------
MikeHD: Trish, I am sorry...
but you made me laugh.
You more described the way the thoery of evolution was derived than than what creationists have done. Thank you.
but you made me laugh.
You more described the way the thoery of evolution was derived than than what creationists have done. Thank you.
Poor poor mike
------ This thread is Archived ------
MikeHD: No Cro, only in the pure imagination of a few select men calling themselves scientist is the chance a billion to one. Try 1X10^64 (that is a 1 followed by 64 zeros) to one. I am sorry, but there are a ton of galaxies, and solar systems, and planets, but there are not anywhere close to that number.
How many are there then Mike? What's your count?
------ This thread is Archived ------
MikeHD: Trish, I am sorry...
but you made me laugh.
You more described the way the thoery of evolution was derived than than what creationists have done. Thank you.
but you made me laugh.
You more described the way the thoery of evolution was derived than than what creationists have done. Thank you.
The theory of evolution hasn't got fossils & bones to back it up, but God does?? Wow. Guess I was misled...
At least the Scientific Method allows you to look at things critically and examine all options, instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Nananananacan'thearyou."
Belief is nice, but its based on hope, not fact.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Please show me a single fact of Love? I rather believe this topic has more clarity as it is part of a dating forum, yet it has profound depth that will ascertain the veracity and worth of other "inconclusive" realms of thought as well by removing the structured barriers that disbelief tend to mold over all thought for compliance and conformity.
No matter how long you spend with someone, no matter if you have never been apart for a single instance you will never know what lies in their heart to the degree of certainty that science demands to push it past the theory state to a fact. In doing so we greatly devalue reason, and lessen the things that truth and altruism require of us to best fulfill our lives.
If I were to allow such a pigeon-holed perspective to dominate my mind I would have to settle on Love being merely something which I alone can give as I can not prove one way or another if any other person is capable in even the slightest degree.
No matter how long you spend with someone, no matter if you have never been apart for a single instance you will never know what lies in their heart to the degree of certainty that science demands to push it past the theory state to a fact. In doing so we greatly devalue reason, and lessen the things that truth and altruism require of us to best fulfill our lives.
If I were to allow such a pigeon-holed perspective to dominate my mind I would have to settle on Love being merely something which I alone can give as I can not prove one way or another if any other person is capable in even the slightest degree.
------ This thread is Archived ------
crotalus_p: Poor poor mike
Yes, very poor.
Had to go back to school because I just got too poor.
But I do find it interesting that the so-called thoery of evolution always bypasses step number 4.
Many people think of an experiment as something that takes place in a lab. While this can be true, experiments don't have to involve laboratory workbenches, Bunsen burners or test tubes. They do, however, have to be set up to test a specific hypothesis and they must be controlled. Controlling an experiment means controlling all of the variables so that only a single variable is studied. The independent variable is the one that's controlled and manipulated by the experimenter, whereas the dependent variable is not. As the independent variable is manipulated, the dependent variable is measured for variation. Controlling an experiment also means setting it up so it has a control group and an experimental group. The control group allows the experimenter to compare his test results against a baseline measurement so he can feel confident that those results are not due to chance. If this scientist is doing his job right, he's observing a control group and an experimental group.
I'm sorry, but I missed the part where scientist duplicated MACRO-evolution. Where they were able to observe evolution in a control environment so that comprehensive data could be collected.
I missed that part.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Fallingman: How many are there then Mike? What's your count?
I would say there are difinately more than 5.
And I will bet you a billion I am right.
------ This thread is Archived ------
JOSS
I had... an experience. Of
belonging. Of unconditional love.
And for the first time in my life I
wasn't terrified, and I wasn't
alone.
ELLIE
(delicately)
And there's no chance you had this
experience simply because some part
of you needed to have it?
JOSS
Look, I'm a reasonable person, and
reasonably intelligent. But this
experience went beyond both. For
the first time I had to consider the
possibility that intellect, as
wonderful as it is, is not the only
way of comprehending the universe.
That it was too small and inadequate
a tool to deal with what it was
faced with.
ELLIE
(a beat, then
softly)
You may not believe this... but
there's a part of me that wants more
than anything to believe in your
God. To believe that we're all here
for a purpose, that all this...
means something. But it's because
that part of me wants it so badly
that I'm so stubborn about making
sure it isn't just self-delusion.
Of course I want to know God if
there is one... but it has to be
real. Unless I have proof how can I
be sure?
JOSS
Do you love your parents?
ELLIE
(startled)
I never knew my mother. My father
died when I was nine.
JOSS
Did you love him?
ELLIE
(softly)
Yes. Very much.
JOSS
Prove it.
One of my favorite scenes from Contact (a movie I loved!).
Just because you can't prove it, does not mean it is not real!
I had... an experience. Of
belonging. Of unconditional love.
And for the first time in my life I
wasn't terrified, and I wasn't
alone.
ELLIE
(delicately)
And there's no chance you had this
experience simply because some part
of you needed to have it?
JOSS
Look, I'm a reasonable person, and
reasonably intelligent. But this
experience went beyond both. For
the first time I had to consider the
possibility that intellect, as
wonderful as it is, is not the only
way of comprehending the universe.
That it was too small and inadequate
a tool to deal with what it was
faced with.
ELLIE
(a beat, then
softly)
You may not believe this... but
there's a part of me that wants more
than anything to believe in your
God. To believe that we're all here
for a purpose, that all this...
means something. But it's because
that part of me wants it so badly
that I'm so stubborn about making
sure it isn't just self-delusion.
Of course I want to know God if
there is one... but it has to be
real. Unless I have proof how can I
be sure?
JOSS
Do you love your parents?
ELLIE
(startled)
I never knew my mother. My father
died when I was nine.
JOSS
Did you love him?
ELLIE
(softly)
Yes. Very much.
JOSS
Prove it.
One of my favorite scenes from Contact (a movie I loved!).
Just because you can't prove it, does not mean it is not real!
------ This thread is Archived ------
MikeHD: They do, however, have to be set up to test a specific hypothesis and they must be controlled. Controlling an experiment means controlling all of the variables so that only a single variable is studied. The independent variable is the one that's controlled and manipulated by the experimenter, whereas the dependent variable is not. As the independent variable is manipulated, the dependent variable is measured for variation. Controlling an experiment also means setting it up so it has a control group and an experimental group. The control group allows the experimenter to compare his test results against a baseline measurement so he can feel confident that those results are not due to chance. If this scientist is doing his job right, he's observing a control group and an experimental group.
True.
Science invented this method.
Therefore, evolution theory should not be dismissed. It's hypothesis has more evidence than the contrary, so why would one ignore it?
But all of us on this thread have a bias one way or another, so we're all going to find answers to back up our own arguments.
Only I am right!!
Oh dear...only making things worse now...
------ This thread is Archived ------
Flourish: True.
Science invented this method.
Therefore, evolution theory should not be dismissed. It's hypothesis has more evidence than the contrary, so why would one ignore it?
But all of us on this thread have a bias one way or another, so we're all going to find answers to back up our own arguments.
Only I am right!!
Oh dear...only making things worse now...
Science invented this method.
Therefore, evolution theory should not be dismissed. It's hypothesis has more evidence than the contrary, so why would one ignore it?
But all of us on this thread have a bias one way or another, so we're all going to find answers to back up our own arguments.
Only I am right!!
Oh dear...only making things worse now...
Nawww... Not worse, just fun.
I know we sometimes get our feathers ruffled in here, but most of the time we are having a good time.
It's kind like a sport.
The non-believers vs. the believers.
I think the believers have lost a few more games of late, but the season is not over.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
other can see but not you
Icebergs Still Around
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
rarotonga
The Best of the GOP
1830's Music
Feel Good Music
your personality
How far is too far?
Nature
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Oh You believing blindly in the big bang theory is like some religious zealots believing blindly in God(powerful man) as the creator.
Sound can't travel in a vacuum, of course - nothing to resonantly vibrate there - but it can in nebulae gas clouds, as you correctly claim, SF.
Concerning the Big Bang...it is a scientific attempt to explain one part of this universe's origin - that is what technically occurred, not *why* it occurred or other teleological questions.
I don't know if B is "zealous" about this theory or not, but a certain belief in it isn't necessary. The point at issue is scientific methodology versus supernatural reasoning. When Aristotle, for example, hypothesized spontaneous generation, he was indulging in scientific not supernatural conjecture, regardless of how wrong or ill-informed that conjecture was. If on the other hand he'd speculated that tiny magical elves created life, then he'd be engaged in supernatural non-scientific reasoning/methodology.
That's really what is or ought to be at the heart of his debate - the process through which we reasonably adduce truth - not whether science offers absolutely certain explanations. Religious explanations are really not explanations at all - they're simply statements of belief.
I sort of disagree with B's categorizing you as "right-brained," Tony. I think that's giving you rather short-shrift, since while you clearly have an imagination - and in my opinion occasionally let that get the better of you in some of your New Ageish speculations - you also have a very logical mind in the purely "linear" sense. Also, I don't think taking that brain division very seriously is a good idea. People are far too complex, and you're a prime example of that, in my view.