Atheists who love Science!


Atheists who love Science!

A group for science enthusiasts of all types -- professionals, amateurs, students, anybody who loves science.

Members: 1582
Latest Activity: Jul 14

Whether you're a professional, a student, an amateur, an enthusiast, whatever! Lots of atheists love science. Might as well have a group for it!

Feel free to nerd out, link articles, talk about your favorite field of research, whatever!

The icon is from

I've been super busy with school this semester -- no time for Atheist Nexus, sadly!!
If anyone who's around here a lot wants me to toss them moderation privileges to run this group or anything, just send me (Sara) a message! Thanks!

Removed ability to send mass messages to everyone in the group. At 1000+ members, that seems like asking for spam.

Offer still open if anyone active in the group wants moderation privileges, but it appears everything has been going smoothly with all kinds of great discussions without moderation. Fantastic! :)

Discussion Forum

Science Journals suffer large scale peer review fraud

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Clarence Dember Apr 17. 1 Reply

Common sense talk about climate change

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Michael Penn Apr 15. 2 Replies

Time goes both ways in the quantum world

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by tom sarbeck Apr 14. 1 Reply

Ebola Vaccine Very Promising

Started by Patricia. Last reply by Patricia Apr 10. 6 Replies

Wound Healing

Started by Patricia. Last reply by Joan Denoo Mar 14. 2 Replies

The Web is not the Net.

Started by Visvakarman Svetasvatara-Upanish. Last reply by Michael Penn Mar 14. 1 Reply

Science, information, and politics in the Anthropocene

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Mar 12. 3 Replies

Marburg and Ebola Viruses

Started by Patricia. Last reply by Patricia Mar 4. 2 Replies

Dog-human alliance edged out Neanderthals

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Michael Penn Mar 4. 1 Reply

Climate Change Deniers.

Started by Visvakarman Svetasvatara-Upanish. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Mar 4. 8 Replies

FDA hides fraud

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Feb 14. 4 Replies

Vulnerable to science denial

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Feb 8. 1 Reply

Brain and Spinal Cord

Started by Patricia. Last reply by Joan Denoo Jan 18. 3 Replies

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Atheists who love Science! to add comments!

Comment by Gregory Phillip Dearth on March 13, 2014 at 1:42pm

And Tom, please stop trolling when it is obvious you lack even a fundamental understanding of physics. The Doppler effect describes the stretching and compression of waves of energy both in a medium (such as sound) and without any medium (such as light or any electromagnetic wave). If the Doppler effect only applied to sound RADAR would not work. It is not ficticious as you stated. It is an description and explanation for a phenomenon. A wave of energy can be stretched or squashed. We know this to be true. We call this the Doppler effect. Your arguments are as laughable as people who say scientists have "faith" in gravity. Theories are descriptions and explanations. They can be modified and thrown out if we find better descriptions and explanations. But to be promoted to the status of theory, the top rung on a scientific investigation, they must pass peer review, make predictions, match observations and be consistent in repeated experiments. I confirmed the Doppler effect in high school Astronomy 101 and Advanced Chemistry. I have directly observed black absorption lines shifted towards the red or blue end depending on the relative motion of a body and have tested specific elements in flames using a spectometer to see where the lines should be for a stationary object. If you have an alternate explanation, it had better explain these observations and experiments without invoking an aether or some other disproved and abandoned concept from antiquity. That is how you debunk the paradigm. You cannot just make troll statements like 'the Doppler effect for light is ficticional.' You ALSO have to give a superior explanation for the same observed phenomenon.

Comment by Gregory Phillip Dearth on March 13, 2014 at 1:04pm

TNT666, I agree completely. This seemed like pro-atheism preachimg and had little to do with the Cosmos. It felt out of place for there to be a long cartoon about the inquisition in the middle of a show about the universe. That said, challenging the paradigm has always been a massive problem for humanity andd religion has been the single most debilitating aspect in history. I even checked out this Plasma Cosmological model, as brought up by another poster to see if it had any potential. It competes with the Big Bang, which is very ambitious, but it is also being researched by notable scientists. This type of challenge would have been impossible even a few hundred years ago. Of course, the PCM explains less and is more complicated than the Big Bang. And it predicts Birkeland currents that simply do not exist. It might offer some real science that can be incorporated into the Big Bang cosmology (as the PCM does not seem to require a non-expanding cosmos), and may even provide the key to get rid of the dark energy problem or at least help narrow the possibilities. The point is that the religion crap in the middle might have seemed out of place, but it explains how far science has been allowed to grow. We can now have huge teams of researchers working dilligently to potentially debunk a theory that seems so factual and accurate without those same renegades feeling they might end up burned at the stake. I personally think the Plasma Cosmological model needs to explain a LOT more than it does for it to really be taken seriously, but unlike the religious nuts that used to drive the course of science, I donot see such a model as a "threat" but rather welcome new ideas. That said, completely rejecting the Big Bang BEFORE a theory of comparable weight exists is simply unscientific. Anybody working on an alternative needs to study the Big Bang, learn just how much explanatory power it possesses, and build a theory that at least comes close (and preferably exceeds this threshold for it to be any type of progress). 

Comment by TNT666 on March 13, 2014 at 11:11am

I must admit I found it one of the most boring and unrevealing hours on TV in recent memory. But if it can help struggling youth take more interest in the scientific method, that can be a good result. He really could have skipped the whole birth of Christ and other religious confabulations out of the show. I really wish we were spending all the deep space exploration money on deep ocean exploration. It is way more meaningful to life on Earth and is not so mired in metaphysics.

Comment by Sean Murphy on March 12, 2014 at 3:32pm

I saw the first episode of the "new" Cosmos, and for some reason I thought it would be an updated version, a sequel perhaps. But there were sections I recognized as word-for-word, and the reference to the Moon coalescing out of leftover bits of the pieces that formed the Earth reminded me that the current accepted theory of the formation of the Moon had not yet been formulated when Carl Sagan did the original. Still, some beautiful graphics. It was a nice bit of nostalgia from my childhood.

Comment by Gregory Phillip Dearth on March 12, 2014 at 8:29am

Scientists are "forced to accept" theories like the Big Bang when the data and evidence match the explanation so well. Scientists do not "believe in" theories like the Big Bang or evolution. The direct observations and evidence match the explanatory framework so well that they accept the explanatory framework.

Comment by Gregory Phillip Dearth on March 12, 2014 at 8:25am

You do know the universe is expanding? This is a direct observation. The Big Bang theory is not only factual, but has made predictions that have also been verified by observation. It successfully describes the expansion to a fine degree of accuracy. It says nothing about how long any singularity existed before expanding or how it started. Thus it is not creation-like at all. But saying you dont believe thw Big Bang is like saying you dont believe in gravity. Theories are not dogmas to be "believed in". They are the best descriptions of processes. And in the case of the Big Bang, are confirmable explanations.

Comment by Joan Denoo on March 11, 2014 at 11:30pm

Loren and Randall, thank you so much for calling attention to the 6 Minutes story of ALMA: Peering into the universe's past. It reveals so many beautiful images, and the stories behind them far outshine the mythology that has grown in cultures all over the planet. Imagine ancient Chlian's stories, compared to ancient Australian stories. I will have to look and see if I can find such stories and see how different cultures interpreted what they saw. 

This video is a real keeper! 

Comment by Loren Miller on March 10, 2014 at 7:50am

For those who missed the piece on the Alma Telescopes, the link to the 60 Minutes story is here.

Please enjoy!

Comment by Randall Smith on March 10, 2014 at 7:45am

Did anybody see the "60 Minutes" feature on the Chilean telescopes (March 9)? Amazing!

Comment by Randall Smith on February 16, 2014 at 7:52am
It won't be long--as soon as we have a nice Spring day--that preachers and other "pray-ers" will be thanking the lord for "this beautiful day". All this bitterly cold, snowy, miserable winter we've had will be forgotten (forgiven?). God had nothing to do with the bad weather, only the good. If you hear a piercing scream in the wilderness, that will be mine.

Members (1581)


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service