Atheist Nexus Logo

Atheists who love Science!

Information

Atheists who love Science!

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

Members: 1583
Latest Activity: on Tuesday

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 www.wearscience.com.


9/28/2008
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!

11/14/2009
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

3-D Vaccine

Started by Patricia Feb 11. 0 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

Comment

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

Comment by Bryon on December 10, 2010 at 2:05pm

The Second law of Thermodynamics is the Ultimate God killer and anyone that tries to argue for God's existence based upon it does not understand Entropy. 

God, in the universe, has an entropy of high order; S=1 or lower order; S=1+. Non existence is as low an entropy there is; S=0. The BB has an entropy of S=1/0 which approaches infinity; S=.000000000000...1 but never S=0. Since God with entropy S=1  has a higher entropy then S=1/0 it can not effect the BB without the use of mechanical device which implies material existence before material existence which is a violation of the second law. God with a lower entropy then the BB would have to have an entropy of S=0 which is impossible since that implies non-existence and thus God does not exist.

But what if God is not within the universe. How can the second law account for his entropy?

It does not mater whether god exists within the universe or not. This does not affect the necessity of his having entropy. If god is in a  state of high order, then he has low entropy; S=1 minimum for existence. If god is not in an ordered state, and thus in a disordered state, he has high entropy and can not effect a lower entropy state. If he is neither in an ordered state nor a disordered state, then god has no properties and thus, HE DOES NOT EXIST!

 

Comment by Vulpes on December 10, 2010 at 11:32am
I came across an argument by a creationist in which I couldn't find any one answer to him. The question had to do with the second law of Thermodynamics and the big expansion. Now there are multiple answers that I've found but I've been unable to determine if any of them are the official explanation by the scientific community. So far, I have gathered that either the expansion itself prevents the violation, gravity prevents the violation, the rule doesn't apply, or Work prevents the violation. Does anyone know which,if any of these are the official explanation and do you know any articles, websites, books, or other source material that I can look into. Thanks.
Comment by B10M3KH4N1X on December 10, 2010 at 8:07am

Hi everybody! New to the group & here learn.I probably won't be commenting much here except to ask questions if I have any.

I remember being good at science in High School,but things have advance and gotten even more complicated since then!

But it still strikes me as funny (and a little sad) that all you need to mop up the floor with creationists is a basic first year Junior High School understanding of Biology.

 

Comment by Mrina on December 2, 2010 at 12:48pm
Check out the NASA news feed starting in 10 mins!
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html?param=public
Comment by Andrew Hall on November 27, 2010 at 2:16pm
My buddy's wife asked him the $100,000 question when their son came home with a C in science.
http://www.laughinginpurgatory.com/2010/11/skepticism-atheism-and-r...
Comment by Vangelis Stamatopoulos on November 15, 2010 at 4:29am
I have written a blog post that talks about "life" from a couple of different scientific points of view. If you're interested, you can read more about it here.
Comment by Gary Berg-Cross on November 14, 2010 at 10:08am
On this wandering/distracted mind topic (and happiness) there is the broad topic of "multitasking", which is flourishing, and how it affects on us.

There are lab experiments that show that distracting people reduces the capacity of their working memory and thus impairs their decision making. At least for high cognitive tasking.

It’s much harder to show that multitasking outside of dfficult tasks and when it results from the choices and control of an individual as in directed daydreaming fantasies, does such cognitive harm. Multitasking dan be a distraction from our main activity, but some argue that it is what evoluton has given us as a main activity. It may be a safety value for boring task and perhaps too much of work has become boring for too many. The big new player is distracting folks is email, social media and the like. This may fill a gap in people's needs.


Of course our distractable attention can be targeted for commercial, political and personal gain and misused.
Comment by Kelly M on November 13, 2010 at 2:07pm
That better?? Geez
Comment by Kelly M on November 13, 2010 at 2:04pm
I wonder what finding that planet in our galaxy that is within the habitable zone of it's star will do the Drake Equation?
Comment by Mrina on November 13, 2010 at 10:30am
Can you two take it to private chat? Thanks.

Lead ions are a lot heavier than just hydrogen ions, but still the temperature is so hot you get a sticky soup of gluons. So cool!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11714101
 

Members (1582)

 
 
 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service