Iron Skillets are the Reason You Exist

I had an interesting discussion with a chemist today. They talked about how at one point had the entire periodic table of elements memorized, could recognize molecules in peoples names, and could rattle off most of the information on the periodic table without too much trouble. So I thought I would take a shot at stumping them.

"Do you know where all of the elements on the periodic table came from?" I said. They looked at me somewhat puzzled. "What do you mean where did they come from?" I could see the confusion on their face. Maybe this is the first time they have ever thought about this, maybe they just assumed that these things just always were. But, that's not the case.

I also had a feeling the person, even though trained in chemistry, may not know the answer to this. The reason is because origin of the elements on the periodic table is not rooted in chemistry, rather astrophysics.

The most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen, by far! Hydrogen makes up about 75% of the mass of the entire universe. The second most abundant element is helium, which makes up almost all of the remaining 25%. That means that elements 1 and 2 on the period table make up 99% of the entire mass of the universe. Elements 3-118 make up 1% of the mass. Without getting into any technical detail, it's evident that hydrogen and helium were the only 2 elements present at the time of the Big Bang (or formed within 10 minutes or so of the Big Bang through a nucleosynthesis process, to be pedantic). In laymen's terms, at the time of the Big Bang there was a LOT of really hot, intense energy, and within minutes the energy was converted into matter (specifically hydrogen and helium). For more information on how energy converts to matter and matter converts to energy, see Einstein's theory of relativity which conclusively demonstrated that energy is matter (E=M).

Great so now we have hydrogen and helium. Where did every other element come from? Take a guess... from hydrogen and helium. That's right, everything from carbon to gold to oxygen to iron to xenon comes from just hydrogen and helium. But how? How can oxygen become gold, etc?

The short answer is, it can't. Well, not on its own. Helium tends to stay helium and hydrogen tends to stay hydrogen thanks to electromagnetism. So when two differing atoms approach one another they don't fuse together, they repel sort of like the repelling ends of a magnet (well exactly like that, actually). What is required for atoms of two different type to overcome electromagnetic repulsion in order to fuse together and create a new element? A lot of heat and pressure. A lot.

Once you have enough pressure to force these atoms close enough past the point of electromagnetic repulsion, together they start trading protons and becoming new elements. Two hydrogen atoms (atomic number 1) form together to create helium (atomic number 2). A helium atom (2) combines with another hydrogen atom to form lithium (3). So on and so forth.

So where does this fusion happen? Mainly in 2 places; stars and supernovae. The core of a star is a nuclear reactor on a grand scale. The energy and heat given off from stars is the result of nuclear fusion happening in its core. It's hot outside today. Thanks nuclear fusion!

Atoms are being smashed together constantly inside of a star to create newer, heavier elements with more protons. Helium smashes together to become lithium, lithium mashes up to become beryllium, then boron, then carbon, then nitrogen, then oxygen, etc. Each time two atoms fuse, an obscene amount of energy gets released (literally an atomic bomb).

This process repeats, and repeats and repeats. So every element on the periodic table from hydrogen to iron forms inside the core of a star. And with every fusion the star continues burning like a champ. But when the fusion process gets around to iron, something lethal to the star happens. Iron atoms don't play nice. Iron does not fuse with other elements like its predecessors. When iron starts forming inside the star, it's a death sentence. The star stops losing the energy gained from fusion, because iron has caused fusion to slow down, and eventually stop.

Star Killer

Thanks a lot, iron. Forget the "Red Matter" from Star Trek lore. You want to destroy a star? Your iron skillet did that.

But you should be thankful to your iron skillet, without it you probably wouldn't be here. After fusion stops in a star, the star collapses onto itself. Stars that are the right size detonate into a supernova. Just about all other forces of nature stand in awe of the fury and power of a supernova. Whereas the fusion inside the core of star, literally cannot produce enough energy to fuse anything to iron, a supernova has so much energy it creates every element on the periodic table from number 27 to 118... all at once.

Mother Nature's way demonstrating your insignificance.

To give you some sense of just how much energy is released in a supernova, when a star goes supernova, it temporarily outshines every other star in its galaxy combined. That's right, take the light from a hundred billion stars and for a brief moment this dying star makes them all look dim. While it's doing this, it throws all 118 elements of the periodic table out into space. Including carbon and oxygen from which you are made.

The carbon atoms in your body used to be inside the core of a star, and thanks to iron threw that carbon out into space. And now, here you are. Probably cooking eggs on your iron skillet without even taking a moment to thank it for blowing up that star for you.

Enjoy your omelette.

The Lowry Gambit

I’m a chess player. A few years ago I planned to attend a chess tournament in Charlotte, NC.  I announced to my chess club that I would be driving and invited others to ride along.  To my joy, two experts committing to coming with me. As a class player, I was very much looking forward to picking their minds for four hours in order to get some great advice on improving as a class player to ascend to the sacred ground of expert. This time spent would be invaluable.

Before I left, this weird, old guy whom I did not particularly care for mentioned he would also like to ride with us to Charlotte. This was disaster. This old guy, Paul Lowry, was a non-stop talker. He is the kind of guy who dominated a conversation and never let anyone get a word in.

Even worse, he was weird. He told the strangest stories and he had a lot of them. In fact, his weird stories came non-stop.  The trip, which looked so promising at first, fell into the hands of disaster with the inclusion of Paul.

The four of us were making our way up to Charlotte and my annoyance was already brimming from the outset. The guy would not shut up. On our way back, I found myself snickering at a few of his corny jokes.

The next time this quarterly tournament came up in Charlotte, Paul invited himself along again. This time it was just the two of us. I was not particularly looking forward to this trip.  By the end of our four-hour round trip I was convinced that Paul was an amazing guy who had some fantastic stories to tell.

Paul was a retired firefighter who relayed some fantastic stories about some beautiful young women who loved firefighters. He told me about his background in history and philosophy. Paul told some stories to me about moonlighting for the mafia when he was much younger and stronger. 

Paul was a historian and loved chess history. He could recite any number of significant chess tournaments in history and the impact they had on opening theory.  Paul had memorized amazing stories about chess players and their failures and triumphs on the board. Paul had regular correspondence with GM Yasser Seirwan who referred to Paul as the finest chess historian he had ever met.

Paul was also a writer and had poetry published. He was also a real ham. He used to tell people all the time, “You know Fischer would never play me. He always avoided me for years.” To which people would inevitably respond, “really?” Paul would always cooly respond, “Yep. Herb Fischer, that scoundrel would never play me.”  He was a jovial guy who loved people and would even offer people draws when he had a winning position out of kindness. Paul cared nothing about his rating. He cared only about brightening people’s lives.

Paul had a very extensive collection of really obscure chess books, and a lot of them signed by the original authors. His vast collection of out-of-print books were easily worth thousands of dollars.

He relayed a story to me once where he sat down with an opponent and told his opponent, whom he had never met, “I’m in a bad mood today. And if I lose, one of us is going to get hurt, and it won’t be me.”  Later in the game his opponent was up two pawns and offered Paul a draw. Paul said, “why on Earth are you offering me a draw, you’re clearly winning!” The guy responded, “I just don’t want any trouble from you man.” Paul laughed and said, “I was only joking with you! I resign.”

As mentioned before Paul was a real talkative guy, and everyone knew it. He had a reputation as a talker, but once you got past his idiosyncrasies he really was awesome to be around. Once at a very large tournament that I personally organized, Paul’s cell phone went off right in the middle of the round. What was hilarious was that his ringtone was “Ramblin’ Man” by the Allman Brothers. So imagine a completely silent room and then all of a sudden, “Lord, I was born a ramblin’ man!” Paul quietly stood up and walked out the room. One of the tournament directors had to calm him down because he was so upset that he had offended everyone by allowing his cell phone to go off. The truth was that as soon as he left the room everyone erupted in laughter because they understood the irony of Paul having a ringtone entitled “Ramblin’ Man.”

It was now I who was picking up the phone to call Paul to invite him along with me to tournaments. I had developed a real liking for Paul and the two of us entered a team tournament together last year and finished in second place out of eight teams.

Paul donated his entire collection of books to his local chess club when he tragically passed away on June 17, 2012 after a bout with cancer. I visited him twice in hospice where we relived some of our favorite memories together. A month later, I delivered a tear-filled eulogy honoring Paul at the 2012 Columbia Open Chess Tournament.

Paul taught me that life is worth nothing without people. It’s easy to get caught up in getting better at chess, improving your rating but it all means nothing without making someone’s life just a little bit better because you were a part of it. I miss Paul dearly, and I think about every time I move a chess piece. So every time I sit down at a board, Paul’s memory and influence remains and I’m astounded at how close I came to making up some excuse not to take him to that first tournament.  Had I done that, I would have saved a little aggravation but missed out on having a marvelous friend. Chess players know that our most important lessons come with each loss, and I certainly learned a whole lot when I lost Paul. 

Life is Strange

"Everyone's the hero in their own story," is a phrase I heard recently and have been reflecting on, and it's true. In everyone's mind, they're not the bad guy. Everyone is trying to do the right and honorable thing. Often times our intentions create a massive blind spot for us to properly assess our actions and behavior. As humans, we are excellent prosecutors for other people's actions, and excellent defense attorneys for our own.

Ten Questions for Atheists

1. How did you become an atheist?
A long story. The short answer is a long, difficult investigation into the claims of the Bible. I found they came up lacking. I'm not the type of person who can ignore evidence in order to maintain what I would like to believe. I found a lot of evidence to the contrary of the claims of the Bible, thus I could no longer believe even if I wanted to.

2. What happens when we die?

I guess we go in the ground. But honestly, I'm not sure. Personally I'm hoping the simulation hypothesis is correct and we get to wake up from the Matrix, so to speak, when we die and learn from our experiences in a true reality. A nice thought, but there's no good reason to accept that as a true proposition either. So for lack of better evidence, it would appear nothing happens when we die other than we cease to be.

3. What if You're Wrong and There is a Heaven?

Certainly wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong, but I guess it would technically be the last!

4. Without God where do you get morality from?

I was born with a sense of empathy that was encouraged by my parents. The truth is, as a non-believer I kill and rape as much as I want to. Which is exactly zero.  I don't want to hurt people, in fact the opposite. I want to help people. I want to make people's lives better. This feeling has not changed at all from the time I was a believer to now.

5. If there is no God are we free to do what we want?

No.

6. If there is no God how does your life have any meaning?

Well, if there is no god then that means my existence is probably due to a random arrangement of DNA. That means I am fortunate to be alive. It means that our model of the universe and life itself is wondrous, improbable, amazing, interesting, curious, beautiful, inspiring, tragic, awful, awesome, difficult, and breath-taking all at the same time and I am privileged to be a part of it. It means that if our minds are a result of an emergent forces in the universe that we are quite literally the universe contemplating itself for a short time. To me, that is unimaginably beautiful and poetic. It makes me feel alive and more closely connected to everyone and everything than I ever have before. That fills me with a sense of awe and humility and makes this life truly special to be a part of.

7. Where did the universe come from?

The present data indicates it came from the singularity.

8. What about miracles and people who claim they have experiences with God, Jesus, or angels?

I treat them the same way as I treat people who claim they had brushes with aliens, spirit animals, past lives, white energy, spirit chakras, or anything else of the like. People attribute a lot of difficult to understand neurological processes to supernatural forces with different flavors. All of these people believe what they have claimed to experience. I accept their sincerity, I do not accept their assessment of their experience is accurate.

9. What is your view of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris?
I do not care for Dawkins or Hitchens. I like Sam Harris.

10. If there is no God why does every society have a religion?

It's quite clear that religion most certainly provided a survival benefit in the past. Nothing unites a group of people quite like religion does. It's no surprise then that religion has persisted and thrived throughout humanity. However this is an interesting question that I personally think is less damning of atheism and more damning of theism. There are more than 5,000 religions alive and well on Earth today, with countless many more relegated to the annals of history. Each religion is supremely confident theirs is the right one and base their certainty on things like religious experiences (see question 8). I'm skeptical of god claims because from my perspective if there is a god, then 4,999 religions are totally false. At the very least religion is an extremely deceptive force which is easy to get wrong. That's why I'm better off by honestly not wagering on any rather than choosing the one most familiar to me and my culture that I was born into. But don't worry, I'm sure the religion your parents taught you is totally the right one. Of all the places you could have been born you lucked up and were born in the right religion AND the right denomination of that religion. Lucky you!

The Evolution of the Bible

The Bible and how it was formed is a difficult and complicated subject encompassing about 3,500 years of history, culture, theology, and politics. Despite what right-wing conservative Christians would have you believe, the Bible was not handed, fully-formed, by God to George Washington alongside the Declaration of Independence.

I know what you're thinking. What does a skeptic know about the formation of the Bible? A fair amount, actually. How can you be sure the information presented here is correct? I had 6 Christian pastors give their approval that this information is correct and accurate. In addition two PhD's in religious studies also gave their approval for this information.

Fair warning. One of the pastors who reviewed this said to me, "be careful sharing this information with Christians. Many of them are not mentally or emotionally equipped to handle this information. It could cause some of them to question their beliefs." That's kind of the point, pastor.

The information presented here is a summary. Obviously we are talking about nearly 4,000 years of information that could barely be covered in an entire semester course in college, condensed into one blog post.  So we're going to start from the present and work backwards, but unfortunately we have to hit the highlights and leave a lot of good information out.

Finally, the Bible we are going to be discussing is the 66-book Protestant canon. There are 10 different canons of the Christian Bible in 4 major divisions. Each of the ten canons differs in which books are included or excluded that differs from the others. All ten canons are considered “closed” which means all ten believe that a time of continual revelation has ended and they are not likely to change in the future.

Our story begins in 1825, when 7 books were removed from the Protestant Bible. The seven books, called the Apocrapha, were removed from the Protestant Bible by the British and Foreign Bible Society. The Apocrapha is the collection of 7 books which appear in the Catholic Bible but not in the Protestant Bible. So the Protestant Bible as it exists today, was born in 1825.

In 1647, the Westminster Confession of Faith was an assembly of the Church of England which determined the seven books of the Apocrapha did not meet the criteria to be considered authentic by the Protestant faith. The Westminster Confession of Faith established the 66 books of the Protestant Bible were authentic, God-inspired and true. After the Westminster Confession of Faith, Bibles were printed with the 66 books of the Protestant canon. The seven books of the Apocrapha were printed in a separate section from the other 66 books, which were removed completely from bible publications in 1825.  Until 1647, there was no Protestant canon.

Also, just as a side note, during his life Martin Luther also wanted to eliminate the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon. His pleas were rejected by the Westminster Confession of Faith. Because of Luther's stance on these four books, Protestant bibles that are written in German have the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation as the last books of the bible, this is called the Luther canon.

In 1546, the Catholic canon was galvanized at the Council of Trent which agreed on the 73 books of the Catholic bible and the period for open revelation was considered closed by the Catholic church. Before the Council of Trent, many different Catholic denominations used numerous canonizations. But of course the Canon was unified in 1546.

In 1442, The Council of Florence established the 73 books of the Catholic canon that the Florencian denomination of Catholicism were required to use. 100 years later, the Council of Trent established the confirmed that the 73 books established by the Council of Florence to be the universally accepted Catholic canon.

Unfortunately we don’t have a lot of information about what happened between the span of years between 382 and 1442. These of course were the Dark Ages where information, writing, etc. was very scant. We do know that in 382 AD, a canon was decided upon by the Council of Rome which established the writings of the New Testament and the Old Testament which were very similar to the canon decided upon in 1442. What differences there are we cannot fully flesh out due to a lack of empirical information.

The reason that the 382 Council of Rome is significant is because this was the first time the church met specifically to decide which books were the true, holy, and accurate Word of God after Christianity became the state religion of Rome.

In 325, one of the most significant events in world history occurred. Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire under Constantine. The Council of Nicea was established. The Council of Nicea is one of the most significant events in the history of Christianity. This council established the theology of the holy trinity, galvanized the foundational church belief that Christ was, indeed, the son of God, the observance of Easter, and of importance to this blog which gospels of Christ were authentic.

Around 200 A.D., Jewish rabbis declared the Hebrew Tanakh (the Protestant Old Testament) was considered closed. 

Between 70 A.D. and 110 A.D. all of the apostolic gospels were written, including the ones which are not considered authentic like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, and the Gospel of Mary.

Between 40 A.D. and 55 A.D. all of the Pauline letters were written.  

In 200 BC, Ptolemy II, the Greek king of Egypt, ordered the Hebrew Bible to be translated into Greek for inclusion into the Library of Alexandria. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible is called the Septuagint. The Septuagint is used by 4 out of the 10 christian canons as “The Old Testament”.  Paul, in his letters to the early christian churches, used the Septuagint as his reference to Old Testament scriptures. Jesus also quoted the Septuagint. The reason this is significant is because the Protestant bible does not use the Septuagint as the basis for its Old Testament.

What conclusions can a reader draw from this? I hope their own. Does the information presented make the Bible any more or less credible? No. The intention here is to challenge this false notion that the Bible is this perfect, unchanging thing. It's changed many times, and if history is any indication, it will likely change again in the future. 

Concerning Victim-Blaming

This has the potential to be an explosive and emotionally-charged blog post. The author is frequently misunderstood. Usually whenever I enter into discussions on subjects my goal is to promote correct and proper thinking. Often times when I challenge someone's reasoning, they believe I am challenging their conclusions. That is not the case. If you tell me the sky is blue because fairies made it that way, I will tell you you're mistaken. This does not mean I believe the sky is red.

Having stated that, please allow me to make myself perfectly clear on this issue: it is never, ever, ever someone's fault they were raped. Ever. Rape is the fault of the rapist 100% of the time. It's never someone's fault they are the victim of abuse, mistreatment, etc.

I am always in favor of rational discussions which move a conversation forward. Frequently, conversations stop before they get started because often one side is not interested in truth, only winning. A prime example of this is the gun-control debate, in which both sides of the issue are culpable. When someone suggests increasing gun control, the gun support crowd labels them as communist, constitution-destroying liberals. Likewise, gun control groups frequently paint 2nd amendment supporters as ignorant, inbred, rednecks who support child murder.

This attitude is not helpful. It shuts down conversation, it prevents progress, is divisive, and is harmful.

I believe the term "victim-blaming" falls, or at least has the danger of falling, into this category. There are people who legitimately victim-blame. For example, "well she should have known better than to..." is victim-blaming and not ok. It's implying that someone's choices are what led to their victimization. No, a criminal led to their victimization. Point blank.

Having said that, I have been in conversations when I suggested that people be more mindful of their personal responsibilities and was accused of victim-blaming. I believe this is incorrect and not helpful.

Humans are greater apes (hominidae). One of the defining traits of homindae (gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, and bonobos) are complex and difficult social structures. This means that, like us, gorillas have difficult and complicated social rules in their groups. If you violate these rules, it has consequences, fair or not. An easy example of this are the Amish. They live within their own microcosm, and have complex social rules. No dancing, no hand-holding, no watching movies, no wearing modern clothes, etc. A lot, in fact, just about all of these rules are arbitrary and have no intrinsic moral value, they exist just to exist fair or not (from our outsider perspective anyway). Are a lot of these rules absurd, unfair, and silly? Yes. Are there real, actual, harsh consequences for Amish people who break them? Yes. Why? Because we are a group of highly-evolved apes who puts great emphasis on complex social structure and rules.

I assert it is our obligation to be aware of these rules. Violating social rules can have tremendous and devastating real-world consequences. Being aware and mindful of these rules is not an implicit endorsement that the rules are ok, or good, or moral, or fair. In fact, most of the time they're not. But the rules are there. They do exist. And although it's totally unfair, there are consequences for breaking them. Being aware of these rules aids in our prosperity.

For example, if a woman decides she would like to have sex with ten different co-workers on the same night that is her choice to make. She should be aware that a potential cost for her actions are castigation from co-workers, mockery, and even potentially losing her job. Being aware of the potential consequences because of social rules is not an implicit approval of them.  And suggesting that someone be aware of these rules in order to make better informed decisions it not victim-blaming. We have social rules in place for promiscuous women. They're not fair. They're outdated. They're arbitrary. They're silly and pointless. But they exist, and violating them comes at a cost. Fair or not.

We can argue all day long the rules are not fair (and they're not). Violating unfair rules still have consequences. This bears repeating; suggesting someone be aware of these rules helps them make informed decisions about their actions. It is in no way victim-blaming. We can actively work to overcome unfair rules in society while simultaneously bearing the cost in mind for breaking these rules.

Furthermore, suggesting ways in which people can reduce the likelihood of becoming a victim of a crime as reprehensible as rape is also not victim-blaming. Yes, we do live in a rape culture. Yes, our collective attitude about rape needs to change. We can admit that, work to change it, while simultaneously reducing our likelihood of becoming a victim of rape. Again, acknowledging the dangers of a situation and planning to circumvent the risks is not victim-blaming. It's not promoting rape culture. It's being smart, and aware of reality.

Evolution vs. Creation - Round 1 Rebuttals

Welcome to the first round of the evolution vs. creationism debate between myself @weaksquare and @NewFarmOrder.

Our opening statements can be found here: Opening Statements

REBUTTAL 1:

NewFarmOrder

Premise #2 For Creationism: Without Our Creation To Ask Existential Questions, We Would Not Have Darwinism

I’m glad, in your first point, you raised the idea of the common coexistence of evolution and creation as theories. I would like to now argue that not only can they exist together, but that creation is, in fact, a prerequisite of Darwinism. This is because Darwinism doesn’t offer plausible reasons as to why we would know our own purpose outside of the gene-preservation-and-propagation machines that are our mortal vessels. Creation does - we must be able to think about why we are here, and choose whether or not to love our God, because the criteria for afterlife depend on belief. Every human must thus be born with the capacity to think outside their own physical existence.

Indeed, I find it an irony when evolutionists, as they so frequently do, assert that a belief in the existence of a God results from some misuse of reason, because this inadvertently reveals their belief that the faculty of reason is there (or, as I would prefer, ‘designed’) to fulfil the purpose of discovering the truth of our being. There is no real evolutionary reason, to my knowledge, for man to ponder existential questions as he does. I doubt a dog thinks much about its place in the universe, only the particular motor functions to which its genes assign it for survival.  If thought is a neuro-physiological phenomenon to Darwinists, as I’m inclined to believe, then why am I to trust it?

In other words, if the thoughts in my mind are but motions of atoms in my brain to suit survival and propagation  - this, a mechanism arising from unguided, mindless processes over millennia - why should I believe anything it tells me (including the fact it’s made of atoms)? Creationism gives a more cogent argument as to why we are able to think about why we are here. We have to have the free will to choose whether to believe or disbelieve, in order that we may be judged. If there was a creator, His mind could comprehend cause and effect, and so too must ours, if we are indeed created ‘in the image of God’. It also explains why this capacity is unique to man amongst animals. Because we are, in effect, mini-Gods, we too have a world of dominion. The animals and the plants yield to our superior intelligence, and we can treat them as we wish; with forgiving kindness, tough justice, or base cruelty.

Indeed, it seems little known that the reason there was such a flourishing of scientific thought in the 16th and 17th centuries’ Enlightenment was due to belief in the Christian God, and scientific discoveries, unlike today, did not challenge believers’ faith. As C.S Lewis wrote, ‘men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.’ Even Newton’s magnum opus, Principia Mathematica, was, in his own words, written to ‘persuade the thinking man’ to believe in God!

This is  Wittgenstein called the ‘deception of modernism’ - the notion that the laws of the universe explain the world to us, when all they do is describe structural regularities. Even if I were to accept evolution as fact - and there is no doubt it has, regardless of absolute truth values as a theory, provided some great advances in all aspects of human understanding of the universe - it still cannot explain ‘something from nothing’ as creation can. Apologies for the cliche, but ‘what caused that Big Bang?'

Weaksquare

You stated in your opening argument, “we were created with the knowledge of good and evil unique amongst the animals… evolution cannot explain this.”  Your premise is demonstrably false. We can directly observe animals, mostly social mammals, engaging in moral behavior. These creatures will help other members of their group with no expectation of reward. Animals have been witnessed saving other animals, not even of their same species, in distress. Dolphins frequently fend off sharks attacking humans. Gorillas have protected humans that fell into their habitats from other gorillas. Killer whales frequently work together to gain a meal, even though only one member of their group enjoys the spoils. Apes will share their food with other members of the group, to ensure fairness. Your premise that animals have no concept of morality is false.

Secondly, evolution perfectly explains this. When the group prospers, the individual prospers. We stand a better chance of survival the greater number of healthy members we have. Thus, it is in my best interest to ensure everyone is healthy and able to contribute. When a member falls on hard times, we help them up. Because one day I could fall on hard times and it would be nice if you help me up. All of this behavior is of a direct benefit to the group and is at the very essence of what describes evolution and survival advantages.

Your second premise states, “without creation to ask existential questions, we would not have Darwinism.”  That is possibly a true statement. Evolution (Darwinism) is still a fact.

You also claimed in your rebuttal, “there is no evolutionary purpose… for man to ponder existential questions as he does.” Also false. There is a tremendous survival advantage in having an accurate understanding of reality. Yes, there are questions bigger than us, that’s a given. There are a lot of gaps in our understanding of nature. Pondering the answers helps us to gain a better understanding of this life and by proxy increases our odds for survival. Having your beliefs comport with reality provides a direct evolutionary advantage.

You claimed the Age of Enlightenment was due to the Christian God. I disagree. The Age of Enlightenment was due to Christianity, and would not have even been necessary if it were not for the Dark Ages, for which Christianity is also responsible. Nonetheless, outside the scope of this debate.

Finally, you asked claimed evolution cannot explain “something from nothing” and then asked, “what caused the Big Bang?” It does not matter. Evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, not an answer for questions of cosmology. Whatever did or did not cause the Big Bang has zero bearing the evidence for biological evolution, which is ample. Shall we return to the topic of evolution?