It seems that, the only way to make an argument against either side is to throw a straw man arguments at your opponent hoping the opposing side will burst into flames, since both sides refuse to deal with the core arguments of the other. Allow me to illustrate:

Science side: Everything I’ve uncovered shows that we, as a species, are the result of a hugely complex system that evolved over billions of years. And billions of years before that everything was born from a single point of space and energy. A “Big Bang” if you will.

Intelligent Design side: What about all the stuff you haven’t uncovered yet? You can’t prove that the stuff you don’t know didn’t come from God!

Science side: B-but, I didn’t even mention Go…

Intelligent Design side: Let me stop you right there, you are talking about things I have no interest in and therefore reject as being a part of my reality. God created everything, this is what I KNOW!

Science side: How do you know? Can you come up with a single piece of evidence to support this claim? Can you write it down in an equation and predict a real-world outcome, to backup a statement like that? I have no interest in things that can’t be measured, therefore I reject your reality. I don’t yet know what created everything, but I’m going to keep looking.

Intelligent Design side: STOP LOOKING, God exists! I KNOW IT! Be humbled by my knowledge. You can’t measure Love, but it exists, you can’t measure pleasure or pain… or time! The earth is 6,000 years old! And to deny THAT is to pay for, and stamp, a one way ticket to H. E. Double hockey-sticks!

Science side: Why are you yelling at me?  And what’s this business about time? You can’t expect me to belie…

And so on… You get the picture. The arguments are coming from completely separate worlds. People can speak the same language but completely misunderstand each other, because the context of the arguments is so far removed from each side’s experience. One’s life is based on careful observation, record keeping and patience, while the other is based on tradition, obedience and emotion. To both parties, the world they live in is absolutely real, and the other’s is a work of fantasy and delusion. The irony is both sides fear the other is leading our whole species toward certain doom by corrupting the minds of our youth.

Now, I must admit, I do lean toward the science side of the spectrum, but I also remember my days as a born-again christian (seems like a lifetime ago); as much as I hate to admit it, the religion side has a point when viewed from their perspective. Join me there for a moment please, this will all make sense in the end.

Narrator: Meet Joe Christian. He’s an average man, with a good job 2.5 kids and a loving wife. He’s thankful for the level of comfort he enjoys in his life and shows his thanks every Sunday in church with his family. His church community has frequent fund raisers and gives their time and money to charity on a regular basis. Joe’s family and his community is running in a beneficial way for the rest of the people in this world, and as long as he walks the strait and narrow, works hard and only asks questions when necessary, Joe will have a long and happy life.

One day Joe meets Charles at a bus stop. Charles doesn’t go to church, doesn’t have a family and lives very successfully as a scientist at the local chemical plant. Just on a whim Joe strikes up a conversation with Charles by asking him how his walk with the Lord is going. Charles looks back astonished at the friendly yet forward question and answers honestly, by saying “I don’t believe in God, so my walk is going rather smoothly, a little quiet at times but not too bad over all.”

Joe now has mixed feelings, how can Charles say he doesn’t believe in God? To Joe, who never questioned his religiously peppered education or his place in society, and who lived a pretty privileged life, God was responsible for everything he held dear. That’s like saying he doesn’t believe in air, or light. It doesn’t make any rational sense. So, what should he do with this information?

1. He can follow up with Charles and ask him to clarify his statement.
2. He can end the conversation and forget about everything.
3. He can get offended with Charles and try to teach him a thing or two about God, to try to show him a little humility.

No matter what the outcome, the damage is done. Joe’s faith has been shaken with one simple statement from an outsider. Now if Joe starts to investigate further into this matter, he’s going to have way more questions crop up than answers, those questions lead to talk, and then more and more people in his community will be asking questions that the church can’t answer. The church will eventually lose is members, and the members will lose their common bonds and all the good they did in the past will cease. All because, one person asked too many questions.

Thankfully most good creationists aren’t like Joe, in that the fear they have for their immortal souls keeps them from digging too deep into the control mechanisms of the Church, and most of them can go on living somewhat fulfilling lives, never knowing, and never wanting to know a more complex and beautiful world. It’s this fear that keeps them in check, and it’s this fear that makes them respond with anger when challenged.

If a person is going to be receptive to an argument from the side of science, then they will have already dealt with some serious doubt and would be on the fence with their faith already. In a world where faith is seen as a blessing and a strong character trait, there aren’t many who have the courage to make it that far down the rabbit hole of science, without running screaming back into the blissfully ignorant and comforting arms of the church.

For me, looking back, I remember a time when I was certain God was watching over us all, and I took comfort in “knowing” all rhetorical questions had absolute answers. I thought I knew it all. But I see now, that the world is much larger and more intricate than I ever imagined. I finally understand the power of unanswerable questions. Take, for instance, the question “Is there a God?”. The only suitable answer to this question for me now is … stillness. I find a lot of comfort in that reflection.

I think you have to be a certain kind of person, if you’re going to be a scientist. Or a science enthusiast. You need to have a rare and innate curiosity, that most people lack. These precious few are the ones keeping our progress running forward instead of backward. The depths of science shrouds the true intentions of our actions to the people who live very surface lives. This seemingly enigmatic existence scares the hell out of a lot of people and leads to conspiracy and rumor.

What’s the point of debating with group of people who have no intention of listening? I think we need each other; with each debate both sides walk away with a clearer understanding of what they’re fighting for. So, we fight to hone our own skills, but if we intend to win the battle of science vs. ignorance, we need to remember that we aren’t dealing with people who want to learn. Therefore the dance steps need to be different when dealing with these arguments. They attack because they feel you are contradicting everything they believe to be true. You seem like irrational fools when compared to the awesome power of a deity they’ve deluded themselves into seeing everywhere.

I know, nothing irks me more than some some low-brow chuckle-head laughing at my “arrogance” (book smarts), thinking he’s out witted me with a non sequitur God bomb, when in truth he’s only proven his own limitations. It doesn’t make him evil, or crazy. Just limited… held back and misguided, and standing up for what he believes to be right.

A battle of wits is best won in even tones, not loud retorts. It’s not up to us to change their minds or educate them, just plant a single seed of doubt and see if it takes root.

You will notice the NASA ambassador interviewed in the video clip viewed the event as pretty minor and nothing to freak out about. But to read the article on this page associated with the video clip and you would think we’re all about to die! What’s more… The difference in tone between the written article and the video makes me feel that there is more to the story than meets the eye.

As I commented to fox news-All I have to say is, do your math people! When the space shuttle broke up in the atmosphere it was much larger than a bus, and didn’t cause devastating consequences for life on our home planet. The MIR space station was brought down and didn’t interrupt breakfast for anyone… Heck, we get thousands of meteors zipping through our atmosphere every day, some the size of basketballs to volkswagon buses, and none of them have been on the news.

You get one crackpot with a theory based on his own improper interpretation of data and and you’re ready to throw the doomsday switch into overdrive. Ask an astrophysicist if a meteor the size of a bus would ruin anyone’s day on a global scale. Try selling the news with the facts instead of the hype, and maybe we won’t be so freakin’ terrified to look up.

http://www.news3news.com/wpo4.html

http://www.channel7daily.com/

You may notice that every link you click on takes you to the same product page, regardless of whether you want to check the latest hockey scores or the local weather. This is known as a microsite or landing page. It’s a pretty common practice to have ads pointing to such pages so that companies can market their products in a more enticing way than a puny banner ad allows. Most of the time landing pages present clearly branded messaging so you know you have clicked on the correct ad.

In the case of the examples above, the landing pages offer testimonials for products that shouldn’t exist yet and try to convince visitors to click on links to “free trials.” Clicking on these links will result in the actual product page. And then the fun begins.

The site that the faux news article takes you to (http://www.antioxwine.com), actually claims in the fine print on the Terms and Conditions page that the product it is selling may do nothing for you at all (although they have complete faith in it):

“D. We do not warrant or represent that Our Products will provide You with any particular benefits, or that Your results will match those of others who consume Our Products. Individual results will vary from person to person.”

The product page is designed very cleverly and is completely legal. It has an almost hypnotic way of advertising one product while selling visitors another by confusing them with two completely different but similar messages. It talks about Resveratrol and ResVmax, never once claiming that Resveratrol is present in ResVmax. Their actual claim is: “One pill = approx. 1000 glasses of wine,” without actually disclosing the exact ingredient they’re pumping you with at 1000 times a regular dose. There is actually no nutritional information on the site at all.

When buyers place their order they must provide their phone number, mailing address, and e-mail address. The purveyors now have enough information to pummel you with unwanted outreach. Again, in the Terms and Conditions they claim (in legalese) that they will send your information to third-party companies and offer you no opt-out preference. Most likely, they’re compiling a list of gullible people and selling it to the highest bidder to use in shady marketing schemes. If you want a lot more spam, junk mail, and intrusive phone calls, then simply buy this product!

The “free trial” will cost you a paltry $3.95 for shipping and handling, but they really start price-gouging with their opt-out ordering plan. The extremely confusing ordering policy automatically charges CAD$240 per month if you don’t contact them within 15 days of placing your free trial order.

This company is based in England, so if the order takes 16 days to arrive, you will automatically be charged $240. If you don’t contact them to cancel the order, they will continue to charge you every month.

This is a common scam, but it is worth reminding folks to always read the fine print!

I first got wind of this “miracle of water” experiment, after seeing a small segment on “What The Bleep Do We Know?“. A movie released in 2004. I actually bought into the hype at the time. But there was always something unbelievable, and ultimately untrue about a lot of the ‘science’ presented in this film. Let me just say this to all you people NEW to the skeptical community. Don’t believe everything branded as science and “edutainment” on TV.

Even though this is a thinly veiled piece of new-age fiction sold as fact. You have to admit, the cinematography and post production are pretty tight. That being said, let’s try to point out some of the inaccuracies in this short promotional video, shall we?

Time code: 2:03
Water is referred to as a “secretive, amazing element”. What do we truly know about this “element”?

Well for starters, water is a molecule, composed of 2 elements, Hydrogen and Oxygen not an element unto itself. Between 0ºC and 100ºC it’s liquid, below that, a crystal solid and above that a gas. (at 1 atmosphere). It can’t be compressed in it’s liquid form, and is a solvent for many gasses and other molecules. When it freezes it creates hexagonal crystals. That’s about all I know about water… there’s probably a lot I don’t know regarding it’s special fluid dynamics, surface tension properties and such… but to say that it’s somehow mysterious, magical and possesses some unexplainable spiritual properties is ludicrous.

Time code: 2:05
Introducing Rustum Roy! He brings to the table an impressive array of books and degrees, revolving around material sciences and an unwavering, self proclaimed understanding of “water memory” or Homeopathy. He often refers to the scientists who routinely debunk his claims as “homeophobes” (some of the comments on this article are enlightening).  He speaks with authority, but that doesn’t make his claims accurate or true.

Time code: 2:26
Some religeous guy named Kirill. Patriarch Kirill I to be exact. He’s the big cheese in the Russian Orthodox church. I’m not sure why he’s in here, I guess just to bridge the gap between pseudoscience and religion… Not much of a gap there. He is a respected authoritative figure with a lot of connections which is supposed to lend some credibility to this film.

Time code: 2:36
Kurt Wuthrich… well, he didn’t say anything inaccurate… come to think of it, he didn’t really say anything of substance at all. His resume is extensive though. Kurt is a Nobel Prize winner! I wonder what he’s doing in this film? It should be noted that a lot of the true scientists that appear in pieces like this are there under the premise of lending a hand in the scientific approach to the film… However a lot of them are shocked at the final piece when they see their own words, edited, distorted and messed-with, in order to give them the appearance of blindly agreeing with the very flawed argument into which they were originally trying to inject reason.

Time code: 3:05
Konstantin Korotkov, Mr. BioElectrography himself. This dude is a throw back to the good ol’ days of Kirlian photography. Since mainstream science has identified the existence of Aura photography or Kirlian photography as a well known phenomenon called coronal discharge back in the 70′s and debunked it’s spiritual claims, it needed a new name so it could be sold to a whole new generation of new-age believers. He’s all about life energy. In this short clip he claims that the strongest element of influence for water is the presence of human emotion. Although even in the actual video he’s really unclear precisely how the water is affected. (I thought that heat or air pressure are pretty effectual on water, but what do I know?)

Time code: 4:13
Ah, the star of the show, Emoto Masaru. “I hope to show people, through my research, that water has a memory of it’s own.” Born in Yokohama, Japan, Emoto graduated from Yokohama Municipal University with courses in International Relations, and in 1992 he received certification as a Doctor of Alternative Medicine from the Open International University for Alternative Medicine in India, an unaccredited institute with minimal academic requirements. With a resume like that… well whatever. At least he’s a doctor… of sorts.

Okay folks, strap into your skeptic pants, we’re going for a ride!

Movie claim: Emotions, projected from a group of people onto a flask of water, can drastically change the properties of that water.
Real life: How would you shield the water from the influence of additional emotions during the experiment. Also, what properties changed? Was it still wet? Did it still make waves? Could it still dilute things? Was the freezing point the same? Wiggly bar graphs aren’t evidence of anything if they aren’t explained.

Movie claim: Love increases the energy level of the water and stabilizes it.
Real life: The definition of the phrase ‘Energy Level’ is “the fixed amount of energy that a system, such as a molecule, atom, electron, or nucleus, can have.” Fixed amount of energy! Which means you can test for it. Love can’t increase energy and hate can’t remove it. It’s thermal dynamics, a process in physics that is very well understood and has been shown time and again to balance out.

How is the water “stabilized”, exactly? Does it change any measurable property of the water, or does it just make the wiggly graph go up rather than down? They keep referring to “radical changes in the water” without specifying what these radical changes are. We are presented with some crystallized water drops that look like snow flakes that have been allegedly “charged” with different human emotions.

In Emoto’s experiments, Happy emotions look like perfectly symmetrical crystals, whereas Sad emotions are half-melted, crappy looking crystals. But you only see one example of each. It would have been more compelling evidence to see more than one case of this working. Like a whole series of beautiful Happy snowflakes, and a whole series of crappy Sad snowflakes. But we’re instead presented with a very cherry-picked data set of one, which statistically proves nothing. What about all the Happy snowflakes that looked crappy? Were there any? You never get super clear results like that in any scientific endeavor, if they were following a scientific process you would expect to see some anomalies. But nope, instead you get an extremely clear picture that conveniently supports their initial hypothesis, no flaws and no exceptions presented.

What’s with all the secrecy, Emoto?
After doing a little poking around online I’ve found out that the bulk of controversy over Emoto’s claims aren’t the claims themselves, but rather, his lab refuses to release detailed experimental information showing how to recreate these findings independently in any other lab. This is a problem when claiming something as huge as finding the source of “Life itself”. You can’t just say, ‘Trust me, I found it”. You actually have to show people how you found it. Where you found it. What apparatus you used to find it. What conditions were present when you found it. What materials you used. etc.

Also, it’s a little telling that you aren’t presented with a bunch of “love” snowflakes, and a bunch of “hate” melty blobs. Instead you’re presented with a test bed of one each. Everyone knows you need more than one of any test result to confirm a claim, to ensure your test results aren’t just random. Not to mention that measuring the aesthetics of water crystals is a very subjective and one sided way to interpret data in an experiment. Leaving your findings completely open to the personal tastes of your lab assistants is completely pointless and worthless.

Instead of making multi-hundred thousand dollar promotional videos showing some of his work, it would be a lot more fascinating to see his full data-sets to see once-and-for-all that we are on the cusp of a new spiritual and scientific understanding of nature and life itself. Without a common understanding of the brief and physically unreproducible experiments he’s presented in this video, we will never know if Mr. Emoto was on to something, or if he was just drumming up business for his own coffers and fame.