doing something in the lab only proves the theory valid. it by no means proves it can happen in nature.
Thats not how it works. Do you have faith in God? Ask him if you will live past tomorrow. His answer is yes. If you are still alive tomorrow then the voice in your head who is God has credibility. The creator doesn't exist for just one man, you see we are all creators. You can't have faith in life, when the better option is death.
@leopold -- There is no evidence that a god exists when there should be such evidence(therefore such absence of evidence is evidence of absence). Anything which has an effect on the universe is, in principle, measurable, and that we have detected no such effects from a "supernatural" or "paranormal" source and yet still have at least one instance of abiogenesis occurring is evidence that god was not needed for it. Conclusive evidence you might say. Of course, a better thing for you to do would be to read a few of the theories and see how many of them require god.
@ Arioch "yet still have at least one instance of abiogenesis occurring" What was that? Do you know how I can find information about that please? :m:
Well said Antioch. Bring me the proof. There is none. Nothing more than a collection of handpicked parchments from the writers of ancient fables, based on the most ridiculous absurdities to be visited upon the impressionable minds of naive children, at the expense of the most sacred gift of human intellect: reason!
Doing something in a lab may or may not prove anything. But discrediting the lab will get you nothing more than a charge of discrediting human intellect. There are labs in operation today vitally saving lives because they can precisely replicate the strain of a virus as it occurs in nature - or even predict its coming evolution - and develop vaccines against it. That's just one a million examples. To deny this is the worst kind of sin against human intelligence and the compassionate motives that drive scientists toward advancement. Tell me there is a Bible thumper among you who would deny your own child the most basic protections the lab offers to extend their lives.
you haven't described what you would consider "evidence". some would say miracles are evidence. have you seen anything that you would call a miracle, or what you might call a coincidence? once again i've been told science might have finally created life from the elements only for it to be, well, a lie. BTW, your explanation of things wasn't exactly the source i was requesting. nice opinion though.
i haven't denied anything. ask any scientist about the post of mine you quoted and they will tell you the same thing i did.
Here you go more changes of human wisdom as we go alone some change for Physics ? post id: 5294238 http://news.yahoo.com/physics-atom-smashers-antimatter-surprise-232412931.html The world's largest atom smasher, designed as a portal to a new view of physics, has produced its first peek at the unexpected: bits of matter that don't mirror the behavior of their antimatter counterparts. The discovery, if confirmed, could rewrite the known laws of particle physics and help explain why our universe is made mostly of matter and not antimatter. Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider, the 17-mile (27 km) circular particle accelerator underground near Geneva, Switzerland, have been colliding protons at high speeds to create explosions of energy. From this energy many subatomic particles are produced. Now researchers at the accelerator's LHCb experiment are reporting that some matter particles produced inside the machine appear to be behaving differently from their antimatter counterparts, which might provide a partial explanation to the mystery of antimatter. [The Coolest Little Particles in Nature] Missing antimatter Scientists think the universe started off with roughly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. (Particles of antimatter have the same mass of their twins but an opposite charge.) Somehow over the ensuing 14 billion years, most of the antimatter was destroyed, leaving a leftover universe of mainly matter. One potential explanation for this outcome is called "charge-parity violation." CP violation means that particles of opposite charge behave differently from one another. The LHCb researchers found preliminary evidence that this is happening when particles called D-mesons, which contain "charmed quarks," decay into other particles. The whimsically named charmed quarks, like many exotic particles, are so unstable, they last only a fraction of a second. They quickly decay into other particles, and it is these products that the experiment detects. ("LHCb" is short for LHC-beauty, another flavor of quark.) From the experiment, the researchers found a 0.8 percent difference in the probabilities that the matter and antimatter versions of these particles would decay into a particular end state. Ruling out a fluke When it comes to particle physics, it's all about the quality of statistics. Measuring something once is meaningless because of the high degree of uncertainty involved in such exotic, small systems. Scientists rely on taking measurements over and over again — enough times to dismiss the chance of a fluke. The new finding ranks as a "3.5 sigma" result, meaning the statistics are solid enough that there is only a 0.05 percent likelihood that the pattern they see isn't really there. For something to count as a true discovery in particle physics, it must reach a 5 sigma level of confidence. "It's certainly exciting, and certainly worth pursuing," LHCb researcher Matthew Charles of England's Oxford University told LiveScience. "At this point it's a tantalizing hint. It's evidence of something interesting going on, but we're keeping the champagne on ice, let's say." By the end of 2012, Charles said, the Large Hadron Collider should have collected enough data to either confirm or reject the result.
Huh? You obviously have no first-hand experience with hands-on science, even in an academic environment. In a case like this, obviously one of the most important things to do when setting up the experiment is to make sure that the conditions are equivalent to the conditions outside the laboratory. Perhaps what you meant to say--and certainly what you should have said!-- is that doing something in the lab does not prove that it actually happens or has happened in nature.
Hi, Leo. Sorry if I misunderstood your post, My own lab experience, including working with others, informs me. I'm so used to hearing Bible thumpers complain about science being their nemesis, theory is just a guess, and so on... that was on my mind in my comments. I'm a firm believer in studying in the field as well as in the lab.
careful on what you assume fraggle. you have no clue as to my experience. actually the lab results prove (or disprove) the assumptions made. i said exactly what i meant to say.
According to one source that's now apparently down, gethappy.net, religion's not correlated with happiness when all other factors are eliminated. Also according to that author, and other articles I've come across, religious service attendance -is- positively correlated with happiness. The thread-starting post doesn't seem to contradict either of those two statements. My experience as an ex-Christian is that the feeling of greater purpose in being a "believer" is canceled out by the freedom from certain rules/guilt of not being one, but I do miss the social aspect of the church. I like the idea of an atheist church, or some similar parody. A Pew survey found an appreciable difference in income between religious and non-religious people. I've found it easier to focus on career-related activity since going godless. Maybe that's part of the canceling effect, too. I barely read the rest of the thread. I didn't spend the time to read 100+ posts just to see if what I said above might be contradicted. Is it, anyone?
What you are saying serving Gods objective interferes with the choise of your lifestyle : therefore you convinced yourself " there is no God " but in reality how do we know . Science is steel in progress and they dont' have the real answer .
