cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: Prove it, then Gough


@BA Deere wrote:

However Canuck, you can`t create that "life" in a air tight, vacuum chamber, I don`t care how many billion times that you try it.  If you want me to "create" hydrogen, I can do that with a electrolysis machine, seperate water into 1 part oxygen and 2 parts hydrogen, but I need the machine and the water to even get to the crucial first step.  I can make alcohol with a still and corn and sugar.  I can make C-4 explosive, but I need NH4NO3, a oven, racing fuel, a mortar and pestle, without the ingredients...even 1 ingredient is missing or if the heat is too high or too low, just one thing out of wack and you can`t make any of those things. And considering that you athiests are talking about the entire universe coming to being with....no ingredients...hello???  Now you`ve got 2 choices #1 the ingredients "always existed", well that flies in the face of science, specifically the the Laws of Thermodynamics.  or my choice #2 There is a God that is the Alpha and the Omega, that surpasses ALL human understanding.


Life did not begin in a vacuum.

 

You might find this article interesting to read as it covers a lot of your suppositions of why life  had to have been 'created' rather than natural forces being the cause.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/did-the-universe-come-fro_b_739909.html

Some Christian authors and debaters also refer to other more recent calculations claiming these require the universe to have a beginning. To give the shortest possible rebuttal, I will just quote the Cal Tech cosmologist Sean Carroll, who wrote me in an email: "No result derived on the basis of classical general relativity can be used to derive anything truly fundamental, since classical general relativity isn't right. You need to quantize gravity."

So the universe need not have had a beginning. But let's suppose for a moment that it did. That fact alone would not prove it was purposefully created. Another premise must be made to show that. The assumption must be added that everything that begins has a cause. Once again, this ignores quantum mechanics, where events commonly occur without cause. This is the case for the atomic transitions that give us light and the nuclear decays that give us nuclear radiation. They all happen spontaneously, without cause. In short, all attempts to prove that the universe had to have a beginning caused by God fail on several fronts.

 

Lots more info in the article if you care to learn.

 

Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: amen and


@FARM4EVER wrote:

these thought provoking posts stir up a lot of emotion in us regardless of what you believe.  However, since I am new, is this off topic or is it a free for all topic selection?  I am hooked either way.  Love the forum.

 

Since we are on the topic I would love to know the scientific answer other than "there is no God".  a definitive answer from science doesn't exist; so I am glad I know where my faith lies and where I am headed. 

 

 

 

www.farm4ever.com

 

64073652_scaled_342x232.jpg


Hope you contribute some thought provoking input too.

 

I think all topics are open for discussion in the Forum.

 

But I think the scientific answer is that there is no evidence of any god therefore there is no god.

In science you can come up with a hypothesis and then look for proof that the hypothesis is true.

With enough proof, checked by others and replicated, then it beccomes a theory.

The longer a theory stands with more and more evidence shown to prove that the theory is correct then it becomes more established.

Like the theory of evolution which just keeps getting more evidence and proof from all fields of science so is well established as true BUT it can still be tweaked in detail as new finds show corrections are needed to the details.

 

Belief in a god is still just a hypothesis since there has never been any proof shown of any of the many gods that people believe in ever having existed.

Some evidence and proof could move religion into the category of a theory but after thousands of years and many gods being left behind for newer gods and still no proof I would not hold my breath waiting for this evidence to be brought forward.

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: amen and

1)Of course there isn't absolute 'proof', that's why its called FAITH

 

2)  I'm still waiting for that 'missing link' to show up.   Since science hasn't found it yet, can I declare that it doesn't exist?

FARM4EVER
Contributor

amen and

thanks for the insightful breakdown of a hypothesis and progression to theory.  i had forgotten it from university.  

 

i think, but you can check, that faith is the belief in something that no tangible evidence exists to support it; which I believe is the underlying premise of most religions.  therefore, those that believe in God (myself and about 3.5 billion other people of diverse religions) are not concerned with scientific theories.  faith is the driver not science.  

 

would you agree faith is also practiced in science when one has faith a hypothesis will be substantiated by fact, but it has yet to happen?

 

i don't care what science has proved or not proved.  i look forward to your analysis of my post and red writing around every point you dispute. maybe we can agree that i have my beliefs which i am entitled as do you.  i won't hold my breath.  i will keep my faith.  it is unlikely we will change one another, so best regards and happy farming.

 

 

www.farm4ever.com

 

64073652_scaled_342x232.jpg

FARM4EVER
Contributor

Re: amen and

good points. maybe the missing link of the missing link in the missing link of the missing link is God.  i'm not a scientist so i can't prove it.  i will just keep my faith.  happy farming in Neb.

 

 

 

 

www.farm4ever.com

 

64073652_scaled_342x232.jpg

Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: amen and


@Nebrfarmr wrote:

1)Of course there isn't absolute 'proof', that's why its called FAITH

 

2)  I'm still waiting for that 'missing link' to show up.   Since science hasn't found it yet, can I declare that it doesn't exist?


So I looked up the definition the word faith and it is interesting the different meanings it has but basicly it means belief in something with no proof.

The one thing that it is always mentioned in any definition is in regards to religions where it is called FAITH in the chosen religion.

 

Now it is interesting you bring up that so called 'missing link' because I was just reading this before I came to the Agriculture.com site.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/03/13/science-phallus-fossil-acorn-worm.html

It now appears that Spartobranchus may have been a common ancestor to both acorn worms and pterobranchs, or some kind of transitory form at the time when the two types of animals diverged from a common ancestor. In that sense, it fills in a missing link between the two groups of hemichordates.

Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: amen and


@FARM4EVER wrote:

thanks for the insightful breakdown of a hypothesis and progression to theory.  i had forgotten it from university.  

 

i think, but you can check, that faith is the belief in something that no tangible evidence exists to support it; which I believe is the underlying premise of most religions.  therefore, those that believe in God (myself and about 3.5 billion other people of diverse religions) are not concerned with scientific theories.  faith is the driver not science.  

 

would you agree faith is also practiced in science when one has faith a hypothesis will be substantiated by fact, but it has yet to happen?

 

i don't care what science has proved or not proved.  i look forward to your analysis of my post and red writing around every point you dispute. maybe we can agree that i have my beliefs which i am entitled as do you.  i won't hold my breath.  i will keep my faith.  it is unlikely we will change one another, so best regards and happy farming.

 


As I posted to Neb just checked the definition of 'faith; and I think you are correct in your explanation of the word.

 

The question I would pose though is when does one give up on a hypothesis that you can not find any evidence for?

 

I suggest that most scientists do have faith in a new hypothesis to persue the evidence to back it up however they will give up on that hypothesis if the evidence is showing something else or after trying to produce thge evidence over a lenght of time will lose faith in that hypothesis and change the hypothesis or give up on it as being unprovable.

 

Yes you can keep your beliefs as long as you do not try forcing them on others.

 

I will stick to rationalizing my understanding of things with evidence to back up my understanding.

 

As for changing maybe there is no need for change as long as each of us are allowed to continue with no forcefull conditions placed on the other and no recriminations for 'believing' or understanding.

And it is good to listen to the others points too even if you choose not to agree.

And who knows maybe you will even accept the facts provided by science.

 

Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Neb and farm4

Since you both bring up that famous "missing link" I thought maybe I could add a couple more things for your consideration.

Quick search found this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_Link

In science:

And following links found this which I am guessing is most in your mind when you ask for the so called 'missing link'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Human_evolution

 

And some more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Missing_links

The idea of a "missing link" between humans and so-called "lower" animals remains lodged in the public imagination.[55] The search for a fossil showing transitional traits between apes and humans, however, was fruitless until the young Dutch geologist Eugène Dubois found a skullcap, a molar and a femur on the banks of Solo RiverJava in 1891. The find combined a low, ape-like skull roof with a brain estimated at around 1000 cc, midway between that of a chimpanzee and an adult man. The single molar was larger than any modern human tooth, but the femur was long and straight, with a knee angle showing that "Java man" had walked upright.[56] Given the name Pithecanthropus erectus ("erect ape-man"), it became the first in what is now a long list of human evolution fossils. At the time it was hailed by many as the "missing link", helping set the term as primarily used for human fossils, though it is sometimes used for other intermediates, like Archaeopteryx.[57][58]

"Missing link" is still a popular term, well recognized by the public and often used in the popular media. It is, however, avoided in the scientific press, as it relates to the concept of the great chain of being and to the notion of simple organisms being primitive versions of complex ones, both of which have been discarded in biology.[59] In any case, the term itself is misleading, as any known transitional fossil, like Java Man, is no longer missing. While each find will give rise to new gaps in the evolutionary story on each side, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions.[4][60]

 

FARM4EVER
Contributor

Re: Neb and farm4

thanks for the vast research.  it really wasn't enough for me.  i have faith (confidence in one's abilities with no religious linkage)  that you and i will both keep our beliefs and agree to disagree. all the best to you

 

www.farm4ever.com

 

64073652_scaled_342x232.jpg

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: amen and

Farm, Canuk.

I think you both know of the 'missing link' I am talking of.


Remember, I never, ever said that the species on the Earth didn't 'evolve', but am steadfast in these two main points(pertinent to this thread):

 

1) God 'created' it all in the begenning.   Because it changed since then, does not prove he didn't start it all.  I have seen NO proof fo anything else that did the 'creating', and in fact what science I know about the origins of the Universe, say that some sort of 'force' was a catalyst in getting the whole process started.

 

2) Man did not 'evolve' from another speices.   I have heard, all my life, that if we just wait long enough, that science will find that 'missing link' to show that man evolved from the apes.  
To ask Canuk a version of his own question:   How long do you search for something, that you haven't found, before you are willing to say, it may not exist?

 

Again, not to 'force' any ideas on anyone, just stating my opinion.

 

Neb