What do you think happens after death?

[Bond]

Random thought on my mind recently. Views?

[Seth]

Unlike most of Christendom, I believe the Bible when it clearly states that the dead know nothing. It further elaborates by explaining how, upon the 2nd coming of the Messiah, those who have died(living a righteous life) will be resurrected.

Anything resembling 'spirit channeling' is merely demons, further confusing the actual state of the dead. To think that an all-loving God will immediately transport a person's soul to heaven upon their death is rather oxymoronic. Same goes for an eternal anguish in hell for those who don't make the cut. Scripture describes infinite separation from God as hell. So, to state it simply, I believe in the traditional Judaic interpretation of life after death, not some merged concoction of pagan-christian superstitions that the majority of both Protestants and Catholics have been duped into accepting.
sorry for the offensive nature of the above.

Since you started, Bond, what are your thoughts on post mortemism?

[TheGame]

Might as well ask if god is real in this thread. lol But I have a thought on Seth's post.

To think that an all-loving God will immediately transport a person's soul to heaven upon their death is rather oxymoronic.

I actually agree with this statement, however.. It depends on how the concept of time works when you're gone. Compared to Eternal life, our time limit on earth would be VERY short. The way I see it, if you're really living forever after death, then the time of your whole life.. let alone the time between when you die and when god returns to earth, would feel like nothing. Especially if you're not even aware of your own death.

Chances are when you die, you'll wake up in your new life in what feels like an instant. Hell, compare to eternal life, we're just living part of what would be an instant one day.

Just some food for thought. :)

[KillerGremlin]

I'm a Frisbeetarian. I believe that when you die, your soul floats away and gets stuck on the roof.

[KillerGremlin]

To think that an all-loving God will immediately transport a person's soul to heaven upon their death is rather oxymoronic.

But since the dead know nothing, wouldn't the transition to heaven seem immediate? For the righteous, that is.

[Teuthida]

I'd like to say that when you're dead, you're dead, but there are some really weird cases of young kids remembering past lives and actually tracking down their old families and being able to identify everyone never having met.

Then there are ghosts. Now these could actually be spirits or just energy that is stuck without the walls of a building. I liken this to those recordings from old pottery where the vibrations of people talking actually made it onto the surface of the pots. Oh bah, turns out that was a hoax: http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2006/02/6500yearold_voices_record.html

Heaven and Hell never made sense to me since there is much more to life than humans, who are a pretty new species given the grand scheme of things. When other animals die they're just dead? Then there are intelligent beings on other planets. What happens to them? If God is the one creator of the entire universe and not just Earth then surely there are other species in Heaven and Hell. Are they then segregated by planet? All seems too complicated to make sense.

Probably other dimensions which could be considered to be a Heaven or Hell. Where else do fairie folk and demons and such come from if they exist?

Who knows? I'll just assume when I die I'll be dead. If I get reincarnated or whisped off to another dimension or left behind as spiritual energy, oh well.

[Typhoid]

I think your body slowly decomposes and the people that love you will remember you until they slowly decompose as well.

I can't remember before I was born, nor do I remember being born. So I don't expect to remember dying, or have thought after I die.

And hey, if there is a higher being of some sort, cool. I'd embrace that. Unless it is the type of messiah that hates you if you have free will.

[Vampyr]

Personally, I don't believe anything happens. I think you're just dead - the spark of whatever makes you human just fades away, like a flame. There's no reason to believe that a fire, once it dies, still exists in some higher dimensional plane...and there's no reason to believe a human does either.

If there is something after death, I doubt it is conceived on a notion of humanly defined "right" and "wrong".

not some merged concoction of pagan-christian superstitions that the majority of both Protestants and Catholics have been duped into accepting.

Really? All religions are some merged concoctions of the belief sets that have come before them, which their followers have been duped into accepting.

[Angrist]

Unlike most of Christendom, I believe the Bible when it clearly states that the dead know nothing. It further elaborates by explaining how, upon the 2nd coming of the Messiah, those who have died(living a righteous life) will be resurrected.

Anything resembling 'spirit channeling' is merely demons, further confusing the actual state of the dead. To think that an all-loving God will immediately transport a person's soul to heaven upon their death is rather oxymoronic. Same goes for an eternal anguish in hell for those who don't make the cut. Scripture describes infinite separation from God as hell. So, to state it simply, I believe in the traditional Judaic interpretation of life after death, not some merged concoction of pagan-christian superstitions that the majority of both Protestants and Catholics have been duped into accepting.
sorry for the offensive nature of the above.

Since you started, Bond, what are your thoughts on post mortemism?Interesting. That's pretty much what me and 7 million other witnesses of Jehovah believe.

Except for the hell as being seperated from God. (Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in a burning hell (but the Greeks did)). What is often translated as hell means the common grave of humanity. A symbolical place that we go to when we die.
There's another word (gehenna), that's a state of eternal destruction. A state of not existing. So no burning there either, sorry guys.

And yeah, what Seth said. You die, your life ends. Everything of it. But Jehovah can bring you back to life after his son has started to reign.

Although there is a small group of people who will join Jesus in the heavens, to rule the earth for 1000 years. But Revelation says that group is only 144.000 people big, so most people (incl. Christians, Jews...) have a hope of eternal life on earth.

[Seth]

But since the dead know nothing, wouldn't the transition to heaven seem immediate? For the righteous, that is.
That would be the coolness of death. In essence, it should almost be like the blink of an eye.
TheGame, yes! Very trippy thinking about the whimsy of time that it takes one to be born, live a full life n die, when compared to the timescape of the universe.
What Angrist said about the 144000. From my interpretive point, the 144k is the remnant at the very end of the world who have been brought through the persecution and literally witness God returning. As for living a millennium, I believe that every righteous soul who has lived throughout Earth's history will be raised and taken to heaven for this thousand year time period. It's basically a question/answer period where the unknown's and mysteries regarding our time on Earth is explained. It's after this thousand years that the Earth is restored and the new city of God is created on the newly reno'd planet.

Teuthida: regarding species on other planets,
From a Biblical perspective, humanity here on Earth is the grand central stage where the dividing question on whether or not we even possess freedom of choice is being played out. Every intelligent, created being in the universe has access to the results of human's choices concerning God's law, and his subsequent redemption plan for those who embrace the love. The Bible regards sin as the one thing that separates us all from the Creator. That's why there are hundreds of prophetic verses in the old testament regarding the arrival of the Messiah. It's difficult(for me) to dismiss fulfilled prophecy as merely religious traditions. We've all heard, "wages of sin is death". That's why we're in need of a 'saviour'. Sin doesn't have the same effect on the rest of the created universe because Luciferian influence is confined to this planet. It was Satan's bargaining chip, in regards to his claimed lack of choice under the 'rule' of a supreme being.
To put it another way, if hell is separation from God. Sin separates us from Him, so any sin in our lives is causing us to live in a 'hell' of sorts.
btw: demons=fallen angels

Typh: last thing you said about free will. Freedom of choice, within the context of Biblical explanations, is a universal law, as real as gravity. It boils down to loving your neighbor as you love yourself, which is pretty weighty. decisions based on selfish motive are what keeps us from being able to exist in the presence of an 'all-encompassing' love, like the kind that God has. So, a Messiah that hates freedom of choice is a big contradiction of his nature. Accepting the redemption of his sacrifice for us is a choice.
The Bible talks about those who have never heard the name of Jesus, that they will be judged based on their propensity to 'do good'.

I really like the one God, Judeo belief of 'the meaning of life'. For me it leaves no room for fear of the unknown because it instills purpose. Purpose beyond, "hey I want that car, relationship, house, richness in next life, that peak, wave, game...." because all this can be removed in an instant. For myself, I want to enjoy the many pleasures of this life, but I don't want to base my existence or purpose on it.

[Typhoid]

Typh: last thing you said about free will. Freedom of choice, within the context of Biblical explanations, is a universal law, as real as gravity. It boils down to loving your neighbor as you love yourself, which is pretty weighty. decisions based on selfish motive are what keeps us from being able to exist in the presence of an 'all-encompassing' love, like the kind that God has. So, a Messiah that hates freedom of choice is a big contradiction of his nature. Accepting the redemption of his sacrifice for us is a choice.
The Bible talks about those who have never heard the name of Jesus, that they will be judged based on their propensity to 'do good'.


I was more alluding to the fact of "All non believers of *enter religion here* don't go to *enter afterlife here*."

[Vampyr]

I don't understand why religion is needed to give meaning to life. I don't understand how people can scoff at the idea of Santa Clause in one breath and say they believe in an invisible man in the sky who is all powerful and created all of existence in another.

I believe that life is meaningless. Human's are not the center of the universe, and there is no higher power which is going to grant us immortal life after we have died.

However, I believe that each of us, as individuals, possess the ability and right to give our lives as much meaning as we desire to, through our actions, aspirations, dreams, and achievements. Through our joys and our morals and our passions. Whether you are a writer or an artist or a programmer who revels in creation, or a lover who lives to love the people around them. Each of us, without the assistance of a god, can give life meaning. Without our human judgment, though, life is intrinsically meaningless.

This is the great paradox of our existence: of the short time, the span of years and decades, life is immensely important. Getting to work on time, raising your kids, playing your favorite video game, reading your favorite book. These things are very important to you and have great meaning during your short life. And I say short because, in the context of universal and geological time, our lives are a mere flicker of candlelight. Over the course of geological time, which is so large we cannot appropriately fathom it, these things are meaningless. As humans each one of us must learn to deal with this paradox - that the things we do are both meaningful and meaningless.

We must come to accept that we are mortal - our existence is -not- forever. We are creatures who have evolved into what we are over the course of millions of years, so in that since we are very old, but each individual mind is a candle in the wind. This is the mistake I believe most religions make. They try to take us, as mortals, and force us into the context of immortality, a place which we do not belong.

And there's nothing wrong with that. We don't need to live forever, no other creature does (although technically lobsters and a few other sea critters could). I'm not saying that death is an ok thing that just happens as a product of nature. Nature is not intrinsically perfect. There is a huge amount of randomness in evolution, and no creature evolves toward perfection. Death is an ugly side to Darwinism, but it doesn't mean we need to invent things to help us cope with it.

Speaking of Darwin, I believe that most my concepts of life and it's meaning come from a combination of the things he did, and the things Albert Camus wrote (The Myth of Sisyphus, The Stranger, The Plague, etc).

Darwin helps to explain the relation between geological time and our life time, and Camus helps to understand how we can give our life times meaning in the face of oblivion.

[KillerGremlin]

I'm curious what inspired Bond to make this thread or what he personally thinks.

[Combine 017]

When you die, your body gets burnt to ashes to prevent the chance of coming back as a zombie, then you get put in a vase for others to admire and be thankful that cant come back as a zombie.

[KillerGremlin]

And the alternative is that they fill your grave with cement. :D

[Angrist]

I'm curious what inspired Bond to make this thread or what he personally thinks.Yeah when I was lying in bed yesterday, I suddenly wondered if Bond is dying or something.

I really don't think about GT members very often when I'm lying in bed. Seriously. :(

[ZebraRampage]

I really don't think about GT members very often when I'm lying in bed. Seriously. :(

Haha, I was actually just wondering about that.

As for what happens after death...I don't think anything happens. You just die, and that's it.

[Bond]

I am not dying! Sorry if I made anyone think this. I made this thread because "what is after death?" is a question that I have been giving much thought since my birthday (21) a few days ago. Normally I just pass birthdays by quite happily, but for some reason this one in particular gave me a sense of my immortality, and that some day I will die.

And I suppose this hit me now because it is a question I have long ignored, along with "is there a God?" I've realized these are (probably) the two greatest questions in our life, and they deserve a great deal of time and effort in addressing them.

In short, I am not sure what happens after death, which I suppose makes me agnostic, but I hope I am not a lazy agnostic. I have always enjoyed studying organized religion, its selective histories are quite fascinating and entertaining, but I have never much liked organized religion as a personal construct for myself. As much as I tried, I cannot convince myself it is right for me to join a religion.

But, of course, faith is not dependent on organized religion. I view faith as a much more personal than communal journey, but perhaps I am wrong.

I will say I think it is misguided to simply dismiss all of religion, in the view that it makes humans subservient and weak, and that the only way toward human empowerment is through a non-religious mindset. In fact, one could quite easily argue the opposite.

Mormonism - a very strict religion by any stretch of the imagination, is a collection of some of the most industrious and wealthy persons America has ever known. A coincidence? Perhaps, but I think unlikely.

In America, we seem to have a science versus religion mindset, which I think is counterproductive. It seems to me as though they would work much more effectively together than against.

[KillerGremlin]

I've been struggling with this for the past year or two. It's a tough thing to think about, and even tougher when you realize that 99% of your peers, friends and family choose to ignore the topic because it is difficult. I was raised Catholic and began to drift away from the church during high school when I began to have personal differences regarding certain topics. I also am incredibly cynical about humans in general and that has pushed me further away from religion. But I've been meaning to start reading the Bible on my own. I want to explore it on my own since I was raised on a religion that focuses on tradition and cherry picks similar passages from the Bible every year.

It's really important to have a sense of humor about life though...and appreciate the little things. Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the Comedian is the only thing that makes sense. :D

[Bond]

But I've been meaning to start reading the Bible on my own. I want to explore it on my own since I was raised on a religion that focuses on tradition and cherry picks similar passages from the Bible every year.
This is very true. I suppose you can't fault the Catholics, as their faith has always been based more on tradition than the Bible. I remember in the high school that I attended (a Catholic one) we only had one required religious class that utilized the Bible. The interpretations were sometimes very odd and a bit erratic, but always entertaining.

[Vampyr]

In America, we seem to have a science versus religion mindset, which I think is counterproductive. It seems to me as though they would work much more effectively together than against.

This stems from the fact that the more we learn in the fields of science, the less and less we need God to explain things.

Science has already proven so many things in the Bible wrong, when they are read literally. The religious response to this was to start reading them metaphorically.

One of my favorite examples is the case of amputees. Whenever you ask most religious people if they think praying for their sick relatives and/or friends recovery actually helps them, they will all say yes. If their friend has cancer, an infection, a heart problem, etc, etc, they all believe that praying will help make them better.

But what about amputees? If you ask them if praying for an amputee will help them recover, their first reaction will be one of discomfort, then they will have to make up something far fetched like, "God has a special plan for those people."

You could argue that by being an amputee who is still alive, God has already helped you. But why, then, does god favor people with internal problems that are invisible to our eyes? Why does he sometimes help those people recover completely, but amputees are left with sometimes 4 missing limbs.

And what about victims of paralysis? These people are alive, but their limbs (or more) are unusable. People pray that they will get back their ability to use their bodies...apparently just being alive isn't good enough for these people. And if these people DO recover the use of their bodies, religious people will say "thank God." So, why doesn't your god help amputees recover the use of their bodies?

There are just so many unreasonable things about religion. The above example, as well as how obviously cross pollinated they are, yet they are all more right than the others! I think the cross pollination is proof that religions are just made up by humans throughout history, incorporating things they like, and leaving out things they don't like.

Mormonism - a very strict religion by any stretch of the imagination, is a collection of some of the most industrious and wealthy persons America has ever known. A coincidence? Perhaps, but I think unlikely.

Meh...yeah I think this is a coincidence. There are wealthy people of every religion.

[TheGame]

There's a reason science and religion has managed to co-exist this long. The fact that science cannot disprove that there's a creator, even in all of its advancements.. is the reason religion still exists.

People are free to believe what they'd like, but there's no factual evidence that disproves that there's a god.

Don't get me wrong, just because something can't be disproved, doesn't mean it exists. Its just that religion fills in the blanks that science has never, and probably will never be able to fill.

[Typhoid]

Its just that religion fills in the blanks that science has never, and probably will never be able to fill.


What?

Not to sound like an ass, but please explain what science hasn't been able to answer.

[Vampyr]

There's a reason science and religion has managed to co-exist this long. The fact that science cannot disprove that there's a creator, even in all of its advancements.. is the reason religion still exists.

People are free to believe what they'd like, but there's no factual evidence that disproves that there's a god.

Don't get me wrong, just because something can't be disproved, doesn't mean it exists. Its just that religion fills in the blanks that science has never, and probably will never be able to fill.

The burden of proof is not on scientists or the non religious.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that a God does exist. Saying, "You can't prove it ISN'T there" is not a logical argument. It's a fallacy.

So until someone can prove there IS god, there's no reason to believe there is one.

[Professor S]

What?

Not to sound like an ass, but please explain what science hasn't been able to answer.

Well for one, the origins of life. Right now science's explanation have been:

1) A mistake or coincidence (a theory even science of probabilities does not support)

2) Aliens (and in that case, who made them?)

Both of those theories are based on pretty lousy "science", to be honest. For me, science seems to create 2 questions with each answer it discovers, and even most of what is treated as proven science is actually just a leading theory. Part of my issue with the scienbtific community is how they tend to treat leading theories as facts, and I find that counterproductive to the scientific process.

[Professor S]

The burden of proof is not on scientists or the non religious.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that a God does exist. Saying, "You can't prove it ISN'T there" is not a logical argument. It's a fallacy.

So until someone can prove there IS god, there's no reason to believe there is one.


I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that one:

The leading theory on the origins of life remains that God created life. There is no proof that life was created otherwise, and any evidence to the contrary is circumstantial and even silly. There is more hard science to support the God theory (probabilities of life orighinating by accident making it a near impossibility). So if we are going to treat leading and established theories as facts to be disproven, and God has been the leading theory for thousands of years, that puts the burden of proof on those attempting to disprove God's existence.

But more importantly, Vamp, your comments show a big misunderstanding of religion and what it means to be religious. To prove God's existence would destroy him.

[Bond]

But more importantly, Vamp, your comments show a big misunderstanding of religion and what it means to be religious. To prove God's existence would destroy him.
Interesting point. I'm assuming you say this because it would destroy the need for faith, and the awe and mystery that the unknown of God creates?

[KillerGremlin]

The leading theory on the origins of life remains that God created life. There is no proof that life was created otherwise, and any evidence to the contrary is circumstantial and even silly.

I thought that the leading theory was after the Big Bang occurred the "right stuff" (which is the molecular make-up of our universe) allowed life to flourish.

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/090111-creating-life.html:
Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago — perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets — to create biology.

Now scientists have created something in the lab that is tantalizingly close to what might have happened. It's not life, they stress, but it certainly gives the science community a whole new data set to chew on.

The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction.

If you don't discredit Evolution, then who is to say the right reaction could not have created life?

This evidence or theory does not rule out a divine creator setting life into motion, it is just is a very reasonable explanation for where life may have possibly originated.

There is more hard science to support the God theory (probabilities of life orighinating by accident making it a near impossibility).

Just because it is nearly impossible does not make it impossible. I probably won't win the lottery, but it is possible. My understanding is this argument is difficult due to the unknown origins of the universe. So, what "hard science" supports God? Science is not looking for God, it is looking for understanding of the world around us.



I just want to say that science is not theology. Science does not seek out to disprove God, it seeks out to explain the natural phenomenons in our Universe. Science has very little stakes in the Ontological nature of our universe. Theories like Evolution (which is as much of a "Theory" as Gravity is) or the Big Bang do not discredit a divine creator that set things into motion.

Science has taken on this mistaken identity of being Anti-Religious because it has disproved a number of things firmly supported by the religious community; the world is flat, the world is the center of the universe, the sun is the center of the universe, the universe is a constant thing, evolution, etc.

But this ignores and negates the philosophical questions of existence and places the focus on Scripture or certain religious denominations. My beef with brilliant minds like Dawkins is that his wisdom is in science not philosophy, so he has NO business discussing philosophy.


EDIT: There is some new science looking at the Afterlife or Near Death Experiences...but I believe the Catholic's policy is the Afterlife is something that can only be obtained when you have truly passed. Also I believe the Bible describes the Afterlife as intangible to human thought/imagination.

[Vampyr]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that one:

The leading theory on the origins of life remains that God created life. There is no proof that life was created otherwise, and any evidence to the contrary is circumstantial and even silly. There is more hard science to support the God theory (probabilities of life orighinating by accident making it a near impossibility). So if we are going to treat leading and established theories as facts to be disproven, and God has been the leading theory for thousands of years, that puts the burden of proof on those attempting to disprove God's existence.

But more importantly, Vamp, your comments show a big misunderstanding of religion and what it means to be religious. To prove God's existence would destroy him.

More importantly, you're comments show a big misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. You sound like the people who say, "Oh evolution! It's only a theory." Religion is not a theory, and neither is god.

Where are your statistics coming from that make the existence of an all powerful being more probable than all life being created from accident? I find the latter to be more likely - that a group of atoms combined in just the right way to form a single cell organism. At least that is explainable. The existence of a god is not explainable.

If I were to say to you, "There is a purple furred bunny with draconic wings and a lions head somewhere in the world today", then would you be obligated to believe that, just because you don't have evidence to disprove me?

I don't see how my statements lead you to believe I don't know anything about religion or religious people. I wasn't born atheist, but I have become a person of reason and fact. I understand that religion and religious people require a certain amount of spirituality - but since I do not believe in spirituality, I cannot use those terms to express my argument.

You're trying to put me into a catch 22 - I can't use reason to argue my point because it is against the nature of religion, but I can't use religion to argue my point because it contradicts my point.

[TheGame]

I'll say that I generally agree with Strangler's stance in this thread. Lately I've not been in the debating mood, so I'm not really going to sit here and go down point by point and argue with Vamp and KG.

But there's one point I want to touch on..

If I were to say to you, "There is a purple furred bunny with draconic wings and a lions head somewhere in the world today", then would you be obligated to believe that, just because you don't have evidence to disprove me?

No. Just like you're not obligated to believe that a god created us, nor are you obligated to believe in 'random chance' or evolution. It's a choice.

But the search for evidence, and the further understanding of how energy works.. usually leads back to the same fact. Its much more likely that someone or something created life. Random chance is possible, but its more of a stretch to say random chance created energy from nothing without a hand to push it in the direction it went. To me that's both illogical, and goes against what science has discovered.

I know its cliché, but what came first, the chicken or the egg? Saying god created chickens to give birth through eggs may sound crazy to you, but to me it makes more sense then saying they were created by accidents and random chance from nothing. And science has yet to find a shred of evidence that disproves my belief on the subject..

[Vampyr]

Heh, aren't religious people the ones that believe something came from nothing? XD

[Bond]

Heh, aren't religious people the ones that believe something came from nothing? XD
Not necessarily, but this goes back to the human construct of time. God could either exist outside of time, or in multiple dimensions of time.

[Teuthida]

Thanks, KG. I didn't want to have to break out my old bio textbooks.

The Game, there is no choice except for disregarding science or not.

And the egg came first. Two animals very close to being chickens mated and laid an egg. Their offspring would be the first of what we consider a chicken to be.

[TheGame]

The Game, there is no choice except for disregarding science or not.

Anyone who believes energy came from nowhere and that there was no creator is disregarding science. An Agnostic doesn't disregard science, but an Atheiest does.
just as much.. or more then any religious person.

And the egg came first. Two animals very close to being chickens mated and laid an egg. Their offspring would be the first of what we consider a chicken to be.

Where did the two animals that mated come from? Why can't we consider them to be a chicken? If they weren't born from an egg, why did the next baby happen to come out of an Egg instead of how its parents were born? What did the creature that came out of the egg mate with to create more eggs?

I don't think that you have the correct answer. You just made up that answer to rationalize the fact that there's a hole that science can't explain. Just as a religious person would fill the hole with saying god created either/or.

[Teuthida]

Life and energy are not interchangeable concepts. The universe was around well before there was life so there was energy to bring about the creation of life. The creation of the universe is a whole other matter I have almost zero knowledge on.

Going to take the easy way out on the chicken debate and quote wikipedia. Explains it much better than I could.

The Theory of Evolution says that species change over time in the process of evolution. Since DNA can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken egg. In this light, both the egg and the chicken evolved simultaneously from birds who weren't chickens and didn't lay chicken eggs but gradually became more and more like chickens over time.

However, a mutation in one individual is not normally considered a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.

The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl. Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken-egg came before the chicken.

Red junglefowl-grey junglefowl hybrid, it's what's for dinner.

[KillerGremlin]

Anyone who believes energy came from nowhere and that there was no creator is disregarding science. An Agnostic doesn't disregard science, but an Atheiest does.
just as much.. or more then any religious person.

There are two arguments that will have us running in circles for days:
-God always existed (in counter to the, "who made God/where did he come from?)
-Energy always existed (in counter to, "where does energy come from?)

Believing in the latter does not mean you need to forfeit your belief in God.

Where did the two animals that mated come from?

From smaller organisms. Many of which live in your body and you depend on for your day-to-day survival.

What did the creature that came out of the egg mate with to create more eggs?

How did Adam and Eve's children populate the Earth. Oh, they had sex with each other. Siblings banging is nothing new. :p

[TheGame]

Life and energy are not interchangeable concepts. The universe was around well before there was life so there was energy to bring about the creation of life. The creation of the universe is a whole other matter I have almost zero knowledge on.

How do you know that the universe was around before there was life?

Going to take the easy way out on the chicken debate and quote wikipedia. Explains it much better than I could.

Red junglefowl-grey junglefowl hybrid, it's what's for dinner.

That quote from wiki is based completly off of theories and beliefs, and not off of facts.

[KillerGremlin]

I know its cliché, but what came first, the chicken or the egg? Saying god created chickens to give birth through eggs may sound crazy to you, but to me it makes more sense then saying they were created by accidents and random chance from nothing. And science has yet to find a shred of evidence that disproves my belief on the subject..

Take Biology. Microorganisms can split or multiply. All it takes is some good primordial tidal soup. And there is a whole cannon of science - Biology - which supports the claim that microorganisms can reproduce. And if you want facts I can dig them up. In labs microbiologists have been able to witness reproduction of single-celled organisms. They have mapped DNA and compared human DNA to other animals (as well as other animals to other animals). There are remnants of single-celled organisms in you and me too. I'm not a Bio Major, this is my GF's territory, but I think if you really seek answers you should take biology. (And again, this STILL doesn't disprove God. It merely provides a logical explanation to some phenomenon in our Universe).

Also, your use of words like "accidents" and "random chance" are misleading. It seems the universe is actually quite receptive for life. Jupiter's moon Europa appears to have enough oxygen to support Earthly life (NASA). Mars may have bacteria on it, and our Moon has water on it! And that's just within our Solar System. There are BILLIONS of galaxies out there with TRILLIONS of stars.

[TheGame]

Take Biology. Microorganisms can split or multiply. All it takes is some good primordial tidal soup. And there is a whole cannon of science - Biology - which supports the claim that microorganisms can reproduce. And if you want facts I can dig them up. In labs microbiologists have been able to witness reproduction of single-celled organisms. They have mapped DNA and compared human DNA to other animals (as well as other animals to other animals). There are remnants of single-celled organisms in you and me too. I'm not a Bio Major, this is my GF's territory, but I think if you really seek answers you should take biology. (And again, this STILL doesn't disprove God. It merely provides a logical explanation to some phenomenon in our Universe).

Eventually I'll have to take classes on that subject, my main two majors have been Philosophy and Economics. (Persueing both, but got my AA in liberal arts, then went to work... :()

But anyway, the only thing I can really say to that, is that experiments are also created.. As are the environments in which organisms are studied. So as you said, it doesn't disprove creationism. At the end of the day, it boils down to if everything became how it is now by design, or by chance.

[Typhoid]

Where did the two animals that mated come from? Why can't we consider them to be a chicken?

For the same reason we don't classify a Chimpanzee as a Bonobo. They're both apes, but different in little ways that make them not the same at all.

[Typhoid]

Eventually I'll have to take classes on that subject, my main two majors have been Philosophy and Economics. (Persueing both, but got my AA in liberal arts, then went to work... :()

But anyway, the only thing I can really say to that, is that experiments are also created.. As are the environments in which organisms are studied. So as you said, it doesn't disprove creationism. At the end of the day, it boils down to if everything became how it is now by design, or by chance.

I think the point that's trying to be stressed is people on the side of creationism typically say "Well you can't prove how evolution happened. You can't prove there isn't a God." However, on the other hand they can't prove there is a God.


The bad thing I find in "faith", is that it closes some minds to expanding our knowledge of life itself.

[TheGame]

I think the point that's trying to be stressed is people on the side of creationism typically say "Well you can't prove how evolution happened. You can't prove there isn't a God." However, on the other hand they can't prove there is a God.

That really depends on what you define as proof. For a Christian the Bible is their proof. Apparently a man was able to walk on water and heal people with prayer and do various other miracles. Then they'd turn around and ask where's your ptoof.. My point is that it is a choce based off of faith to belive that there's no creator.

The bad thing I find in "faith", is that it closes some minds to expanding our knowledge of life itself.

I actually agree with that statement, in a way. Though I think if nobody was religious, and everyone just accepted that we were created out of random chance, then it'd be just as bad. I think having conflicting faiths helps with the pursuit of the truth.. but the problem is that the truth exists so far back in time that it can't really be proved one way or another.

Though we're in an age of recorded history now.. as long as things stay this way, another 3-5,000 years or so down the line there might be atual video evidence of evolution, or maybe man itself will have evolved over time.

[Typhoid]

Though I think if nobody was religious, and everyone just accepted that we were created out of random chance, then it'd be just as bad. I think having conflicting faiths helps with the pursuit of the truth.. but the problem is that the truth exists so far back in time that it can't really be proved one way or another.

The thing about science, is that time won't change the answer.


Also, how would it be bad if people believed that we were made by a random chance, or even a high possibility on every planet - except our planet (among with thousands upon thousands of others in our Galaxy alone) have the right conditions for housing and sustaining the beginning organisms?

I view that a miracle in itself. (Let's say for argument's sake was housed in an asteroid that crashed into earth depositing the cells here) If our specific building blocks of life crashed into any other planet, asteroid, or even just flat out didn't hit the Earth, we wouldn't be alive right now. The same principle of our birth from sperm to egg, can be applied to asteroid to planet. It's all just chance.

[TheGame]

The thing about science, is that time won't change the answer.

There's been plenty of times in history where science's widely accepted answers to things were proven to be wrong. This is why scientific discoveries are almost always labeled as theories. The underlying answer to things will never change, but they also can never be proven to be true in every circumstance.

Also, how would it be bad if people believed that we were made by a random chance, or even a high possibility on every planet - except our planet (among with thousands upon thousands of others in our Galaxy alone) have the right conditions for housing and sustaining the beginning organisms?

Its not bad if people believe it, its bad if EVERYONE believes it. Usually anything that's accepted to be a fact by everyone is never questioned hard enough, and takes much longer to disprove. Whenever there's a conflict of Ideas, the truth is actively searched for.

[Teuthida]

Everyone always brings up the "it's just a theory" argument, when the term isn't being used how you think it is. In science, a theory is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. It isn't guesswork.

Hmm, then there laws. Gravity is a law but is explained through theories.

A law is a statement or principle that 'describes' a phenomenon
Theories are coherent, well-substantiated explanations.

Really wishing I did not drop out of my first college now. But on that topic, I took a senior level course on evolution during my freshmen year. I did horribly (take the required prerequisites kids) but I did learn that evolution is anything but random. You would not believe the insane amount of math behind something like getting a chicken.

I have no problem with believing what you want to believe...until it goes against something that can be proved. Like how during the middle ages it was agreed upon that the world was flat, mice were born from dirt, the sun revolves around the earth, etc. Evolution is a little harder to explain. You can't just point and say "look, there it is."

[Bond]

I think the point that's trying to be stressed is people on the side of creationism typically say "Well you can't prove how evolution happened. You can't prove there isn't a God." However, on the other hand they can't prove there is a God.
Who here is arguing for creationism? I see your point on a general creationism vs. evolution debate (depending upon the definition of creationism you're using), but I don't believe TheGame has supported creationism in his argument.

As KG said, none of the points raised have a bearing on if there is or is not a God, they are simply an evolution of our understanding of how the universe functions.

[TheGame]

Everyone always brings up the "it's just a theory" argument, when the term isn't being used how you think it is. In science, a theory is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. It isn't guesswork.

Its not 100% guesswork, but it also isn't a fact. A scientific fact is an observeable natural occurance. We cannot observe macro evolution, thereforce it cannot be labeled as a fact. A scientific theory is an attempt to explain how natural occurances work. While a theory is based off of facts, it is not a fact. It attempts to put together scientific facts to come to a conclusion that cannot actually be observed in full.

I don't personally discount how well thought out some theories are, but in the end, its just a theory... any way you look at it. For all we know we could be living in the Matrix. Or we could be the build up under some exteremely large evolved creature's toenail, just waiting for the day where he cleans us out.. Or like a weird Anime I watched touched on.. The would could have just been created when you were born, and you could be in complete control of your environment and not even know it.. and when you die the worls could end.

-EDIT-

Just tossing in this to add tot he first point. Someone mentioned evolution is as much of a theory as gravity. The thing is, gravity is a scientific fact. Gravity is observeable and testable. The theories come in where they use that scientific fact to try to explain the orgins of gravity, or explain what creates gravity.

Evolution is a scientific fact also, you see man evolve from a child into an adult (aka micro evolution), and we're even seeing some slow generational evolution. The theories for evolution come into play when they use it to explain the orgin of our species.

[Typhoid]

Who here is arguing for creationism?...I don't believe TheGame has supported creationism in his argument.

I was simply making a statement of how I dislike it when people say that.

[Professor S]

There is a lot going on in this thread, but I want to clarify my points a little further:

1) Origins of life: If you'd like to say random chance, a chance so remote the many statisticians believe it near impossible if not impossible, is the origin of life, thats fine. I remain open to the other option as well. There is as much "science" to support that as the religion/God(s) theory, a theory simultaneously held for thousands of years by many cultures who never interacted with one another. There is something to be said for that, and arguments of "needing an answer" have little to support them other than a thought process intended to find an answer other than "God". They all didn't believe in a purple dragon, of the infamous "spaghetti monster in the sky" as many of the more egotistocal atheists like to call it.

2) "Proving God". This is an impossibility. Even if God came down from the heavens, turned water into grape juice and and cured all diseases, there would still be those who would disbelieve, and the "scientific theorists" would be the first to do so, because they couldn't "prove" how it happened. If you can't prove it, it never happened, right? There must be some provable explanation or random confluence of events because the alternative is not acceptable and cannot be considered... kind of lile the idea of a higher power sparking life into being.

3) I am not a science bigot, but a science realist. There is a lot that is wrong with the scientific community, and most of it driven by ego and the need to be accepted by peers. Tesla was derided and ignored for decades after his death because a rival scientist (Edison) had the hearts and minds (and money) of the community. The fact that much of the community refuses to accept the possibility of God as an option because it's immmeasurable is not based in scientific evidence to the contrary, it's based in closed minded thinking. One can experiment in finding alternatives while keeping other possibilities available, and when the scientific community makes gross assumptions based on theories (evolutionary theory has been horribly abused and overstated in it's scope) it closes more doors than it opens. No one in mainstream science will even sniff at the idea of challenging many of the current assumptions made from evolutionary theory, and thats a huge cultural problem in science, not a scientific one.

I honestly hope that every scientist available puts as much effort available towards determining the origins of life and every other mystery of the universe, and I hope they find answers to all their questions, but considering devine alternatives is not a detriment to this process if one thinks objectively, and can in fact open up new avenues to explore because it asks that we try and prove thewories instead of just assuming they are true.

[Teuthida]

Evolution is a scientific fact also, you see man evolve from a child into an adult (aka micro evolution), and we're even seeing some slow generational evolution. The theories for evolution come into play when they use it to explain the orgin of our species.

Ah ok. With the whole chicken thing I thought I was having to prove the whole concept of evolution. Yeah, the origin of our species it's a little muddled. Changes with every new finding.

Origins of life: If you'd like to say random chance, a chance so remote the many statisticians believe it near impossible if not impossible, is the origin of life, thats fine. I remain open to the other option as well. There is as much "science" to support that as the religion/God(s) theory, a theory simultaneously held for thousands of years by many cultures who never interacted with one another. There is something to be said for that, and arguments of "needing an answer" have little to support them other than a thought process intended to find an answer other than "God". They all didn't believe in a purple dragon, of the infamous "spaghetti monster in the sky" as many of the more egotistocal atheists like to call it.

You do realize all cultures had very unique gods and creation stories. It sounds like you're saying that the concept of gods in most cultures has the same validity as tested experiments involving self-replicating amino acids which is the proposed basis for life. Really? For a people with no knowledge of what the sun is, of course they'll create stories behind why it rises and falls every day and night, thus you have a myriad of sun gods. And as cultures interacted they took bits and pieces to add to their mythology. There are a number of resurrection gods as well. Why do people dismiss the older god Osiris when Jesus was probably based on him. And poor Zeus gets no respect these days. There might not be purple dragons (or there might be, there are a hell of a lot of gods out there) but you do have the Japanese dragon god Watatsumi and the feathered snake god Quetzalcoatl for example. In the world of gods there is no proof, but your own belief. Which is fine. Believe in whatever you like. It can't be disproven. Just don't dismiss actual studies and experiments in the same breathe as the sun being pulled by a chariot across the sky.

And besides, Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

[KillerGremlin]

Just tossing in this to add tot he first point. Someone mentioned evolution is as much of a theory as gravity. The thing is, gravity is a scientific fact. Gravity is observeable and testable. The theories come in where they use that scientific fact to try to explain the orgins of gravity, or explain what creates gravity.

Gravity is a theory. Gravity is under current revision as we look for the Higgs boson (the "God particle) with the Large Hadron Collider. Gravity is a weak force (in fact the weakest I believe), and the point of finding the Higgs bosons is to account for the disparities in forces. If you want to think about how weak gravity is....stick a magnet to your fridge and watch it defy Earth's gravity. Pretty neat.

But yeah, the point of my comparison was there is a ton of evidence which suggests even if our current theory isn't 100% right it's still pretty strong. Evolution and Gravity are both pretty strong theories.

[KillerGremlin]

There is a lot going on in this thread, but I want to clarify my points a little further:

1) Origins of life: If you'd like to say random chance, a chance so remote the many statisticians believe it near impossible if not impossible, is the origin of life, thats fine. I remain open to the other option as well. There is as much "science" to support that as the religion/God(s) theory, a theory simultaneously held for thousands of years by many cultures who never interacted with one another. There is something to be said for that, and arguments of "needing an answer" have little to support them other than a thought process intended to find an answer other than "God". They all didn't believe in a purple dragon, of the infamous "spaghetti monster in the sky" as many of the more egotistocal atheists like to call it.

Collective unconscious? Common fear of the unknown? It's not totally implausible to rule out. But indeed the collective belief in some divine being is quite compelling to think about.

2) "Proving God". This is an impossibility. Even if God came down from the heavens, turned water into grape juice and and cured all diseases, there would still be those who would disbelieve, and the "scientific theorists" would be the first to do so, because they couldn't "prove" how it happened. If you can't prove it, it never happened, right? There must be some provable explanation or random confluence of events because the alternative is not acceptable and cannot be considered... kind of lile the idea of a higher power sparking life into being.

I have no problems with this argument. I just assume you're not a Christian and that you are a Deist? I'm making this assumption based on your first point. In your first point you allude to a commonality in all humans. Whereas the majority of all religions are EXCLUSIVE. If you don't follow their set of rules you go to Hell! Take Christianity: if Jesus did come down to Earth, then the billions of people who have a collective tingling for some divine creator but are not Christian are still going to burn in Hell.

Also, to be clear, are you alluding in your post that there has been some proof of a divine creator?

3) I am not a science bigot, but a science realist. There is a lot that is wrong with the scientific community, and most of it driven by ego and the need to be accepted by peers. Tesla was derided and ignored for decades after his death because a rival scientist (Edison) had the hearts and minds (and money) of the community. The fact that much of the community refuses to accept the possibility of God as an option because it's immmeasurable is not based in scientific evidence to the contrary, it's based in closed minded thinking. One can experiment in finding alternatives while keeping other possibilities available, and when the scientific community makes gross assumptions based on theories (evolutionary theory has been horribly abused and overstated in it's scope) it closes more doors than it opens. No one in mainstream science will even sniff at the idea of challenging many of the current assumptions made from evolutionary theory, and thats a huge cultural problem in science, not a scientific one.

How has evolution been overstated? I feel like evolution is used as pseudo-science in armchair anti-religious discussions, but in the real world (medical, biological communities) evolution is used to further medical research, vaccinations, stem-cell research, understanding of the brain, understanding of drug addictions, etc.

I honestly hope that every scientist available puts as much effort available towards determining the origins of life and every other mystery of the universe, and I hope they find answers to all their questions, but considering devine alternatives is not a detriment to this process if one thinks objectively, and can in fact open up new avenues to explore because it asks that we try and prove thewories instead of just assuming they are true.

I'm just curious...towards what step does science take if they incorporate divine alternatives into research?

I'm not lambasting you or trying to stimulate aggressive discussion....btw. I'm impressed that this thread has yet to derail. Woo, trains! Choo choo!

[TheGame]

Gravity is a theory. Gravity is under current revision as we look for the Higgs boson (the "God particle) with the Large Hadron Collider. Gravity is a weak force (in fact the weakest I believe), and the point of finding the Higgs bosons is to account for the disparities in forces. If you want to think about how weak gravity is....stick a magnet to your fridge and watch it defy Earth's gravity. Pretty neat.

You have a misunderstanding of the difference between a scientific fact, law, and theory. A scientific fact is ANY observeable occurance. A scientific fact does not need an explination, its just something that we can observe. A scientific theory is an explination of HOW that occurance was created, or what causes that natural occurance, and in some cases just an explanation of how the occurance works. A scientific law is the math that we observe to be behind a natural occurance.

Check this out on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

I was actually kinda suprised to find this article this morning. But I think it helps put this whole debate in perspective and explains my point.

The theory is just the explanation. A theory, as well thought out as it can be, cannot be proven to be true in all circumstances, and/or cannot be observed.

[TheGame]

Take Christianity: if Jesus did come down to Earth, then the billions of people who have a collective tingling for some divine creator but are not Christian are still going to burn in Hell.

http://thecrazypastor.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/will-god-send-people-to-hell-when-they-were-raised-in-other-religions/

[Professor S]

A few things:

1) Yes, I am deist, or more accurately, a Christ agnostic.

2) Yes, I realize there are many Gods, but it all falls under a unifying paranormal deity concept shared across the world for millenia. As to what god falls under that concept, well, take your pick. As for collective unconscious (etc.), well, that's a theory and one that is no more valid than a belief in the existence of God.

3) Adding God into science: You don't add God into scientific experimentation. How do you add an unporvable theory/idea? It's as impossible as proving God's existence. Instead, you let the idea of God as the alternative drive you to find further truth, instead of eliminating the possibility and you're left with assuming flawed and abused theories are facts because there happens to be no scientific alternative. God as an alternative pushes further discover and clarification. Removing him leads to scientific ignorance, IMO.

4) Evolutionary theory in it's totality is not fact. Sorry, it's not. Within a species is it fact? I'd say so. The problem and abuse comes when unscientific assumtions and extrapolations are made that shoe-horn evolution as fact across species, which is still unproven. Example: Bacteria. We know that aggressive use of anti-biotics leads to evolution within the species or even genus if you want to stretch it, making the bacteria resistant to treatment. The problem is that there is no proof that these mutations have mutated bacteria into something beyond bacteria. Maybe cross species evolution is impossible to prove. Okay... so is the existence of God. Pick your belief.

[Teuthida]

Yes, you can prove it. Do you mean actually watch it happen? Who has thousands or millions of years to sit around and watch? I used to have these arguments all the time back on Nintendo Next's forum (was that the name of the site? It's been so long) and you can't make someone learn who doesn't want to be educated.

Just so I'm clear and don't drive myself crazy, what exactly is it you believe? That evolution doesn't occur at all and that every species on this planet has always been as they are now? Or just humans? Or that life on this planet didn't start at the cellular level?

Across species? Dogs from wolves. Done. Please say you don't have a problem with that.

Ooh, TheGame's link is actually quite nice since hung up on terminology:

Evolution is a fact. Explanations for the fact(s):
- Darwin's explanation of evolution is approximately correct, but required refinement since it did not involve, for example, the modern notions of genes and DNA.
- The modern explanation of the fact of evolution, called the modern evolutionary synthesis, has greatly modified and extended the ideas of Darwin and is currently the most accepted theory of evolution.


The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often been made against the exclusive teaching of evolution.[59] The argument is related to a common misconception about the technical meaning of "theory" that is used by scientists. In common usage, "theory" often refers to conjectures, hypotheses, and unproven assumptions. However, in science, "theory" usually means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."[60]

Exploring this issue, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote:[61]

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

[Professor S]

Yes, you can prove it. Do you mean actually watch it happen? Who has thousands or millions of years to sit around and watch?

You and I have different ideas on what the word "prove" means. To me your statements shows that it can't be proven. As for waiting around, wouldn't you agree that we've put bacteria through the evolutionary equivalent of a few thousand or million years through decades of attacking it through micro-biological attempts at genocide? We've still seen nothing to show a jump. I'm not saying it's impossible or that evolution from species to species isn't possible or likely. I'm saying it's not proven, and by doing so keeping an open mind to possible alternatives, even those beyond the God theory/fact, however you would describe it. I refuse to box myself in.

When I read these "scientific" defintions of law theory and fact, all I see is a purposeful confusion of truth vs. possibility. The phrase "we're not sure" never seems to enter the coversation.

Just so I'm clear and don't drive myself crazy, what exactly is it you believe? That evolution doesn't occur at all and that every species on this planet has always been as they are now? Or just humans? Or that life on this planet didn't start at the cellular level?

I believe that God is a legitimate alternative to the idea that life began by cosmic accident. I'm not saying God created life as part of this discussion, I'm saying the idea is at least considerable when faced with scientific inadequacies.

Across species? Dogs from wolves. Done. Please say you don't have a problem with that.

My only problem is that it's not proven. Is it true? Likely, but there is no evidence other than a comparison to support it. As you stated, it's likely impossible to prove, as is the existence of God. I remain open to possibilities.

[Teuthida]

Alrighty. First I'll just try to remember some examples off the top of my head and look for articles to back me up later when I have more time.

Darwin came up with his theory after visiting the Galapagos Islands. The animals and plants on each island were unique to their respective island. They closely resembled the animals on mainland America but were different species. Mostly notably the finches on each island all had different beak morphology that best suited the types of plants available to them. Goes along with the survival of the species, yada yada...ok just a deduction.

Australia and Madagascar also boast animals completely unique to their islands, evolving from a much earlier common ancestor after they broke off during the continental shift.

We have vast fossil records to back up evolution. You can see how the skeleton structure of species change through time. There are prehistoric animals that bridge the gap between fish and amphibians and amphibians and reptiles and reptiles and mammals.

You have dinosaurs (who have bird-like features already such as air sacs), and then you have dinosaurs with feathers, and then birds. All neatly lined up in sedimentary rock showing the progression.

And with modern animals you can compare how closely related their DNA is in addition to their bone morphology and fossils and place where they came from.

Will also add this pic because I always found whale evolution to be cool/weird:

http://scepticon.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/whales-graph.jpg http://www.csus.edu/indiv/l/lancasterw/bio168/LABS%20BIO168-03/Lab%2015-Cetacea%20BIO168-04_files/image010.jpg

Oh yeah! Vestigial organs! .....sorry all over the place. Haven't read up on any of this stuff in years.

[Professor S]

Teuth, thanks for repeating my Intro to Bio class from 10th grade. :D

As part of this conversation, lets also consider the idea of infinite complexity. If it is true all life began as a single celled organism, that is certainly far more basic than we multi-celled organisms, but is it really simple? Even a single cell is a home to thousands of processes, actions and reactions. All of which controlled and cobbled together by DNA, a blueprint so complex that we still have yet to decode it with all our tehnological might.

So, if evolution started with a single cell, who designed the single cell, or as is often the argument was that just a happy accident? If it was, how can you consider an accident in scientific equations, experimentations and thought and not the equally nebulous idea of God?

As for the self-replicating amino acids, yes I understand we've been able to do so. We've been able to design, control and create the results. To use an term misused by those on both sides of the discusion, there is an "intelligent design". The same case could be made for God if the universe was his petri dish. To my knowledge we've yet to observe this take place as a natural occurence or seen that the replication would lead to anything more even in a controlled environment, but I'll admit to not reading much on the subject.

[Teuthida]

Teuth, thanks for repeating my Intro to Bio class from 10th grade. :D

As part of this conversation, lets also consider the idea of infinite complexity. If it is true all life began as a single celled organism, that is certainly far more basic than we multi-celled organisms, but is it really simple? Even a single cell is a home to thousands of processes, actions and reactions. All of which controlled and cobbled together by DNA, a blueprint so complex that we still have yet to decode it with all our tehnological might.

So, if evolution started with a single cell, who designed the single cell, or as is often the argument was that just a happy accident? If it was, how can you consider an accident in scientific equations, experimentations and thought and not the equally nebulous idea of God?

As for the self-replicating amino acids, yes I understand we've been able to do so. We've been able to design, control and create the results. To use an term misused by those on both sides of the discusion, there is an "intelligent design". The same case could be made for God if the universe was his petri dish. To my knowledge we've yet to observe this take place as a natural occurence or seen that the replication would lead to anything more even in a controlled environment, but I'll admit to not reading much on the subject.

Heh, I was about to suggest you just reading a bio text book.

Yeah, I don't believe scientists ever created an actual one culled organism. There could be a multitude of variables from the Earth's heyday they didn't do right. Ah yup:

There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures such as the following, listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

1. Some theorists suggest that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primary of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent.
2. In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
3. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
4. A fundamental question is about the nature of the first self-replicating molecule. Since replication is accomplished in modern cells through the cooperative action of proteins and nucleic acids, the major schools of thought about how the process originated can be broadly classified as "proteins first" and "nucleic acids first".
5. The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows:
1. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)
2. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.
3. Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.

As of 2009, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached. The biologist John Desmond Bernal coined the term Biopoesis for this process, and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life.

* Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers
* Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers
* Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell

Bernal suggested that evolution may have commenced early, some time between Stage 1 and 2.

So keep on believing there was a God factor until they finally (if ever) figure it out.

Now I'm off to draw comics!

[Professor S]

Heh, I was about to suggest you just reading a bio text book.

This is a common misunderstanding from many atheists about those that consider God as an alternative. My questions don't come from having not been educated on the matter, there are many biologists who who will point out the flaws in how we treat evolutionary theory, they come from formal and independent study and questioning things, and then treating unproven scientific assumptions with the same skepticism you would treat religious assumptions.

On a side note, besides a few college courses on biology, much of the exploration that led to to question assumed scientific fact has come from independent study. Also, I have not attended church since I was about 8 years old, but have looked to find my own way philosphically and spiritually as well. I think this has helped me remain objective and avoid indoctrination from either perspective.

So keep on believing there was a God factor until they finally (if ever) figure it out.

I'll admit those were some very well written and reasoned guesses you quoted... but they still remain guesses.

Also, I don't remember ever stating as part of this discussion that I believed there was a God factor, I merely said I'm open to the possibility and I have presented the contrarian point of view. Normally I'd say keeping one's options open would be considered a reasonable scientific practice when nothing has yet to be proven. But it seems blinders are the rule of the day when it comes to what can and cannot be considered.

[Teuthida]

*sigh* You were playing devil's advocate? Why ask what you already know? Wastes time. I only argued because I couldn't believe someone would disregard such evidence unless they weren't familiar with it.

All I do is look at evidence. I don't factor my beliefs into what has been proven, or try to disprove what can't be.

...well, you did force me to find that bit about the different methods they're currently undertaking to solve the origin of life. That was interesting I guess. :unsure:

[Professor S]

*sigh* You were playing devil's advocate? Why ask what you already know? Wastes time. I only argued because I couldn't believe someone would disregard such evidence unless they weren't familiar with it.

...well, you did force me to find that bit about the different methods they're currently undertaking to solve the origin of life. That was interesting I guess. :unsure:

You just contradicted yourself. :) Socratic debate may be the only true source of intellectual growth, and quite honestly, it's not something we see in modern science. Considering what can't be proven can drive one to new heights.

Anyway, I've never disregarded any of the evidence that has been presented, but I regard that evidence as well as the significant questions, answerable and not answerable, that such evidence presents. In the face of those unanswered questions I am willing to include the possibility of design.

The answer to the question of the origins of life should be "I don't know", but thats not how the scientific community treats it. They say "I don't know, but it's definitely not God".

[Teuthida]

I suppose you might be right. It's been forever since I actually argued (if poorly) a position. Though I can't really see the point of debating something that can't be proven. Things are, aren't, or unknown. If unknown you conduct experiments.

I'll agree with you on folks who outright say there's no God...or gods...or force...or whatever. It's something unproven, thus they shouldn't let their opinion on the matter impact their work. Like Dawkins...he just comes off as a prick. On the origin of life it should be "I don't know, but I have a hypothesis, and will test it."

[KillerGremlin]

http://thecrazypastor.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/will-god-send-people-to-hell-when-they-were-raised-in-other-religions/

I've heard similar interpretations on the subject. My point was to challenge Prof S' observation on the commonality of a divine creator among humans. You also have to realize what the Bible and Scripture says differs from what organized religion practices. I assure you Muslims and Catholics aren't as tolerant. I mean look at the Middle East, those guys have been blowing each other up for thousands of years.

You have a misunderstanding of the difference between a scientific fact, law, and theory. A scientific fact is ANY observeable occurance. A scientific fact does not need an explination, its just something that we can observe. A scientific theory is an explination of HOW that occurance was created, or what causes that natural occurance, and in some cases just an explanation of how the occurance works. A scientific law is the math that we observe to be behind a natural occurance.

Check this out on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

I was actually kinda suprised to find this article this morning. But I think it helps put this whole debate in perspective and explains my point.

The theory is just the explanation. A theory, as well thought out as it can be, cannot be proven to be true in all circumstances, and/or cannot be observed.

Touche. I always overcomplicated gravity, I sometimes forget it is just the tendency for two objects with mass to pull towards each other.

[KillerGremlin]

4) Evolutionary theory in it's totality is not fact. Sorry, it's not. Within a species is it fact? I'd say so. The problem and abuse comes when unscientific assumtions and extrapolations are made that shoe-horn evolution as fact across species, which is still unproven. Example: Bacteria. We know that aggressive use of anti-biotics leads to evolution within the species or even genus if you want to stretch it, making the bacteria resistant to treatment. The problem is that there is no proof that these mutations have mutated bacteria into something beyond bacteria. Maybe cross species evolution is impossible to prove. Okay... so is the existence of God. Pick your belief.

I believe in the holy ham sandwich...which sounds very yummy right about now. :D




So new question for everyone who believes in an afterlife....where does your conscious go when you die? Does it go somewhere, or is it dependent on body and you have some sort of external soul out there.

[Bond]

So new question for everyone who believes in an afterlife....where does your conscious go when you die? Does it go somewhere, or is it dependent on body and you have some sort of external soul out there.
No idea, but I sort of like the idea of non-local consciousness - that when we die our consciousness is released from our body and spreads infinitely across the universe. It sounds very harmonious to me.

[Professor S]

I believe in the holy ham sandwich...which sounds very yummy right about now. :D

mmmm.... sacrilicious...:drool:

So new question for everyone who believes in an afterlife....where does your conscious go when you die? Does it go somewhere, or is it dependent on body and you have some sort of external soul out there.

Well, I've had experiences with ghosts*, so I think at least some of them remain locally. To me, that is a terribly frightening prospect for my immortal consciousness/soul.

*I don't care to convince anyone else that they are real. Hell, if I didn't have the experiences I've had, with witnesses no less, I would think I was crazy too.

[KillerGremlin]

Well, I've had experiences with ghosts*, so I think at least some of them remain locally. To me, that is a terribly frightening prospect for my immortal consciousness/soul.

*I don't care to convince anyone else that they are real. Hell, if I didn't have the experiences I've had, with witnesses no less, I would think I was crazy too.

Do tell, how was the experience? Was it a friendly haunting?
You're not the first person I have heard say they have seen ghosts.

[Professor S]

My parent's house is haunted. It's been haunted by a woman at least for as long as I can remember. I've seen her 3 times in my life, and four of my friends ran into her once and those who were there will not come back.

First incident
- She's friendly, if disappearing for a long time is friendly, but gets "active" when people she doesn't know are in the house.
- Active: footsteps on the third floor and up and down the stairs, opening of closed doors on the third floor, full body apparitions.
- The incident: My parents were away and four of my friends were staying over to go to a golf outing the next day. Basically, the ghost was running laps up and down the stairs all night, depressed the end as if someone was climbing in, of the bed and one of my friends saw her in the doorway. Keep in mind I had not mentioned anything about her to them before any of this happened. They won't come back.

Second incident
- There is an upper body apparition of a colonial soldier that wanders the streets of my home town. Many have seen him, and I was lucky enough to spot him once turning into my driveway.

Third and only bad incident
- After my grandmother died, I lived at her house while my parents were in the midst of selling the property, and that took a long time. I had always felt "watched" in the house from the time I moved in, but didn't really think much of it. At moist I thought it was just another quiet haunting. Then doors started opening... and closing... by themselves while I watched. I don;t mean they creaked open, I mean the opened quickly and stopped on a dime, and sometimes slammed shut. When I started seeing my current wife is when things got bad. We had sex all over that house, and that's when things started to bang around randomly in the house and the cold spots started.
- The final straw was when I turn out the lights to go to bed after my then girlfriend left, and there were four LOUD bangs moving left to right, it felt like someone was next to my bed on the right hand side, and then a deafening SCREAM in my right ear, but the scream was more like radio static of a scream. I packed up my shit and left that night, and never came back. Even if it was my grandmother... FUCK THAT.

A little background about the area: I grew up near Chadds Ford, PA. It's a area near the Brandywine Battlefield (Revolutionary war), but there were battles all over that area including several bloody skirmishes in my home town of Thornbury Township. You can find random cannons in the woods if you look hard enough. This has always been my only explanation for the high occurence of hauntings in the area.

I currently live in Mount Penn, PA (near Reading) and my house is "clean", to quote the midget from Poltergeist. The first time I've ever lived in a house without a presence.

[KillerGremlin]

Hmmm...interesting. If any of that stuff happened to me I'd freak the fuck out.

I've always thought these experiences are double-edged sword. On one hand you have ACTUAL PROOF of something phenomenal. That would certainly change how I feel about life. On the other hand you have to live with the fear of the encounters for the rest of your life.

I've always wanted to do some serious research on the documented Exorcism cases. It's hard though because much of it gets shot down hard by psychology: and much of it should. There's a huge difference between being possessed or having dementia or psychosis.