What do you think happens after death?

[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/...her-religions/

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by TheGame

http://thecrazypastor.wordpress.com/...her-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.

Originally Posted by TheGame

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/Evoluti...heory_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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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:



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.

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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

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]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by 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.

...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.

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."