What do you think happens after death?

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Bond

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Professor S

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?

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

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/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.

[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/

[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]

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!