What do you think happens after death?

[Vampyr]

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

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

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."