What happens when you die?

[Mancman]

I wonder if I'll have a mortgage in the next life...

Well I guess I'd know that I've been sent to hell

[c0nfu53d]

Firstly I think I may have been abit misleading. Its not just my belief in God that leads me to dismiss evolution as there are a couple of theorys which have been put forword to support evolution which fit in with the Bible - gap theory and progressive creation. It's the sheer amout of evidence agaist evolution that makes me disbelieve it

Actually, I am going to counter these points because Tbh I think it is important to challenge the pseudo-science being touted here...
If you follow the link I provided, it takes the "analogy" of the hourglass and shows it as a gross over-simplification. I also take issue with the link you have provided quoting mrayton as the author. I agree with him in that we should all be critical thinkers, but that is it. His main argument against radiometric dating is based around the fact that he doesn't understand it fully, and the closest he can come to understanding it is to come up with an hourglass "analogy".
He also makes the mistake, pounced upon by theists as some sort of trump card, that we can't know exact ages, and these results can span millions of years. Considering that the universe is Billions of years old in itself, the brackets are actually quite small, and are of use in trying to determine a chronology on a large scale. However, no matter what the results are, they still show that the universe is older than 6000 years, by an enormous magnitude.

I appologise for over simplifying it as it is a complex process but it still can't be used to date fossils. See below.

Carbon dating and similer is a complex process. Basicly you measure the amount of carbon 14 left in the fossil every “half life” which is about every 5730 years – like this 1 to 1/2 to 1/4 to 1/8 to 1/16 to 1/32 after which it is unmeasurable. Thats 5 “half lifes” a total max of 28,650 (5 x 5730). you can't use this to measure something that is millions of years if the limits 28,650.

Think of it as a glass of undiluted orange squash. Pour half of it away and fill up the glass with water. Do this again 4 times. How many half lifes will the orange have before it just tastes of water?

Also to measure correctly, the amount of carbon 14 in the air needs to be the same during the time period your measuring. Scientists say a new earth would take 30,000 years to reach a point of equilimrium (where c14 is entering and leaving at the same rate) so based on the fact the earth is (allegadly) millions of years old this shouldn't be a problem, right? Unfortunatley a few years ago studies showed the rate of Carbon 14 was still increasing which shows the earth is less than 30,000

I agree that the fossil record is incomplete, but that is not surprising at all considering the conditions required to create a fossil, and also the fact that we live on a geologically and meterologically dynamic planet which regularly smashes, grinds, weathers and melts it's rocks.
That doesn't mean that fossils should be discounted as evidence supporting evolution. They are part of the puzzle, used alongside cladistic and molecular sequencing to support the theory.
used on their own, it would be very difficult to say that evolution is a fact, but supported with other evidence it becomes overwhelmingly compelling.
I would also ask you, considering that you say that fossilisation can occur so quickly, and that God created everything 6000 years ago, where are the fossils of modern creatures to prove that? I would love to see a fossil of a dog turn up on the jurrassic coast of scarborough. i'll be up there at the end of the month on holiday, I'll have a look for you.

Why are conditions bad for creating some fossils but not others? Normal fossils are formed under the same conditions as the missing links which your suggesting have been destroyed?

I'm sorry but the highlighted part here made me laugh out loud. You take 2 examples of two dishonest men who were disproved and disgraced by the scientific community and suggest that somehow the outright fabrications of the "story" of creation is somehow more noble? I would suggest that theists, creationists, make up far more stuff than any other section of humanity.
What scientific evidence has any creationist ever put forward that suggests that evolution is wrong, that all creatures were magic'd into existence by god in their current form 6000 years ago. which papers and studies have been released? have they been tested scientifically?

That was 2 examples but there are more. Fair enough about the scientific lab tested proof that god created everything. That I admit I don't have. There is historical evidence which lends support to creation and the Bible though.

Let's ask a Catholic priest about ignoring moral standards shall we?

As I said before due to the origins of the catholic faith its unfair to use them or anything they do/say against born again Christians.

And why only those two instances of possible infection, why not a warning about malaria? Or tuberculosis, or small pox?

Also I should mention the terms for Germs, Smallpox, Malaria etc would not have been in use at that time even though the diseases may have been around.

ie whales and dolphins have an excellent fossil record because of the conditions in which they live, and their size, makes them ideal fossilisation candidates.

Funny you should mention whales. They have these two sets of pelvis and leg bones which is used as evidence of the being land dwellers in the past. However these are not pelvis and leg bones but are used during reproduction. Without them there would be no baby whales.

Humans are supposed to have parts that we dont use anymore too (appendix and cocyx bone), which again is used as proof of evolution. However the appendix is part of the immune system and the cocyx is like an anchor for 9 or so mussels and also supports us when we sit and lean forward.

It's certainly a lot more worthy than the idea of God pulling everything out of a giant hat.

Im not saying it's easy to belive but easier (in my opinion, your mileage may vary) to believe than evolution which has too many problems. Some more below.

Grand canyon is also a major problem for scientists. They say the river carved it out over millions of years but the river at the lowest point is lower the parts of the canyon which means it would have to run uphill to have carved out the canyon.

You can also see layers of strata in the grand canyon – each layer took a million years to form. If this is true why is there no errosion marks inbetween layers?

Also there is the Little Grand canyon which is 1/8 of the size of its big brother and formed in a week and has layers just the same. It was formed when mt Saint Hellens errupted a blocked a river with mud forming a dam. Eventally the dam broke and washed out the canyon. The layers are caused by Hydro logic Sorting. When mud, stones, sand etc are mixed with water the settle in layers according to density. This happens very quickly. You can test it yourself with a jar.


In various places there are petrified trees standing upright going through muliple layers of strata. By the size and thickness if the tree you can tell its a few hundred of whatever years old. The strata could not have formed around them.


Dino bones dated at 70 million years old have been found with blood still in them which is immpossible as the blood would decay in far less that 70 million years.


If the earth evolved where did the matter and law of phyisics come from? And where did the energy to create the big bang come from?

If the big bang theory is true why is matter not more evenly distributed? Oin space there are clumps of stars then empty voids.
Why do some planets and moons spin backwards? If you look at the galaxy its a swirl. The law of conservation of angular movement would mean that every thing should sprin the same way. Venus and uranus spin the wrong way as do 4 near moons.

Every 30 years a star dies a goes super nova. If the universe is billions of years old why are there less than 300 super nova (dead stars)? There should have been several hundred million of them by now.

It goes on and on and on.

If you don't want to believe in god thats a decision you've made and I respect that, but I find it hard to understand how anybody can believe in evolution in its current form.

[markopoloman]

Evolution is part of God's plan. I'm Christian and believe in Evolution.

[silvergunner]

There is so many things we have not figured out yet and cannot explain. We have even got things wrong but as science techniques have got better we have been able to say "you know what the last 100 years we thought we were right but this is how it is".

It's natural for things we cannot explain to be the work of god to a lot of people.

Regarding space, until we can travel into deep space we won't be able to explain most things only theorise about what's going on and how it works. I think it's amazing how in the grand scheme of things that the tiny little dust ball we are on that we have been able to invent the technology we have to be able to see what goes on in deep space and work out what is going on.

[Sokurah]

Easy.

If you've been good you'll either go to heaven or simply just enter nothingness.

If you've been bad you'll either go to hell or be turned into a C64, which is infinitely worse.

...so heaven and hell kinda exists.

Seriously though, "nothing", everything will turn black and stop. NO afterlife, no nothing. If you believe anything else you're as diluted as me around pretty girls.

[Antiriad2097]

Evolution is part of God's plan. I'm Christian and believe in Evolution.

And this is the sensible religious response that I can respect.

I can't see why there's an issue with evolution from some sectors of religion. The bible says god created man. It doesn't say he didn't use evolution to do that. If there's a creator, is he really expected to do everything? Even we automate things, so I'd expect an all powerful creator to do the same and automate creature creation via evolution.

To not believe in evolution because 'it has problems' due to our lack of knowledge and materials to research seems odd, when there's nothing but a book to substantiate any gods. It's a lopsided argument, where there is at least some evidence of evolution but virtually none for gods. Using the argument that evolution doesn't exist because our knowledge is limited, one must further conclude that gods don't exist because our knowledge is even more limited in that area.

Carbon dating shows the earth to be less than 30.000 years old? Obviously the answer is gods, not a flawed dating method.

Missing fossils? There's probably millions of them missing. There is, scientifically, very little found. Probably because most conditions are bad for it. A decent fossil is a pretty rare thing. Even now things that have been 'known' for decades have been challenged, since assumptions of how things fit together has been found to be wrong. Its like doing a jigsaw with no picture and some pieces missing, with some from other jigsaws thrown in for good measure. Educated guesswork based on what we know of biology now with few frames of reference to the past since so much has been destroyed. Probably gods though.

Historical evidence of creation? Where? What evidence? And why is it evidence of creation and not evidence of something else (or just made up?).

Why would a big bang be expected to create even distribution of matter, when the average bomb makes one heck of an uneven mess? Must be gods work.

And how do we know how many supernovas there have been or continue to exist? We can only observe a small portion of the universe. There are probably billions of them out there. But we haven't seen them, so must be gods.

I just don't get it. Why do all these things have to be wrong to believe in gods? It's not like the bible is a precise document. Its a book written by a multitude of people, over a fairly lengthy period, each with their own views and opinions, which has been (sometimes badly) translated several times over and adapted to suit changing social norms and needs. It doesn't have to be taken literally. I thought that was rather it's point, to learn from its inferred message rather than accepting it unquestioningly?

[r0jaws]

@Confused, rather than argue every point with you again, I suggest you read Antiriad2097's post carefully.

You are obviously an entrenched anti-evolutionist and would rather believe a book of fairy stories with no evidence whatsoever than a working theory which has at least some evidence, and the hard work and serious research of thousands of scientists.
Your arguments are weak, and ill researched and it is a real shame that you are likely to die believing this childish rubbish. What is worse, however, is that you are likely to infect others with this wilful ignorance.

[Shinobi]

Easy.

If you've been good you'll either go to heaven or simply just enter nothingness.

If you've been bad you'll either go to hell or be turned into a C64, which is infinitely worse.

...so heaven and hell kinda exists.

Seriously though, "nothing", everything will turn black and stop. NO afterlife, no nothing. If you believe anything else you're as diluted as me around pretty girls.

Nobody knows what happens when you die and it can't be proven as its a one way trip! Saying there's no afterlife because it's my opinion and my opinion is fact! Therefore my opinion is more valid than others, this applies to any and every subject I or anyone else's makes you look an utter utter utter utter wally!! Not to mention totally disrespectful to other people!!

[Shinobi]

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.

The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.

But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

This is common practice.

They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.

They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science?

They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.

Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.

So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?

Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.

A Dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim

I have documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220

A great book on the flaws of dating methods is "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" (edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew Snelling, Eugene F. Chaffin. Published by Institute for Creation Research; December 2000)

[Matt_B]

A great book on the flaws of dating methods is "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" (edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew Snelling, Eugene F. Chaffin. Published by Institute for Creation Research; December 2000)

No, it's a terrible book and the authors either misunderstand the science of radiometric dating or wilfully misrepresent it. If the only version of evolution you know is the strawman version of it erected by creationists, of course you're going to think it's a ridiculous theory that nobody in their right mind could believe. Who wouldn't?

[markopoloman]

@Confused, rather than argue every point with you again, I suggest you read Antiriad2097's post carefully.

You are obviously an entrenched anti-evolutionist and would rather believe a book of fairy stories with no evidence whatsoever than a working theory which has at least some evidence, and the hard work and serious research of thousands of scientists.
Your arguments are weak, and ill researched and it is a real shame that you are likely to die believing this childish rubbish. What is worse, however, is that you are likely to infect others with this wilful ignorance.

Whilst I don't agree with Confused's view on this subject, I think having a proper dig at him for his beliefs are a little ott there. I really don't like talking Religion on here as there is always a danger of having a real effect on someone - and if taken the wrong way, could cause a forum member to feel uncomfortable being here. He has his views and it is highly unlikely to change them, I have my views and am unlikely to change them unless something new can be 100% proved - but at least I am open to that. Also, being an Orthodox Christian, I don't view myself as a Bible Christian like a Born Again would - r0jaws, you may view the content as fairy stories, I do not, although I am sensible enough to realise the content is not exact and has been translated loads of times, but that doesn't mean those things (in the New Testament) didn't happen.
As you pointed out though, Antiriad's post is good and I agree with pretty much all of it.

[Shinobi]

A great book on the flaws of dating methods is "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" (edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew Snelling, Eugene F. Chaffin. Published by Institute for Creation Research; December 2000)

No, it's a terrible book and the authors either misunderstand the science of radiometric dating or wilfully misrepresent it. If the only version of evolution you know is the strawman version of it erected by creationists, of course you're going to think it's a ridiculous theory that nobody in their right mind could believe. Who wouldn't?

I must admit I don't really have that great a understanding on evolution I have some friends who do and they say that any of 'Richard Dawkins' or 'Alice Roberts' books are the ones to go for.. As they expand on Charles Darwin's Origin of Species as the Evolution theory which is constantly changing with greater scientific breakthroughs.. And that plenty of Scientist's are Creationists..

Couple of questions Evolution in basic terms life started in a pond sea creatures got beached on the land and grew arms and legs and we evolved from either Monkeys or Dolphins.. In Alice Roberts Greatest Human Journey she said we never evolved from Neanderthal Man and share no DNA with them?

Also somebody said earlier in this thread everything dies but Turritopsis dohrnii jellyfish is immortal.. I asked a friend about this and he said when it's sick or old, it can revert to the polyp stage, through trans-differentiation, which alters the differentiated state of the cells and transforms them into new types of cells. If we evolved from Sea Creatures or all life evolved from the sea couldn't science harness this to make us live longer?

My Art Teacher reckons that we could live on the Moon and we wouldn't age as the moon atmosphere is different.. Same friend said this is basically bull as there was originally water on the moon and chemical compounds that could suggest life exists or once existed on Mars maybe just microbes.. But nothing could survive on Mars now and recommends a guy called Carl Sangen.. Do you think other planets could have held life, or do hold life?

[HalcyonDaze00]

that you are likely to die believing this childish rubbish. What is worse, however, is that you are likely to infect others with this wilful ignorance.

what a vile post.

as long as people are not advocating blowing up others etc, surely they can believe in what they want.

[Matt_B]

I must admit I don't really have that great a understanding on evolution I have some friends who do and they say that any of 'Richard Dawkins' or 'Alice Roberts' books are the ones to go for.. As they expand on Charles Darwin's Origin of Species as the Evolution theory which is constantly changing with greater scientific breakthroughs.. And that plenty of Scientist's are Creationists..

I've never read anything by Roberts, but most of Dawkins's books are a pretty good read. If you're looking for ones specifically about evolution, try The Ancestor's Tale or The Greatest Show on Earth.

I find Darwin's books a good read too, but like you say, a lot of the science has been updated over the years and he was writing without any knowledge of genetics which greatly simplifies understanding the process of evolution.

I'm sure there's the odd scientist who's a creationist, but in twenty years of working in university science departments I've yet to meet one, so someone's been pulling your leg on that score.

Couple of questions Evolution in basic terms life started in a pond sea creatures got beached on the land and grew arms and legs and we evolved from either Monkeys or Dolphins.. In Alice Roberts Greatest Human Journey she said we never evolved from Neanderthal Man and share no DNA with them?

Er... no. Evolution most likely started with very simple organisms that were little more than strands of DNA. You're fast-forwarding billions of years before you get beyond single-celled organisms. And we definitely evolved from creatures that would have resembled monkeys; our most recent common ancestor with dolphins would have resembled a shrew.

Obviously we're not completely descended from Neanderthals, but there are theories that they might have bred with contemporary humans leading to a bit of their DNA being in our current make-up.

Also somebody said earlier in this thread everything dies but Turritopsis dohrnii jellyfish is immortal.. I asked a friend about this and he said when it's sick or old, it can revert to the polyp stage, through trans-differentiation, which alters the differentiated state of the cells and transforms them into new types of cells. If we evolved from Sea Creatures or all life evolved from the sea couldn't science harness this to make us live longer?

Not really, unless you want to revert to being a bunch of embryonic cells between re-generations. We're not exactly talking Dr Who here.

For what it's worth, human Y chromosomes are essentially immortal, at least so long as your offspring continue to procreate. Barring the occasional mutation, they're passed down through each generation unchanged, although I suppose that's not the sort of immortality you'd have in mind.

My Art Teacher reckons that we could live on the Moon and we wouldn't age as the moon atmosphere is different.. Same friend said this is basically bull as there was originally water on the moon and chemical compounds that could suggest life exists or once existed on Mars maybe just microbes.. But nothing could survive on Mars now and recommends a guy called Carl Sangen.. Do you think other planets could have held life, or do hold life?

The atmosphere on the moon is negligible, so no. We couldn't live there at all.

I don't think there's any definitive evidence that life exists or existed on other planets, but where there's water and organic chemicals we can't rule it out.

And the guy you're looking for is Carl Sagan.

[r0jaws]

that you are likely to die believing this childish rubbish. What is worse, however, is that you are likely to infect others with this wilful ignorance.

what a vile post.

as long as people are not advocating blowing up others etc, surely they can believe in what they want.

I'm glad you disapprove.