Afterlife: Is There Life After Death?

"I don't usually do ad hominem... But you Sir are impressive in a special sort of way. Everything you say is more or less a non sequitur to my arguments, and the context in which I present them.

This quote comes to mind:

"Debating creationists on the topic of god is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

It's 01:22 AM, and I am going to copulate with my beautiful girlfriend. Good night.
[/quote]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And I don't usually laugh at someone who is attempting to pose serious arguments---but really? You stoop to ad hominem (twice, no less) and then attempt to shock with your somewhat crude comment about your girlfriend? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

p.s. By the way, I am not a "Sir" I am a "Madame". Your gender prejudice is showing.

p.p.s. It is customary to attribute quotes from sources other than those which should be very familiar (such as quotes from the Bible). Never rnind, I just looked it up, it is that swell atheist blogger, Scott Weitzenhoffer (who stole the quote from someone else).

"...if you know what life is worth, you will look for yours on earth...."

I don't think YOU understand the reality of what science is---perhaps it is because of what you have been told by those who idolize it. Science IS based on observation and critical thinking but it is not infallible and is notoriously fickle in its beliefs. There are many scientists (in my opinion, true scientists) who love the overturning of one of their pet theories because it sets them off in another even more exciting direction. No real scientist ever thinks of ANY bit of data as "proof" of anything. They love to be confounded and amazed by the complexity and unpredictability of our world and the heavens that surround us. A quote from Sir Francis Bacon (ca.1625) "A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." In Bacon's day, science was known as "philosophy" (and actually up to recent times).

Where did you get the idea that I believe science is infallible? Never stated it. I have stated that science provides evidence for what it is theorizing or hypothesizing for. And since science discovers new things continual, I'll change my stance along with it. For example stretching for the longest time was thought to prevent injury. Several studies later show that static stretching before and after exercise doesn't prevent injury. A pretty significant change in the business I do. And I now DO NOT let any of my clients warm up with static stretching.
Sit a person down with no arms and legs in a room in front of me, have a bunch of people pray for arms and legs to grow, and if it happened in front of me, I would have no reason at that point to believe that a god doesn't exist.
People who truly believe in science will listen to different studies and not just bias themselves on just one or just one person conducting experimentation. I look at scenarios objectively.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

You might want to take a look at a book called, "Genetic Entropy" by John Sanford, Ph.D. (he's a geneticist). He explains that the human genome is deteriorating at a rapid pace these days. He also insists that there is NOTHING that can stop the decline--not gene therapy, not cloning and he explains why. If you extrapolate backward, it is easy to see how humans could have lived disease-free so much longer than we do. If it weren't for modern medicine, many of us would not be here. Think about it---did your great grandparents spend so much time being ill before they died? Now, there are hosts of people who spend 20-30 years in a state of ill health. Some diseases like breast cancer are hitting women at younger and younger ages. There is virtual epidemic of breast cancer among women in their 20s and 30s when it was basically unheard of in a woman under 45 in the past.

If I were to take my grandparents on both sides, the oldest lived to 84 years old. My mother is 86 now and her oldest sister is 89.(Don't know anything about grandmother on my father's side since she left when he was very young). My grandfathers on both sides died before 83 years old. My father is 86. Parents are in better health than my grandparents were due to better nutrition and exercise.
And while modern medicine has extended life, you cannot deny that weight has played a pivotal role in the health of individuals. Weight is the number factor related to health issues.
And according to CDC statistics, 1999 breast cancer rate was higher for practically every state compared to 2009. Even Leukemias (the most popular childhood cancer) was higher in 1999 than in 2009.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

You might want to take a look at a book called, "Genetic Entropy" by John Sanford, Ph.D. (he's a geneticist). He explains that the human genome is deteriorating at a rapid pace these days. He also insists that there is NOTHING that can stop the decline--not gene therapy, not cloning and he explains why. If you extrapolate backward, it is easy to see how humans could have lived disease-free so much longer than we do. If it weren't for modern medicine, many of us would not be here. Think about it---did your great grandparents spend so much time being ill before they died? Now, there are hosts of people who spend 20-30 years in a state of ill health. Some diseases like breast cancer are hitting women at younger and younger ages. There is virtual epidemic of breast cancer among women in their 20s and 30s when it was basically unheard of in a woman under 45 in the past.

If I were to take my grandparents on both sides, the oldest lived to 84 years old. My mother is 86 now and her oldest sister is 89.(Don't know anything about grandmother on my father's side since she left when he was very young). My grandfathers on both sides died before 83 years old. My father is 86. Parents are in better health than my grandparents were due to better nutrition and exercise.
And while modern medicine has extended life, you cannot deny that weight has played a pivotal role in the health of individuals. Weight is the number factor related to health issues.
And according to CDC statistics, 1999 breast cancer rate was higher for practically every state compared to 2009. Even Leukemias (the most popular childhood cancer) was higher in 1999 than in 2009.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Just because people are now learning to take better care of the health that they have, doesn't mean that the genome is not continuing to deteriorate. You only need to look at the large increase in infertility among young men to know that something is amiss. If male sperm counts continue to decline at the present rate, within a couple of generations (40 years or so) very few men will be able to father children. Whether the cause is environmental or genetic has yet to be studied. If it is environmental the fix will be difficult, if it is genetic, it will be impossible.

"...So I glanced at Sanford's credentials and noticed he's NOT a human geneticist, but a plant geneticist..."


Do you really think that a "plant geneticist" doesn't deal with the same fundamentals? The human genome shares 50% of its genes with the genome of a banana. Many scientists will study something outside of their narrow area of specialty. They often bring a great deal of fresh insight. For example, there is a cardiologist at the University of Colorado Medical Center, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. who has chosen to study Type II diabetes and renal disease. He has recently been given a grant by the National Institutes of Health to study an epidemic of renal failure among sugar cane workers in Central America.

"...His argument for devolution is a good theory but not withstanding criticism. Carbon dating will refute how long he believes that Earth has been around. Heck even common sense would tell us that based on how the Earth is still shifting and moving, it's break up into continents took millions and million of years. Fresno and San Francisco are creeping closer together (verified) at a rate of about an inch a year. At this rate it's gonna take well over 12 million years for them to be beside each other.
I'd have to see much more evidence proving his theory before believing in it..."

First, carbon dating will not refute anything of the sort--it has many flaws. The main one being that it is based on many assumptions that may or may not be true http://voices.yahoo.com/have-scientists-discovered-flaws-carbon-dating-7009058.html:

"While still unsure what is causing the change--the previously held scientific belief that the rate of decay is constant may not be true. This discovery certainly seems to challenge that theory. The implications can have far reaching affects not only in science and medicine, but also history and archeology among other things. One interesting impact of this discovery may be on an age old debate as to how old our earth is. If the rate of decay is no longer a constant, the age of earth may be subject to reevaluation based on past radiometric dating methods and this new discovery that decay may no longer be constant."

In addition, cataclysmic forces can change things very quickly---gradualism is an assumption. There are a number of geophysicists who are "catastrophists". They believe that the earth was subject to many catastrophes in the past, with accompanying very rapid change.

I struggle with this every day and here is why. 4 years ago I was in a coma for 3 days with organs shutting down, I have no story of comfort or light I have a black space where my life should have been during those days...I know I was not dead but I was damn close. I want to think it is not over when we die that there is something more but after the empty feeling that experience left me.... I do not know.

Yep-lived long enough and seen enough death to know.

There absolutely is life after death. I have experienced many things, and there were many things proven to be not of this world, oh, you betcha!!!!! and, that is my opinion, I speak for no one else, so please don't try to prove me wrong, not here to prove a thing, just answering a question. Have a great day..

YES. I've seen too many "ghosts" NOT to believe this is the only experience out here. Heck i was pushed in the back by a spirit. i guess he didn't like me intruding on HIS afterlife. (and to tell you the truth, i don't blame him for doing it.) :noway: