Death/Aging

[unicorn]

How do we scientifically explain the problem of aging/death without the sin explanation? Science still has no true answer for their causes--free radicals, dna breakdown, failure of cells to regenerate nothing but theories.

[inobaba]

How do we scientifically explain the problem of aging/death without the sin explanation? Science still has no true answer for their causes--free radicals, dna breakdown, failure of cells to regenerate nothing but theories.

Actually they're not just theories.. what you can't see does not mean it's not there. There are these things called telomeres(I think that's how you spell it) that determines your life spend. If death is a result of sin then how come some of the mass murders can live for so long while some of the new born babies recieved death as a treatment upon their arrival? What are their sins?

[Jose]

There are these things called telomeres(I think that's how you spell it) that determines your life spend. If death is a result of sin then how come some of the mass murders can live for so long while some of the new born babies recieved death as a treatment upon their arrival? What are their sins?

As we might expect, of course, the telomere story is more complex. There is plenty of data that telomeres--the DNA sequences that "cap" the ends of chromosomes--become shorter as cells divide. Presumably, when the telomere is gone, then it's not possible to replicate the end of the chromosome properly, and the cell poops out. (That would be all of the cells that are descended from one original parent cell, all pooping out more-or-less at once).

The problem is, not all cell types show that pattern. In living humans (rather than in cells in a lab), brain cells don't divide, but age anyway. Stem cells that produce blood and skin divide a whole lot, but retain their youthful enthusiasm for decades. And, of course, cells of the germline are, essentially, immortal (think of the "rest of the human" as mere packaging that the germline cells use to get from generation to generation).

So, as usual, the more we learn the more we realize we have yet to learn.

Now, sin--that's a different story. Sin was defined a couple thousand years ago, and pretty much hasn't changed. The trouble is, it seems that this "original sin" business has something to do with being expelled from Eden (i.e. Lucas, Kansas), which is when they first invented death, and also invented Salvation as a kind of compensation for dying. This is a bit of a long story, which requires some measure of faith to accept. Still, it implies that anyone who is alive has this "original sin" stuff, and is therefore required to die. If it's an infant who dies before committing additional sins, well, they are assured a pleasant spot in heaven.

What I don't understand is why Adam and Eve's bad behavior in Eden required that death come to all other species as well. What did the butterflies and oak trees do to be given the same punishment? Do they have a kind of heaven, too?

As I understand it, this is one of the Big Problems that some people have with Evolution and science. If evolution is true, then there has been death since the beginning of life. While this makes sense in terms of biology and chemistry, it's kinda hard on the idea of Salvation being a kind of compensation for inventing death. If there was always death, then there was no deathless Eden, no Fall, and no reason to invent Salvation....YIKES! We'd better fight to the death against evolution if we want Salvation!

Or did god invent Salvation in the very instant that the first living thing died? It's very hard to know these things. It might be even more complicated than telomeres, which we can, at least, study.