According to science, when does life begin in the womb?
My thumb is alive so your question as it is means little. The question is when a fetus becomes a person. Science does little to answer this question. Cognitive progress happens until at least age 25.The traditional answer is that the soul enters the body at the first breath. It is only the last century or two that it was considered to enter the body at conception. Because that particular discussion is about the soul, science is going to be forever silent on the topic. History does matter, though. Millennia of taking the stance that the soul enters the body at the first breath versus a couple of centuries of taking the stance that the soul enters the body at conception.What we end up with is opinion. The issue with opinions is everyone has them but they are not to be imposed on others. The person whose opinion matters is the person making the choice whether to abort. As a male that’s never me.
When does an organism’s life begin?
Actually, there currently isn’t clear, hard, scientific consensus as to what qualifies as “alive” or “dead”. Most people, including scientists, know it when they see it most of the time, but occasionally questions like this one throw the community for a bit of a loop. “When exactly does life begin?” “Why was the first cell alive even though it wasn’t very different from its environment?” “When do doctors decide that a patient has finally died and can’t be saved?”(answer: it’s somewhat at their discretion.) “Are viruses alive or nonliving?” (I actually once got into a heated debate with my biology on that one in high school. The current scientific consensus is “nonliving”.)Usually there’s a pretty unambiguous scientific definition for things, but “life” and “living” just happen to be some of the few terms that have eluded the rigorous standards of definition. That isn’t to say scientists haven’t tried: We know all living things replicate, are made mostly of organic material, grow, and so forth, but the problem we keep running into is that either things which clearly aren’t alive often fit proposed definitions (carbon nanotubes in a CVD chamber would fit my short criteria list, for instance) or proposed definitions exclude things which are clearly alive (we might stipulate that living things have DNA, but that actually excludes some bacteria which exclusively use RNA).So, until we get that technicality resolved, your question is pretty much unanswerable with science as it is currently. I’m sorry, the debate will have to rage on, but we’re working on it.
Is there any scientific proof that life begins at conception?
“Life” is not actually a scientific concept, it is a language concept to describe a complex network of chemical reactions that we interpret as “life”. According to science the “life” of a human is as important as the “life” in a pebble.However, if we base the concept of “life” as “human life” then science would indicate that “human life” does indeed begin at conception. At this point the zygote has the full assortment of genetic material and begins self dividing to become a multi-cellular organism without the help of the mother. While sperm and egg are alive before conception, they lack the full genetic material and thus their status as “human” is debatable due to their inability to reproduce or divide.The gamete goes on to form a blastocyst. it has all the chemical reaction that adult human cells have, but does not look the same.This blastocyst then goes on to become a parasite on the inside lining of another human for about 40 weeks before leaving the host to enter the world. Despite its parasitical nature, it is indeed a separate organism.Of course, as stated before, human life is as important in science as a pebble is… so whether this human life is worth anything to society is not up for science to decide.
How can top scientists not come to the fact humans were created?
Science works with evidence, if you have no evidence suggesting humans, or any other species, were created, then scientists won't reach that conclusion. This is the problem with creationist arguments, they start with a preferred answer, and work to make that answer true, which is not how science and reality work. Science starts with a question and works towards the answer using evidence as a guide, to find the most accurate answer. Religions are certain that they've found all the answers, but have yet to demonstrate that they have. Quite the reverse in fact.
According to science what happens to the soul after death?
There's no scientific evidence for a soul, none at all. In fact according to scientific understanding, even the concept of a soul is impossible.A person's thoughts and emotions are entirely the result of billions of minute electrical signals and biochemical changes in the human body, largely in the brain, and once a person dies, these signals and changes cease, never to return. There's no way that any form of 'life' can continue beyond the point of brain death, other than in human imagination of course. The idea of a soul is entirely man-made and was conceived by our ancient ancestors at a time when there was very little scientific understanding generally, and virtually no understanding about the way a living organism functioned. Because the concept of a soul is is integral with the belief in an afterlife - another entirely human concept which is impossible in reality - it's been perpetuated by organised religion as part of their mechanism for gaining and controlling the lives of their followers, based on little more than human psychology; the desire for there to be more to life than we see.