News0 min ago
god v aliens
do aliens exist, cause it occurred to me the other day that if they do then that totally rules out the theory of god because in the bible it says that there are no other planets in the universe or any other galaxy that have life on so if there is aliens then were all screwed cause theres no heaven either
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by willow27. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Clanad: You said in an earlier post that there is no evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Under what circumstances would you be prepared to accept something as providing evidence of transitional forms? The link I provided gave numerous examples of transitional forms, I presume that you reject all of these?
ps: I should point out that engaging in scientific enquiry consists of weighing up the evidence from all sides, not adopting a position and trying to support it with random quotes from various sections of the scientific community that happen to suit. Such practices are part of the time honoured tradition of creationists, trying to shoe horn a position at any cost.
jimmer - "life on other planets a certainty. life will be found on Europa within 15 years. Of course, creationists will tell you that this was specifically mentioned in the bible but people had just been interpreting it incorrectly."
See post 40 - No, the Bible doesn't specifically mention it, but it doesn't in any way suggest it's not possible. Creationists (at least Christian ones) would have no problem with the existence of alien lifeforms. See posts 41 and 49 on the chances of finding intelligent lifeforms anywhere in the universe! I suppose after 200 posts it's not surprising that people are beginning to forget what was said in the earlier ones!
MargeB, when the evidence indicates it, is the simple answer... You continue to ignore the refutations from scientists that I provide. When, may I ask, are you going to consider that evolution may not be what you wish and believe it to be? Additionally, let me list a few of the frauds perpetrated by the scientific community in an effort to bolster their position:
1. England's own Piltdown Man (Google it)
2. Nebraska Man (a supposed hominid like creature constructed entirely from only a tooth, which was later to be found as a pig's tooth.
3. Most recently, Archaeoraptor, proclaimed by National Geographic magazine to be the true missing link. Found in China a few years ago, National Geographic embarassingly apologized when it was shown to be a fraud (and not a very good one at that).
4. Eohippus or Dawn Horse... my own alma mater had an extensive display purportedly showning the descent of the modern horse from rodent sized creatures. When I asked what had happened to the display, I was told the artifacts did not represent the true evolution of the horse and was quietly destroyed. This same action has occurred at all other schools and museums that I have surveyed.
Contd.
Contd.
5. "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny", Ernst Haeckel's proposition that during the gestational period, all embryos recreate the evolutionary history of the species. I had to memorize this little ditty while a student of geology. Now shown to be completely untrue.
6. It's interesting to note that your link indicates three of the sample hominid skulls as Neanderthals... yet recent conclusive DNA testing states they have no relationship to Homo sapiens at all.
7. Leakey's Out of Africa Lucy... now shown to be a dead end, chimpanzee like creature. When was the last time we've seen any reference to this highly touted missing link?
And on and on. So no wonder I, and others look on 'hard evidence of evolution' with eye jaundiced. I find it significant that no evidence of fraud supporting non-evolution by 'creationists' can be found. It all comes from the scientific community in attempt to convince others of the validity of their position.
Look... I know perfectly well that I'm not going to sway your thinking and probably not many of the readers of our little tit for tat... but maybe, just maybe, some one will say wait just a minute, I didn't know that. If that happens this effort has been worth it...
i dont believe that existence of God precludes the existence of aliens, or vice versa. I mean its so awesome i suppose we'll never know.
And i do believe in God, believe that Bible is not a total fiction, and i wonder what existed the split second before the Big Bang to precipitate it. That's where God comes in i believe.
Clanad:
"
5. "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny", Ernst Haeckel's proposition that during the gestational period, all embryos recreate the evolutionary history of the species. I had to memorize this little ditty while a student of geology. Now shown to be completely untrue.
"
Where has it been shown that this proposition is untrue?
6. It's interesting to note that your link indicates three of the sample hominid skulls as Neanderthals... yet recent conclusive DNA testing states they have no relationship to Homo sapiens at all.
Pardon? DNA testing states that they have no relationship to Homo Sapiens at all? Where did you get this from?
7. Leakey's Out of Africa Lucy... now shown to be a dead end, chimpanzee like creature. When was the last time we've seen any reference to this highly touted missing link?
When was it decided that "Lucy" (probably a boy) is a 'dead end', chimpanzee like creature?
Do you reject the sea-cow example I linked to, and the bird examples of transitions, as completely false?
Oh, and I thought we were through...
Ontogeny, etc... The famous evolutionist Dr. Paul Ehrlich, for example, said: "this interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination. Its' shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology." ('The Process of Evolution' 1963, p.66). In his book 'The Beginnings of Life' (1977, p. 32), embryologist Dr. E. Blechschmidt reveals some of his frustration with the persistence of this myth: "The so-called basic law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form. It is totally wrong." Yet in a recent (1980) survey of 15 high school biology text books, 9 offered embryological recapitulation as evidence for evolution!
"The theory of recapitulation . . should be defunct today."�*Stephen J. Gould, "Dr. Down's Syndrome," Natural History, April 1980, p. 144.
Contd.
Neanderthals: I'll only cite on source out of a myriad, more if you so desire:
A long and bitter debate about whether Neanderthals are the ancestors of modern humans may be finally over.
For the first time, a team of German and U.S. scientists have successfully extracted DNA from a 30,000 year old Neanderthal fossil. They concluded that Neanderthals are a distinct species which did not interbreed with Homo sapiens � modern humans.
In 1991, the scientists, led by Dr. Svante Paabo of the University of Munich in Germany, extracted and pulverized a tiny piece of bone from a Neanderthal specimen found in the Neander valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, in 1856. The scientific team isolated a DNA sample � taking pains to distinguish it from modern human DNA which contaminated the bones.
This marks the first time that hominid DNA has been successfully extracted from Neanderthal remains. Past attempts by other anthropologists yielded small, damaged fragments.
The study also puts to rest a long-standing controversy of the relationship between modern humans and Neanderthals.
Neanderthals were large, thick-boned individuals who lived in Europe and western Asia 300,000 years ago and became extinct 270, 000 years later.
Anthropologists agree that they co-existed with modern humans, but disagreed about everything else. Some thought Neanderthals interbred with Homo sapiens and led to modern Europeans. Others argued that the two human lines stayed separate and humans displaced them 50,000 years ago.
This study provides evidence that Neanderthals were a distinct species which did not contribute to the human gene pool.
From Science Today, July 19, 1997...
