god v aliens

[willow27]

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

[badams]

Is there alien life?  Recently two scientists were on The Sky At Night with Patrick Moore, and in answer to this question, both said that although they would like to think there is other life, based on scientific observations, they had to conclude that it was highly unlikely.  There are many factors required for life to exist on a planet, and our earth is actually quite unique according to astronomers.

For example, the stabilising affect of a large moon in a close orbit is important but astronomers know of no similar planet.  The size of the planet is ultra-critical - too big and a gaseous atmosphere will be too dense to sustain life - too small and the atmosphere will drift off into space.  The distance from the star is extremely important - too close and the temperature will boil off the atmosphere, too far away and the planet will freeze. Speed of rotation is likewise critical - too slow (some planets don't spin at all), and one side of the planet will freeze while the other side boils.

The presence of large planets in a solar system is required to protect the smaller "life bearing" planet - they act as a "mop" to collect space debris which  would otherwise collide with the smaller planet.  The location of our solar system is important too - solar systems closer to the centres of galaxies are unlikely to have life sustaining planets, because there are much higher numbers of asteroids, etc. which would regularly hit planets with devastating affect.
These are only a few of the factors raised by scientists who want to find alien lifeforms, yet who readily admit that it is unlikely that there are any planets similar to ours which could potentially support life.  Even if such planets did exist, the chances that intelligent life could evolve during the life of the star are so ridiculously small, that there is virtually no chance that alien life exists anywhere.

[badams]

MargeB - "We now know...human beings did evolve from other lower life forms..." I must disagree.  This may be how you interpret the evidence, but it is certainly not how I see it, and though I would not pretend to be wiser than anyone else on this forum, I am certainly not an idiot.  I have studied the Bible from a scientific perspective for many years, and although there are passages which I still find difficulty with, I have considerably more difficulties with the alternative theories. (And it would be wrong to present "evolution" as a single scientific theory, since there is considerable disagreement among eminent evolutionists as to what exactly (in their view) happened).

You rightly criticise the incorrect interpretations of the Bible promoted by the church in the past. However, that does not mean that the Biblical texts which they misinterpreted were wrong.  Many modern evolutionists reject much of Darwins work - does that mean that the evidence he based his theories on should be discarded?  Of course not - nor should the Bible be rejected just because some over-enthusiastic scholars made foolish judgements based on scientific ignorance.

[badams]

Space - "Why do people take the bible seriously ?" Perhaps because it is one of the most unique books ever written?  Despite claims to the contrary, even though it was written by many authors, over many centuries, there is amazing agreement in all of their teachings.  As a historical record, it is extremely accurate.  Sceptics have for years criticised its claims, only for other scientists to discover later that its claims are completely true. (Take for example the accepted "wisdom" for years that Ninevah could not possibly have existed in the ancient world, and that the Biblical account was simply a myth.  How inconvenient then when someone went and dug it up, and found it was exactly as the Bible described it!).  A better question would be "Why do people not take the Bible seriously?!"

"The genesis is known to be pure fantasy.." - not so - the Genesis story is believed by huge numbers of highly qualified scientists.  If we accept that the "days" actually represent "ages" (and there is good theological reason why this should be), then the Genesis account fits much better with the evidence than evolutionary theory!

"Just because lots of people believe in it, doesn't mean you should believe in it too. "  Couldn't agree more.  We are talking about evolution here aren't we?

[badams]

georgit79 - Bible=highly overrated coddswallop

Really? Based on what evidence?

[badams]

Mfewell �I don't think Jonah and the whale is factual, but I do think it is a beautiful symbol for the events of later on (resurrection), and that is all it is�
Well the Bible actually doesn�t mention a whale � it says �a large fish�.  There is however, a record of a fisherman having fallen off a whaler once, and being cut out of a whale which was harpooned a couple of days later.  He died after a few days, but the fact that this happened would suggest that the story of Jonah may be true � especially if you believe in a God who can perform miracles.

[MargeB]

Badams, thanks for your comprehensive post. What specifically about the theory of evolution of species from other species do you reject? How exactly do you explain the status of modern animal life with recourse to a Genesis style theory?

What is this 'life' you are talking about in terms of cosmology? Is it our kind of 'life'? Or anything that remotely resembles it (like bacteria that can survive in extreme cold/heat/acidity/alkalinity)? How do you think human intelligence evolved from less intelligent creatures? If the requirements for a suitable planetary setup for life are exacting, how does this translate into overall probability, given that this has to take into account that there are many millions of billions of galaxies containing many millions of billions Main Sequence Stars like our own. Beginning to look more probable now? Just because we can't see them does not mean we cannot make statements about the probability of their existence. And things are changing. We only recently discovered that planets are fairly commonplace and have detected them around other stars.

Look forward to hearing your answers.

[Ward-Minter]

With apologies I haven't the time to read badams answer. Can anybody sum it up in two sentances??

 

Also if daddy long legs only live three days what happened to them on the Ark???

[MargeB]

Don't you ever read the bible?

Joshua 4: 41-47 "And in those days, the floods increased and the Lord cast the shadow of his great might upon the kingdom, for mankind had fallen away from him. And his good servant, Noah, stood firm, and had done what the Lord had asked. And it was upon that night, at bathtime, that Noah, in great haste, tried to drown the two daddylonglegs by turning on the tap real hard. But the Lord heard the cries of his creatures, and whisked them away, down a pipe, and they grew to great numbers."

Guess that's the beer talking. Hey georgi, how'r you doin'?

[badams]

MargeB - thanks for your comments.  On the Genesis question, I doubt that I could do it justice in this forum, given the very tight limit on the number of characters you can have in a post.  Look here:-

http://www.downtoearthonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=304&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

2nd post down by "notheruser" is my take on the Genesis account.

On alien lifeforms, "How do you think that human intelligence evolved from less intelligent creatures?" - you forget - I don't believe in evolution!

On probability "there are many millions of billions of galaxies" - steady on! Don't exagerate to support your case - only religous nutters are allowed to do that! :-) According to the Hubble Space Telescope research, there are around 125 billion galaxies.  Lets call it 500 billion.  The number of stars per galaxy is around 100 billion.  So that's 5 x 10^22 stars.  Now lets say there are 20 criteria which a planet must have correct, in order to sustain life, and the chance of a criteria being correct is 1:100.  The chance of a single planet meeting all 20 criteria is 1 in 1x10^40.  So the chances of there being a star in the known universe which meets all 20 criteria at once is only 1 in 5x10^17.  That is, there is a 1 in 50 million million billion chance that any of those planets would meet the criteria.

Am I still wrong to be sceptical?

[badams]

MargeB - your daddy longlegs explanation is hilarious, although I don't think it's a terribly accurate translation from the Hebrew :-) I would start on the Genesis flood, but I think we've strayed from willow27's question far enough already!

[Ward-Minter]

Is it true daddy long legs have enough poison in them to kill an elephant, or is this off on too much of a tangent?

[badams]

Ward-Minter - the bite of the Pholcidae (daddy long-legs!) has been known to make people ramble on in a delirious manner....did you leave the bathroom window open again?  Light switched on?  Thought so! :-)

[georgit79]

Hey MargeB, I am doing just fine thankyou. Sorry I didn't stick around last night- my sofa was calling again!

badams: regarding my post earlier, it was rather rash, I'll admit. I just don't believe that there was a God of any kind. OK, so God made all this, the world we live in today and all the people and the creatures on it, but who made him? Did he just pop out of nowhere? No, I prefer my world to be based on purely scientific explanation. Makes me sleep easier at night.

I'm still coming back to this thread with real interest though- some of you have some really insightful things to say, and I hope it runs and runs. Good work, guys.

[badams]

georgit79. Where did God come from?  I have no idea! If I did understand it, wouldn't I be as clever as God?  Where he came from, and what he was doing before he created the universe really dosen't bother me.  I, like you, prefer my world to be based on a scientific explanation - where we differ is in how we interpret scientific evidence.  If you follow the link I gave MargeB, you will get a feel for how I think that the creation story in Genesis fits in with the scientific evidence.  If you want me to elaborate on any of it, I'd be glad to.

Hopefully what you read will convince you that believing in God, and being "scientific" are not opposites.  While many people believe in God and have no interest in God whatsoever, there are also many people involved in all aspects of science, who find no conflict between science and God. While you may never agree with my interpretation of the evidence, hopefully you can at least accept that I am no some idiot who blindly ignores science!

[Ward-Minter]

georgit

Science vrs Religion

All living matter contains a carbon structure of some sort. This can be quantified and therefore "scientifically" measurable.

This helps explain evolution and survival theory insofaras genetics etc are carbon based. Further, through carbonisation and chemical reaction there is feasible testimony suggesting The Big Bang theory etc holds true.

My argument here however puts forward feelings of emotion. I am sure, like you and everybody else here, my feelings are alive. I love, I hate, I desire, I am proud, I am jealous, I am paternal, I am sensitive, I am humourous, I am scared etc etc.

Some of these emotions, and there are millions, are ALIVE in me. The love I have of music for example is a "living" thing within me independent of my genetic or carbon structure.

Two sub-points. Genetisists will argue emotions are part of your structure and have been scientifically evolved like the growth of the body. Obviously nuture has designed tastes etc, but even sociatal structure is science based.

Psychologists, particularly cognitive ones, will state emotions can be measured through galvonic skin responses or "brain waves" etc. Neurons alas are carbon based.

What I propose is my emotions are mine. They do exist outside the framework and are so idiosycrantic to me they have evolved outside the science model. Only I can measure the love I have.

Further,  can you honesty accept that your emotions are product of a big ball of gas exploding billions of years ago. The love you have of your family a result from millions of years of rain fusing with carbon and nitrogenic rock?? Surely there must be some "magical" assistance. Maybe not God as Christians say nor any other world idol, but surely there is a creative force that goes beyond science.

[georgit79]

Brilliant. I am reading everything here with great interest, and will try and form my own theory on the whole thing by later on this evening. Keep it coming, folks!

[jimmer]

badams

having read the link you gave to margeb i am instantly converted. Goodness, when explained like that it is obvious that only god could perform the miracle of creation. I mean, it couldn't just be that someone saw the day, the night, the stars, the sea, the land, etc. and put it down to a god because he didn't have the benefit of scientific reasoning.

Science is not faith based. it is a method of obtaining reliable results through experiment. Science is about improving understanding through reliable and quantifiable methodology. it never claims to "know" and it continually evolves much like ourselves.

Christianity or whatnot is faith based, that is its point. You cannot prove god with science and science is not concerned with god, the two are not compatible, be happy with that, science does not have "miracles" and christianity is faith in miracles. The problem with your arguments (and by your, I mean christians) is that you take gaps in scientific knowledge as proof of God rather than temporary gaps in scientific evolution. Religion is older than science, there is something superstitious about it. As we understand more it becomes less and less relevant.



jim

[Clanad]

Further, a point I've made before in these various threads, is that there are now recognized nearly 300 characteristics of our solar system in general and planet Earth in particular, as being neccessary for any life, much less life as we know it, to exist.  These are characteristics summed by scientists, not creationists.  The first response expected from atheists or those believe only in natural explanations, is that 300 as not a significant number when the universe is nearly 14.5 billion years old and the Earth is shown to be around 4.5 billion years old and this enormous amount of time could lead the congruence of the 300 or so characteristics.  Problem is, many of the listed characteristics are not repeatable and occurred very early on in the expansion following the Big Bang or the very early formation of our galaxy.  Our very green badams has enumerated several of the components, but most scientists, especially astrophysicists agree that the assimilation of this many requirements is exclusive in the extreme... I've stated previously, ad nauseum, I'm sure, that the very real movement towards Intelligent Design, within the scientific community, is causing great turmoil...

[Clanad]

If I may, jimmer, problem is, that a rational examination and produces a belief in some of science, especially evolution and it's many permutations, that is faith based.  A cursory reading of many explanations of Darwin's classical theory fully indicate that to believe that theory requires a belief based on nothing more than the feeling that's the way it has to be. As one example; there doesn't exist even one uncontested (within the scientific community) transitional form.  Darwin clearly indicated this was a neccessity and would be proven given enough time to produce, through exploration, sufficient selections.  Our museums, universities and research centers are now full of millions upon millions of fossil examples of nearly every phyla... but not one clear, uncontested transitional form. Another example; it is known there a far fewer phyla (and by deffinition, species) existing today than existed following the Cambrian Explosion some 500 million years ago.  If evolution is working, it's not doing a very good job, would you agree?

If one approaches the subject of life's origins with an open mind, (a condition Christians are always accused of not having) there has to be a lot of concern about validity of the scientific evidence. If there is no concern, which is displayed in some disciplines of science today, then one finds themselves faced with only faith... in my humble opinion...

[jimmer]

clannad

in that case one could just as soon argue then that the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life would make god more likely.

Your argument is relevant only if you can prove that if we are unique life forms then god must have created us. Since the existence or otherwise of ET does not prove or disprove we are god's creation i'm not sure how these "scientists" came to their conclusions.



jim