DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Question for the Religious....

I have never said what was true or wasn't, as I think it all needs further investigation.

I think Black Sabbath referred to them as faries.

Are you under the impression that we have found anything alive or dead or extinct or fossilized out there?

Dip your toe into the Atlantic and your toe will be covered with life.

So you don't believe that living organisms are alive?

I wasn't talking about life in the form of human like creatures or animals. Even though that possibility does exist in some other solar system.

But there is life in water and most all life forms, even humans, are made up of many types of cells and organisms. They too are a form of life, which without, man would cease to exist.

They most certainly did!

Thats in the Jenner thread! Pay attention!

Bailout time! Just admit you were wrong and we move along!
I won't hold it against you. I got other wrong people to
deal with in this thread.

Not if a toe was small enough to slip between the water molecules. That is kind of what we are dealing with when looking for life.

BTW, have you never heard of the Stardust mission? We collected organic compounds from the tail of comet Wild2.

I'm curious as to why you are positive that life cannot possibly exist outside of Earth. Care to explain?

Just because we have not detected life on goldilocks planets does not mean they are not there. We use spectral analysis to determine what a planets composition is. If we used this technology from say, the moon, and pointed it at the Earth, all we'd know is the earth is rocky and watery with an oxygen/nitrogen based atmosphere. We wouldn't know if life existed on Earth until we sent a probe there however. We have never sent a probe to a planet outside of our solar system, and the only goldilocks planet in our solar system is Earth.

So I'm curious as to why you believe, with 100% certainty, that it is *IMPOSSIBLE* for live to exist outside of this blue dot we have. I've heard people say it's unlikely before but unless you have traveled the universe personally, I'm not sure how you can provide proof that life does not exist there?

No life was found, no evidence of life ever existing. Minerals, like water, are not life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/81P/Wild

The evidence man. All the evidence ever collected says I am right.

What evidence of life out there do you have that we may compare?

I'm ok with that statement.


I find it ironic though. For some, the "just because we can't prove life exists on other planets deesn't mean it's not there" works in this discussion.

But turn the discussion to God - and believers get lambasted with "you can't prove God exists, so He doesn't."

Just wanted to put that out there.


For the record - I have no clue if life exists elsewhere.

You are such a funny little man! LMAO

BAM! BINGO! Prize to the guy who saw it first!

Congrats to all you believers in life out there.

I did my best to argue you down but YOUR FAITH WAS STRONG!

Rarely have I seen such Faith.

-- Someone who believes in God

Quite the contrary. All the evidence is saying your wrong. All the theories are saying you're wrong. Nothing is saying you're right. Your argument relies on us traveling a few billion miles away and taking pictures of their planet to determine whether or not life is around. It's the equivalent of looking into my book bag, seeing a bunch of inanimate objects and then claiming life doesn't exist on Earth.

Time for the good ole fashioned MIllery-Urey experiment!

You're ignoring my point. If we had scanned all of the cosmos, and found that absolutely no life existed anywhere, then this supposition would have validity. Where it lacks validity is that we've explored and know very little about of the universe. There very well could be some intelligent design to it, or other inhabitants in it. But we have no way of knowing with such a limited scope at our disposal.

I guess your understanding and my understanding of god/nature are completely different. Why would god create the vastness that is the universe, and only put life in one place? God is all about life. In your view, he created a multitude of different life on this planet for his pure amusement. In my view, he created a multitude of life everywhere, and its all for his amusement. In my view, god would be infinite, creating infinite life, universes, and realities. Your view almost reduces him to a kid with an ant farm. The more we explore, learn, and understand, the closer we get to god.

If someone retains an open mind to our discussion of the universe but does not retain an open mind in discussion of deism then they indeed are playing to their own conclusions.

The evidence presented for life on this planet is the water, the air, the ratios therein. These conditions exist elsewhere in the universe. To say that it is an impossibility for them to harbor life without evidence is folly, because we do not know how life began.

In the same breath, we not knowing how life began is a valid reason for why you could say there is no life but on Earth. We have an idea of where the species originated from but no idea on how the first RNA sequences came to being. If they indeed came from some primordial ooze then these same conditions may exist elsewhere in the universe. If these RNA sequences were delivered to earth, either via God, a meteorite, an alien, etc., then perhaps life would have more difficulty synthesizing, or synthesize entirely differently.



You believe in the existence of God but are convinced this same God could not create life elsewhere? Is God not all powerful? Would not believing in God de-facto believe in life outside of Earth? Are the angels not alive? Is God not alive? Do Angels roam the Earth or do they roam the heavens?

Arch,

there's a huge difference. i dunno about everybody else, but i never said God didn't exist. i've been on record saying i believe in a high power, just not a religion specific god like most.

but God is something none of us can physically see(in before the "God is all around us" comment). i'm talking HIM/HER. not what he created.

there's billions of galaxies, billions of stars, millions of planets, and the universe is EXPANDING.

I don't really discredit much, or am i skeptical.

because the same people who says there's no life on different planets, come from the same ideology that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, we couldn't break the sound barrier, we couldn't get into space.

At some point, we need to stop saying "never", and just start exploring again.

As he points out inanimate objects don't make themselves come alive. They have not yet had one successful experiment where they took uncontaminated material and created new life with it. Sure they can reproduce the building blocks but they can't make the block assemble themselves to create themselves.

I don't have the FAITH that they ever will since it's just not logical. If it did then it would happen all the time and it doesn't.

For me it would be cool if they did though.

BTW my bad on the date for angkor wat. I had its date mixed up with another temple.

There are literally thousands of pieces of evidence that show dinosaurs and mankind interacted together at some point. The more you study our older civilizations the more you will see examples of it. There are some hoaxes mixed in with it but that does not change the weight of the evidence. For instance there are hundreds of fake fossils that even to this day they use as evidence of evolution. Should we throw all all the evidence then? No, of course not.

Some of the debunking even by the smithonian is flat out ridiculas. For instance:



They try to say this is a Rhino with leaves in the background as it goes through the jungle.



A rhino does not have a long thick tail. Also, where is it's horn? This is what a rhino looks like on Angkor Wat.



Its very clear they are different immages. Also, the rhino was revered for it's horn so it makes zero sense they would make a carving of a Rhino with no horn and the wrong tail.

They didn't debunk anything. They just spit something out to avoid facing something that went against what they had previously been taught. The smithsonian does that all the time.

The academic world is always very resistant to being shown they got it wrong. They will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid being called wrong.

Okay.

But my point was, I can't prove God exists - and some take that as: He doesn't exist if you can't prove it.

There is currently no proof of live anywhere but on earth - but some say there could be.

I don't have the answers. Just pointing out that just because I can't prove God to some doesn't mean He/She doesn't exist. Just as "Joe" can't prove other life exists.

No biggy.

If other life exists somewhere - that's great. If it doesn't, that's fine also.

A lack of evidence is not proof that something didn't happen.

I believe it was Carl Sagan who said that statistically there is life on other planets.

I'm a firm believer that there is abundant life in the universe. Nothing in the Bible says God only created life here on earth. It doesn't even say man in unique or special other than he made us to be custodians of our planet. I don't know that we are doing a good job of it but we are certainly in charge of what species get to live or die. Ultimately we are doing what God told us to IMHO. I just think if we keep doing a bad job at it that we will suffer greatly for it. God doesn't need to punish us because our stupidity will do the job for us.

i can rock with you on that. that makes sense. I always thought that life on other planets doesn't cancel out religion. if God is all powerful, then he can create whatever he wants, wherever.

I see. So, we are to take The Bible literally only when it suits your purposes, but anything that doesn't fit into your version of the right interpretation of the word of God should be discounted because it really could mean anything! Gotcha.

See, apparently that applies in the "is their life elsewhere" argument. And that's fine.

But there's a certain segment of society that uses lack of proof to say "See? God doesn't exist if you can't prove it."

That's all I'm saying.

and they're wrong. that's a double standard.

No its just a simple fact that Hebrew numbers have relative meanings. The Hebrew priests deliberately put hidden meanings into writing as the wrote the books of the Bible to hide information from the uninitiated. The problem is that the priestly tribe that was responsible for teaching the priest how to get that information got enslaved and is one of the "lost" tribes of Israel.

There are going to always be varying interpretations of the numerology of the Bible because we don't have the keys to that information anymore and much has been lost over the last 3,000 years. I'm not going to cry over it because it is what it is.

Still knowing that Hebrew numbers, especially ones used in repeating patterns, like 40 days and 40 nights are not literal but symbolic makes more sense. For instance the Bible says Jesus is in a man's body. If that is true then he would die if he didn't eat for 40 days. I mean he bleeds, he cries, he dies, so its natural to assume he would also die of starvation. When you know that the phrase 40 days and 40 nights is just symbolic for a "long time" then you can easily see the Bible does not contradict itself.

Its easy to understand that people don't like that idea but facts are facts and the Hebrew number system is very complicated and tricky. If you want to know more then feel free to take a few college courses on it. It's well worth the money IMHO. If you can't afford it there are plenty of books on the subject. Understanding your Bible more is always a good thing. The truth will never diminish God.

Do you mean The Bible Code?

Well Jews call it Gematria and other folks call it Numerology.

I just look at the grammar Dr. Addison taught me for Hebrew Numbers. It's extremely complicated and I am not going to write a paper on it for the boards since most wouldn't care enough to read it anyways.

I strongly suggest taking a course on it if your interested. I am not trying to be mean about it but man its a tough subject to delve into and I am not qualified to teach it. I just offer up tidbits from around the edges of it ^^

A blonde hair blue eyed Donna Reed type on FOX or a horned-rimmed short haired Janene Garafalao type on MSNBC would have a similar preface like "Some people say..." or "A lot of people think...", before launching into an argument that draws a line in the sand based on assumptions, and uses that line to dictate all impending ideas.

That statement usually compares the difference between belief and faith.

There's a certain segment of society that consistently states their faith in God as proof of His existence.

Compare the number of people of who have no problem with the faith of others to the number of those same people who believe there is no proof of God existence.

Then compare the number of people who spend their time trying to convince others that God is real to those who try to prove otherwise.

So I agree there are people who use the lack of proof argument about God while discussing, but I think that is more based on logic. I don't think that same logic applies to belief about other life in the universe.

Yup, it's weasel wording:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

Glad to know it has a formal name. Thanks for the education.

So if I have unprotected sex with a woman repeatedly for months, then statistically, she's pregnant... whether she is or not.

No but to use your example that would be like us probing a planet that we know to be molten lava, yet probing it every few months hoping this time it will be a life supporting planet.

A better example is that not every planet has life on it, but given there are an estimated 40 billion habitable planets, it seems probable that at least some of them would be able to support life.

If you had sex with a different woman every day for a year, statistically speaking you'd have some Shawn Kemp style 'splainin to do unless you're sterile

I've always found the universe and God discussions interesting. With all due respect to every bright mind out there, they're trying to explain and rationalize 2 things obviously beyond our comprehension and human intelligence. It's part of the reason why I have a hard time with the Bible. I don't understand how humans can understand something that is obviously an omnipotent presence and grasp the complexity of what it's saying. Let alone write it word for word. I feel like I'm becoming more agnostic, but at the same time I believe in Jesus.