NationStates Jolt Archive

If theres life elsewhere in the universe, is it not the final nail in the coffin for idea that God created the world etc?

Id be interested in the response of people who can fit in the possibility of life on other planets with the theory of creationism

I'm not a creationist, or even a theist for that matter, but It seems to me they could say that god just wanted more souls than earth could support.

I guess they'd say that a god can create what it wants where it wants and that it doesn't have to justify itself to us. That's what I'd say if I was defending a creation myth. :)

The way i see it though, Creationism says that the Earth is where God chose to put life

If there is life on other planets, there's one important thing we have to do once their discovered.

We've got to send missionaries over to their planet to convert those blind heretics and show them the light of Jesus!

Were I a theist of any sort -- which I'm not -- I would simply argue that God is, well, God, and could do whatever he wants, being omnipotent and all that. And perhaps he's just an evil sort who likes to watch his creations bumble into one another, presuming that's possible, in some sort of Battle Royale, like the movie, or Survivor or something.

"Creationism" is just a myth-based pseudoscience cooked up by people who want the authority of science, but who aren't prepared to maintain the requisite intellectual honesty and accept answers which may contradict their pre-existing world view. Little things like facts don't get in their way now: why should a potential few more bother them in the future? There is no "final nail" which will forever lock down the lid of self-delusion -- not when there is wilful misreading of evidence, wholesale invention of data, and bare-faced pig-ignorant denial to fall back on.

Maybe G-d is two-timing us...maybe he said the same thing all the other intelligent free willed races!

And i thought we were special. :(

That's it! I propose we bring this mater to G-d, and tell him to pick which one of us is indeed the Chosen People/Race/whatever we're arguing about...i forgot already.

It does make you worry though that there's a possibility that the only group of people who'll ever stump up the cash to explore the universe are fundamentalists of one sort or another. Just think of the potential converts!

If theres life elsewhere in the universe, is it not the final nail in the coffin for idea that God created the world etc?

Id be interested in the response of people who can fit in the possibility of life on other planets with the theory of creationism

If there's life elsewhere in the universe, but it's so far away that we'll never go there, and they'll never come here, does it really matter?

If there's life elsewhere in the universe, but it's so far away that we'll never go there, and they'll never come here, does it really matter?
yes.

anyway, they think there might be micro-organisms on Europa...

yes.

anyway, they think there might be micro-organisms on Europa...

I can't wait for the first Mormons from some spirit world to travel here on their spaceship.

That will really throw everyone for a loop.

Yes, it would be. The whole "Christ died for all man" idea is meaningless if there is more than one species of intelligent creatures (and by intelligent, I don't mean dolphins) in the universe. However, from either a scientific view or a religios view, it's highly unlikely that there are, since it would force a shift in evolutionary thinking as well.
Try to calculate the odds of what happened on Earth happened by chance, and then they rise exponentially for a second set of intelligent life, let alone for more than one.

No, if they're intelligent beings, they'll be dumb enough to have their own secular and religious beliefs that are probably self-centered enough to make us worth subjugating or killing.

If theres life elsewhere in the universe, is it not the final nail in the coffin for idea that God created the world etc?

Id be interested in the response of people who can fit in the possibility of life on other planets with the theory of creationism
I'm not a creationist, but I suspect that God is just a tad bigger than any of us can imagine. Humans tend to anthropomorphize everything and God is no exception.

If theres life elsewhere in the universe, is it not the final nail in the coffin for idea that God created the world etc?

Id be interested in the response of people who can fit in the possibility of life on other planets with the theory of creationism


I believe in God and that God created it all one way or the other.. I've always thought there is life elsewhere. To believe in the Big Bang theory doesn't knock God out of the picture in my mind. Maybe that was Gods way of creation.

No, if they're intelligent beings, they'll be dumb enough to have their own secular and religious beliefs that are probably self-centered enough to make us worth subjugating or killing.
Well, I know that the probablities say it is almost impossible for their not to other planets like ours somewhere. For their sake I hope their evolution isn't as messed up and that they aren't as selfish and hateful as our species. Just because they have the same kind of intellect doesn't mean they'll behave in the same way.

I firmly believe that people like Carl Sagan, who believed that any alien life form advanced enough to travel between the stars would be a peaceful life form, were idiots.

Surely the proof that there's intelligent life out there is that it hasn't contacted us? I mean, would you want to associate with a species whose entire evolution has been based on better and more efficient ways of killing each other?

Well, I know that the probablities say it is almost impossible for their not to other planets like ours somewhere.

On the contrary, according to scientists, there are too many hurdles, particularly in a finite universe. For a planet like ours you need the following:
1) A stable star system, probably of a very similar type to ours, so that there is enough material left over for planet formation.
2) Planets to form a regular orbit at the correct distance from that sun (any kind of irregular orbit could introduce climactic extremes rendering life impossible)
*it should be noted that scientists have yet to discover a planet that conforms to these first two rules
3) Assuming the planet is at the right distance, it must be made of the correct composition of material (gas giants are out, to start with)
4)Assuming the above, the planet must be of sufficient size to sustain an atmosphere, and small enough that gravity does not make life impossible.
5) Now that we have our correctly sized rock, we must assume that it develops intelligent life, which has a much, much longer string of objections. Also, we probably need to assume that there is a larger planet in system to "shield" it from meteors (in much the same way that Jupiter has shielded us since the formation of the solar system.) A star system acts as a gravity trap to interstellar space debris, and if there were only one planet, it would likely be pounded by meteorites.

I firmly believe that people like Carl Sagan, who believed that any alien life form advanced enough to travel between the stars would be a peaceful life form, were idiots.
I would imagine the opposite is true. If a species was truly peaceful they would be content and happy with thier lot and wouldn't have the same drive to contantly make things 'bigger and better' that our stupid species has. They wouldn't care if we were out there or not, because who would ever want to leave thier paradise of a planet?

"Creationism" is just a myth-based pseudoscience cooked up by people who want the authority of science, but who aren't prepared to maintain the requisite intellectual honesty and accept answers which may contradict their pre-existing world view. Little things like facts don't get in their way now: why should a potential few more bother them in the future? There is no "final nail" which will forever lock down the lid of self-delusion -- not when there is wilful misreading of evidence, wholesale invention of data, and bare-faced pig-ignorant denial to fall back on.

i'd just like to point out that evidence actually supports creationism, instead of hindering it like u seem to think. to answer the question, if there was life elsewhere, God would have told us. if He didn't, it would be like a father hiding ur brother from u, and not telling u u had one. any1 who would like to here about this evidence may email me at greenleaf_r@hotmail.com, as there is WAY too much to present here. speaking of which, there are also certain "anomalies" which scientists like to ignore which prove Darwin's theory to be impossible...hehehe...you probably think I'm nuts, but God bless y'all.

I firmly believe that people like Carl Sagan, who believed that any alien life form advanced enough to travel between the stars would be a peaceful life form, were idiots.
Why? A warlike race would probably have developed nuclear weapons before flight to other worlds was technologically possible for them. They're likely to wipe themselves out before reaching other worlds. That mechanism would select for more peacefull space aliens. It wouldn't be a 100% certainty, but it would increase the likelyhood of peacefull aliens.

i'd just like to point out that evidence actually supports creationism, instead of hindering it like u seem to think. to answer the question, if there was life elsewhere, God would have told us. if He didn't, it would be like a father hiding ur brother from u, and not telling u u had one. any1 who would like to here about this evidence may email me at greenleaf_r@hotmail.com, as there is WAY too much to present here. speaking of which, there are also certain "anomalies" which scientists like to ignore which prove Darwin's theory to be impossible...hehehe...you probably think I'm nuts, but God bless y'all.
you do realise that the alternative to the current theories isnt automatically creationism?

Maybe G-d is two-timing us...maybe he said the same thing all the other intelligent free willed races!

And i thought we were special. :(

That's it! I propose we bring this mater to G-d, and tell him to pick which one of us is indeed the Chosen People/Race/whatever we're arguing about...i forgot already.

Huh!!! Well just to tell you I am the almighty creator you have named God...
There is other life in the solar system (so you're not special) and I'm going to get a cup of coffee!!!

Why? A warlike race would probably have developed nuclear weapons before flight to other worlds was technologically possible for them. They're likely to wipe themselves out before reaching other worlds. That mechanism would select for more peacefull space aliens. It wouldn't be a 100% certainty, but it would increase the likelyhood of peacefull aliens.
As our search for intelligent life widens, and shows the galaxy to be deathly quiet, we should wonder. The survival value of human intelligence has never been proven, and may in fact be more of a liability than an asset, as compared against such developments as endothermy and broad-ranging dietary habits. Once a species develops a certain level of intelligence, it has a survival advantage until it develops sufficient power to destroy itself and everything around it. It may be, then, that it always does. The universe may be full of planets on which high intelligence at the high technology level has not yet developed, and also full of planets bearing the ruins of high technology civilizations that no longer exist.

One of the problems related to further survival is the method of travel between the stars. Beyond the development of some drive that allows faster than light travel, or its equivalent, we are left with rockets to cross the depths of interstellar space. This means travel at relativistic speeds, using rockets with antimatter engines.

Relativistic travel has its own problems: a rocket travelling at an appreciable percentage of light speed has the capability of destroying all life on a planet in a single impact. The sobering truth is that relativistic civilizations are a potential nightmare to anyone living within range of them. The problem is that when objects are traveling at an appreciable fraction of light speed, they are never where you see them when you see them. Relativistic rockets, if their owners turn out to be less than benevolent, are both unstoppable and totally destructive. A starship weighing 1500 tons (approximately the mass of the space shuttle on the launchpad) impacting on the Earth at only 30 percent of light speed will release 1.5 million megatons of energy - an explosive force hundreds of times greater than today's global arsenal.

The fact that we may be within only a few decades of becoming a relativistic civilization ourselves raises new problems. It raises possibilities that, for the moment at least, are simply interesting to think about, perhaps even fun to laugh about. But the ability to laugh at a problem is directly proportional to one's distance from the problem.

Perhaps the most sobering truth is that any expedition to another star, using such a rocket, carries with it overwhelming destructive potential - there is no way to disinguish a peaceful exploration from an intended annihilation until it is too late.

One of the problems related to further survival is the method of travel between the stars. Beyond the development of some drive that allows faster than light travel, or its equivalent, we are left with rockets to cross the depths of interstellar space. This means travel at relativistic speeds, using rockets with antimatter engines.



Two points:
1) An additional problem with travel at such speeds, especially when we talk about faster than light travel, is the time-warp effect (theoretically, if you travelled fast enough, you could go to Mars and then arrive on Earth before you were born.)
2) We likely will not achieve relativistic speeds using conventional propulsion (ie rockets). Therefore we will likely need to develop some other form of propulsion if we intend to breach the light-speed barrier.

Two points:
1) An additional problem with travel at such speeds, especially when we talk about faster than light travel, is the time-warp effect (theoretically, if you travelled fast enough, you could go to Mars and then arrive on Earth before you were born.)
2) We likely will not achieve relativistic speeds using conventional propulsion (ie rockets). Therefore we will likely need to develop some other form of propulsion if we intend to breach the light-speed barrier.

I am assuming sub-light relativistic travel using antimatter rockets.

Theoretically, one can reach near light speed with a beamed core antimatter rocket.

I'm saying things are dangerous even if we don't pass the lightspeed barrier.

I am assuming sub-light relativistic travel using antimatter rockets.

Theoretically, one can reach near light speed with a beamed core antimatter rocket.

I'm saying things are dangerous even if we don't pass the lightspeed barrier.

Okay.

If theres life elsewhere in the universe, is it not the final nail in the coffin for idea that God created the world etc?

Id be interested in the response of people who can fit in the possibility of life on other planets with the theory of creationism

Yes,
And here is why. Holy text for the monotheisic religions are Earth centric. There are no mentions of outer-realm beings other than angles and/ or demons. So these holy text would be rendered obsolete as they state Earth was the sole planet to have life. The second reason would be the alien culture (if they had a culture, they could just be equivalent of Earth animal or plant life), would their culture have a religion,or would their religion differ from Earthly rligions. Examining the alien culture might have two possible outcomes:
A) If the alien culture holds religion or no religion, then there would most likely be mass conversions from both sides, holy wars, and basically both side would end up much like Earth in the centuries after the crusades.
B) If the aliens are animal or plant like with no culture present, then evolution would ring true rendering most religions obsolete. However if the aliens did have culture, but rejected the idea of religion(s) (either because they are older than us, or have thorough research) Earth religions would have only a small fraction of followers than they did in the past.

The only religions I could see surviving are NeoPagans/ Wicca though their numbers would dwindle. The other would be Hinduism as the religion makes no real claims that Earth is special. Buddhism and Confucius would gain a surplus.

But, I wouldn't count out the major monotheistic religion. They would call the cultured aliens "soulless," "demons," or "trick/ tools of the devil." Or they would try to come up with a new theory about God and God's plans, and would try to make it fit with the alien factor.. something like "God didn't want us to be lonely." Much like some Christians are doing now with evolution, claiming it was planed.

i'd just like to point out that evidence actually supports creationism, instead of hindering it like u seem to think.

There is no scientific evidence which supports either "strong" or "weak" Creationism ("strong" Creationism being a belief in a more-or-less literal interpretation of the Biblical Genesis stories, "weak" Creationism being a belief that humanity, or life on earth, or indeed the universe was created by some sort of intelligence, i.e. God). In fact, there is a whole mass of scientific evidence, from a whole host of different fields, which indicates that "strong" Creationism is a load of baloney, e.g. layered fossil beds, radioactive dating of rocks, genetic evidence, archaeology, textual analysis of the Pentateuch, etc etc. For "weak" Creationism, while there is no evidence to support it, equally there is no evidence to contradict it either. Make your hypothesis vague and airy-fairy enough, and there's nothing for anyone to grab on to.

to answer the question, if there was life elsewhere, God would have told us. if He didn't, it would be like a father hiding ur brother from u, and not telling u u had one.

Traditionally, God is viewed as ineffable, surpassing all understanding. I'm amazed to find that you know exactly what God would or would not do. What's it like, to have such an intimate understanding of the mind of the Divinity?

any1 who would like to here about this evidence may email me at greenleaf_r@hotmail.com, as there is WAY too much to present here. speaking of which, there are also certain "anomalies" which scientists like to ignore which prove Darwin's theory to be impossible...hehehe...you probably think I'm nuts, but God bless y'all.

Strange how it's never convenient to present any of this evidence for public scrutiny. If there's so much, how about just giving us a sample? Say, three pieces of evidence.

As for "anomalies": this is how science progresses. No reputable scientist would insist that current theory is absolute dogmatic truth: it's just a theory, our best guess at the moment. Time progresses, people find out more things, theories are overturned and new ones -- better guesses -- take their place. Science rewards those who overturn the established view. If you can actually prove evolution to be impossible, then there's a Nobel Prize with your name on it. What are you waiting for?