Jump to content


Is There Life On Other Planets?


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#21 Zenas

Zenas

    Iota

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 936 posts

Posted 29 April 2005 - 11:37 AM

That's my problem with my friends here, you are still using "old" software even though God has given you the new version to compensate for what science has figured out in the twentieth century.

Not even top scientists understand everything that going on. They regularly forward theories, hoping that they might be right until someone else comes along with a better and more sensational sounding idea. And yet you exhibit a trust in what they have to offer. Your body is set to last for 70 years, give or take a few years. When you're gone, what difference will it make whether they've discovered a way to travel to Mars or located a life sustaining planet?

We believe Christ will return shortly. What use will knowledge of the outer realms of the universe be to us then?

I enjoy science fiction which is based on proper science, and thinking of new inventions. But it is a hinderance I would rather be without as it is a distraction from our main purpose, which is to obey and honour God and to follow after Christ His Son.

Those who are with it, think on God and what will be, not what could be.

#22 Guest_Colter_*

Guest_Colter_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2005 - 12:38 PM

If life did exist on another planet it is perfectly conceivable that on their planet 1 + 1 does not equal 2.

You know how delicate my situation is right now, they've just given me movie privileges tonight and now you go and say something like that. Marcia who's in the sanitarium with me wanted to watch The Passion Of The Christ but the head nurse said no. We have to watch Ben Hurr instead. :cry:

#23 Amy Parkin

Amy Parkin

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,335 posts

Posted 29 April 2005 - 01:53 PM

There are energies outside of our vision like angelic forms, like the Midwayers that rolled away the stone on Jesus tomb. When Jesus was in the river Jordan being baptized his vision was anointed and he could behold the heavens and see a vast array of beings subservient to HIM that we cannot see. So I think there are things out there, but we cannot see them!

I like this idea, but perhaps not in the same way as you see it. I think this idea of a parallel universe, this 4th dimension, explains how angels can be all around us without us seeing them. In it time does not exist, so God can be anywhere at any time. That's how I like to see things.

The question of why we've not been contacted is a good one. After the rebellion ( lets just use the fruit off the forbidden tree event) I think our planet was cut off from the universe circuits. Being in quarantine could explain it but I also ask the same question, why no other space travel or radio frequency contact? Is it being blocked because of our troubled world? Do "normal" worlds of light and life have a space program? Is their faith such that they don't feel the need to "know" what is out there?


I think we were cut off from this 4th dimension, but I don't believe we are cut off from ET life. It appears that I have a similar understanding to you, but what you believe to be ET life I believe to be heaven, where God, His Son and His Angels dwell.

Fortigurn, the implication in Genesis is that the A&E creation event was Gods first life creation event. We have asteroids floating around in (our) solar system that seem to be very old.


If we look at Genesis we have a little clue into this, Colter, which you may not know we do. Some Christadelphians believe it, some don't, but I think it explains all sorts of things, like why the Universe appears to be older than the Biblical account reveals and where dinosaurs come in:

And God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


Why say replenish if life has not been there before?

The Universe is old but not the earth???????


Why not? Are you saying it is impossible? New planets are being created and destroyed all the time, surely?


I was very disappointed to see that the creation thread was shut down, it leads me to believe you have something to hide. We of faith should never ever be afraid of what science finds even though at times it may appear to contradict "parts" of our religion. Just as science has to update itself so does religion. That's my problem with my friends here, you are still using "old" software even though God has given you the new version to compensate for what science has figured out in the twentieth century.


We have nothing to hide, but what will we gain by arguing over things, when no one will ever change what they believe?

This may seem very obvious, but what do Christadelphians believe about the universe and the earth? When was the universe created in relation to Genesis? Long, long before?

Just think of all the questions we can ask in the Kingdom, God Willing! :)

#24 Guest_Colter_*

Guest_Colter_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2005 - 02:10 PM

Thanks Amy, it's good to here from you again. "Replenish," that is an interesting way to look at it.

I was under the impression that C-delphs think the sun and stars and stuff were created when the earth was as depicted in Genesis. My point was that (our) soar sytem has stuff floating around in it left over from it's creation that seem to be very, very old.

#25 Guest_Colter_*

Guest_Colter_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2005 - 02:11 PM

Thanks Amy, it's good to here from you again. "Replenish," that is an interesting way to look at it.

I was under the impression that C-delphs think the sun and stars and stuff were created when the earth was as depicted in Genesis. My point was that (our) soar sytem has stuff floating around in it left over from it's creation that seem to be very, very old.

#26 Hyperion

Hyperion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,251 posts

Posted 29 April 2005 - 04:50 PM

I was under the impression that C-delphs think the sun and stars and stuff were created when the earth was as depicted in Genesis.

Some do, some don't.

"Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all." (1 Tim 1:15)
"Apply yourself wholly to the text; apply the text wholly to yourself" (Johann Albrecht Bengel)
Christadelphian Books Online | The Agora | Toronto West Christadelphians


#27 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 29 April 2005 - 04:58 PM

Fortigurn, the implication in Genesis is that the A&E creation event was Gods first life creation event.

No, I don't see that at all. There are already angels around in Genesis 1 and 2, and they must have come from somewhere.

The Universe is old but not the earth???????


No, Hyperion and I have said that the universe and the earth are both very old.

#28 Guest_Colter_*

Guest_Colter_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2005 - 06:02 AM

Fortigurn, the implication in Genesis is that the A&E creation event was Gods first life creation event.

No, I don't see that at all. There are already angels around in Genesis 1 and 2, and they must have come from somewhere.

The Universe is old but not the earth???????


No, Hyperion and I have said that the universe and the earth are both very old.

OK then, I'm sorry for my insinuation that ALL Christadelphians think in lockstep and are predictable enough to trade futures on. My assumption in particular with you Fortigurn comes from how staight down the middle (bible says what it means and means what it says) you are in your posts. When I read Genesis it seems to me to be saying the heavens and the earth were created in succession.

Genesis

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Is my reading comprehension so bad that I'm overlooking a clue to the existence of "heaven" long before the creation of the earth?

Edited by Colter, 30 April 2005 - 06:04 AM.


#29 Anastasis

Anastasis

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts

Posted 30 April 2005 - 11:52 AM

Thanks Amy, it's good to here from you again. "Replenish," that is an interesting way to look at it.

I was under the impression that C-delphs think the sun and stars and stuff were created when the earth was as depicted in Genesis. My point was that (our) soar sytem has stuff floating around in it left over from it's creation that seem to be very, very old.


gaptheorists like replenish, but apparently it's an invention by the KJV. But then some argue replenish meant the same as fill do today. As you will doubtlessly agree. an understanding of the vast universe does not harmonize with a literal reading of Genesis 1. A literal reading of Genesis 1 is absurd. People have been shunned and doubtlessly killed and tortured by the RCC due to refusing this. I recall my CD-baptiZer would not baptize such people. In those days I believed my life depended on it.

#30 Amy Parkin

Amy Parkin

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,335 posts

Posted 30 April 2005 - 02:51 PM

Thanks Amy, it's good to here from you again. "Replenish," that is an interesting way to look at it.

I was under the impression that C-delphs think the sun and stars and stuff were created when the earth was as depicted in Genesis. My point was that (our) soar sytem has stuff floating around in it left over from it's creation that seem to be very, very old.


gaptheorists like replenish, but apparently it's an invention by the KJV. But then some argue replenish meant the same as fill do today. As you will doubtlessly agree. an understanding of the vast universe does not harmonize with a literal reading of Genesis 1. A literal reading of Genesis 1 is absurd. People have been shunned and doubtlessly killed and tortured by the RCC due to refusing this. I recall my CD-baptiZer would not baptize such people. In those days I believed my life depended on it.

Will have to look at replenish in a concordance when I get home.. unless someone else has one handy? :shades:

I don't see why Genesis 1 can't be read literally. Things in the Bible which are symbolic can always be worked out using keys in other parts of scripture, so if this isn't the case, then I don't think we can say that this isn't literally what happened. Why is it so unbelievable? So there was just a random rock floating through the universe and God made it into our Earth. Perhaps God had created life before, but destroyed it and has started again with us? It doesn't matter at all. All we need to know is that God made us a promise that His Son will return and will enstablish the Kingdom. Nothing else matters, and we can find the answers to these mysteries if we get into the Kingdom :)

#31 Skeptic

Skeptic

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,108 posts

Posted 03 May 2005 - 02:32 AM

Hyperion

So far it looks unlikely that it will be, that is the simplest solution to the Fermi Paradox.


I agree that the simplest solution to Fermi's paradox is that no life other than us exists.

However, I just want to point out that the paradox sort of relies on assuming absence of evidence to be evidence of absence.

Let's take the present scanning system for detecting dangerous incoming objects as an example. How many times in the recent past have we read of one missing us by a hairbreadth in cosmic terms...some only being detected when they were virtually upon us. Clearly, it's not as easy to detect things in space as we like to think.

The fact that we do not detect colonies of advanced lifeforms in space, is not as significant as we might think. We like to think of ourselves as an advanced lifeform yet we are nowhere close to colonising space on any significant level. It may be that none of the life forms have achieved that level and they may never do. After all, to the extent that they have a atmosphere that serves as a protective barrier, certain planets may be very vulnerable to being hit by "space debris". We are arguably onlyt a couple of centuries away from colonising space, but we may experience very serious setbacks in the form of meteorite hits or nuclear wars that could have us start from square one again. Such setbacks could very seriously impede space colonisation efforts. There is a theory that human beings have been around far longer than we think, but that we get hit every 30 odd thousand years or so by a seriously big chunk of rock from outer space, which sets us back a couple thousand years...

I don't "believe" such speculative theories, but they present a possible reason as to why space colonisation is not inevitable. If you look at the marks on objects like the moon, it is clear that bodies in space take quite a battering. Whilst very resilient on the one hand, life is more fragile than we think...

#32 Hyperion

Hyperion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,251 posts

Posted 03 May 2005 - 04:01 AM

Hi Skeptic,

I agree with all you say above. Colonisation is not inevitable, for the reasons that you give and others that could be thought of too (some types of intelligence may not even want to expand beyond their home world).

Although it is an argument from silence, I do find the FP pretty compelling. It would only take one successful intelligent life form to colonize the whole galaxy in a fairly short period of time (a few million years). The fact that they are not here is odd if such life forms do exist. It is not so much a question of us finding them, but the apparent fact that they have not found us.

Sort of like the evidence against Big-foot. It is an argument from silence, but it is pretty convincing.

"Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all." (1 Tim 1:15)
"Apply yourself wholly to the text; apply the text wholly to yourself" (Johann Albrecht Bengel)
Christadelphian Books Online | The Agora | Toronto West Christadelphians


#33 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 03 May 2005 - 04:42 AM

There is a theory that human beings have been around far longer than we think, but that we get hit every 30 odd thousand years or so by a seriously big chunk of rock from outer space, which sets us back a couple thousand years...

If that's the case, then how did this planet ever manage to hang around for millions of years in order for everything to evolve?

I don't "believe" such speculative theories, but they present a possible reason as to why space colonisation is not inevitable. If you look at the marks on objects like the moon, it is clear that bodies in space take quite a battering. Whilst very resilient on the one hand, life is more fragile than we think...


You think that 30,000 years isn't enough for an intelligent life form to get to the stage of space travel? Is that it?

#34 Skeptic

Skeptic

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,108 posts

Posted 03 May 2005 - 05:49 AM

There is a theory that human beings have been around far longer than we think, but that we get hit every 30 odd thousand years or so by a seriously big chunk of rock from outer space, which sets us back a couple thousand years...

If that's the case, then how did this planet ever manage to hang around for millions of years in order for everything to evolve?


Good question.

I don't "believe" such speculative theories, but they present a possible reason as to why space colonisation is not inevitable. If you look at the marks on objects like the moon, it is clear that bodies in space take quite a battering. Whilst very resilient on the one hand, life is more fragile than we think...


You think that 30,000 years isn't enough for an intelligent life form to get to the stage of space travel? Is that it?


Nope, that's not it: I said space colonisation; not space travel.

Edited by Skeptic, 03 May 2005 - 06:00 AM.


#35 Skeptic

Skeptic

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,108 posts

Posted 03 May 2005 - 05:56 AM

Einstein is supposed to have said: "I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

It is imaginable that should this happen, the progress this "sticks and stones version of ourselves" makes from then on should not neccesarily then cause them to be inexorably headed towards a future that includes spaceflight.

Edited by Skeptic, 03 May 2005 - 05:57 AM.


#36 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 03 May 2005 - 06:00 AM

There is a theory that human beings have been around far longer than we think, but that we get hit every 30 odd thousand years or so by a seriously big chunk of rock from outer space, which sets us back a couple thousand years...

If that's the case, then how did this planet ever manage to hang around for millions of years in order for everything to evolve?


Good question.

Any ideas for answers? Biggest global catastrophe on record is whatever wiped out the dinosaurs, and almost all other life on the planet. Apparently we made it through that one ok.

I don't "believe" such speculative theories, but they present a possible reason as to why space colonisation is not inevitable. If you look at the marks on objects like the moon, it is clear that bodies in space take quite a battering. Whilst very resilient on the one hand, life is more fragile than we think...


You think that 30,000 years isn't enough for an intelligent life form to get to the stage of space travel? Is that it?


Nope, that's not it: I said space colonisation; not space travel.


Ok, I did mean 'colonisation', I didn't mean little rockets to the moon. Then it's not long enough to get to the stage of space colonisation?

#37 Skeptic

Skeptic

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,108 posts

Posted 03 May 2005 - 06:11 AM

There is a theory that human beings have been around far longer than we think, but that we get hit every 30 odd thousand years or so by a seriously big chunk of rock from outer space, which sets us back a couple thousand years...

If that's the case, then how did this planet ever manage to hang around for millions of years in order for everything to evolve?


Good question.

Any ideas for answers? Biggest global catastrophe on record is whatever wiped out the dinosaurs, and almost all other life on the planet. Apparently we made it through that one ok.


Perhaps we run out of luck next time it happens... :eek:

The only "proof" of that theory consists of myths collected by Graham Hancock in support of his wacky pyramid theories. Frankly, myths to me are like anecdotes. They are qualitative and open to interpretation. Very speculative, in other words.

Ok, I did mean 'colonisation', I didn't mean little rockets to the moon.  Then it's not long enough to get to the stage of space colonisation?


Well, m8, how long is long enough for space colonisation indeed? Who can answer that question? Not me. If those little green men are anywhere near as complacent as human beings tend to be, then their planet will rot away from under them before they attempt colonisation...and then it'll be too late.

#38 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 03 May 2005 - 06:16 AM

Perhaps we run out of luck next time it happens... :eek:

The only "proof" of that theory consists of myths collected by Graham Hancock in support of his wacky pyramid theories. Frankly, myths to me are like anecdotes. They are qualitative and open to interpretation. Very speculative, in other words.

So what are the agreed on odds for a cosmic catastrophe such as an asteroid running into us? They must be amazignly slender, if we've only had one in the last few thousand million years.

Ok, I did mean 'colonisation', I didn't mean little rockets to the moon.  Then it's not long enough to get to the stage of space colonisation?


Well, m8, how long is long enough for space colonisation indeed? Who can answer that question? Not me. If those little green men are anywhere near as complacent as human beings tend to be, then their planet will rot away from under them before they attempt colonisation...and then it'll be too late.


Sounds to me like Fermi had a very good point.

#39 Skeptic

Skeptic

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,108 posts

Posted 03 May 2005 - 06:29 AM

So what are the agreed on odds for a cosmic catastrophe such as an asteroid running into us?  They must be amazignly slender, if we've only had one in the last few thousand million years.


From NASA's FAQ page:

(NEO = near earth object)

We don't know when the next NEO impact will take place, but we can calculate the odds. Statistically, the greatest danger is from an NEO with about 1 million megatons energy (roughly 2 km in diameter). On average, one of these collides with the Earth once or twice per million years, producing a global catastrophe that would kill a substantial (but unknown) fraction of the Earth's human population. Reduced to personal terms, this means that you have about one chance in 40,000 of dying as a result of a collision. Such statistics are interesting, but they don't tell you, of course, when the next catastrophic impact will take place...next year or a million years from now? The purpose of the Spaceguard Survey is not to improve these statistical estimates, but to find any individual rock that may be on a collision course.


The earth is relatively small compared to other planets. So it presents a smaller target than, say, Jupiter. Interesting what the guy has to say about advance warning at present, though...

Sounds to me like Fermi had a very good point.


Sure he did. For what its worth, I don't believe in extraterrestial intelligence. I'm not even sure I believe in terrestrial intelligence...!

Edited by Skeptic, 03 May 2005 - 06:32 AM.


#40 Guest_Colter_*

Guest_Colter_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 May 2005 - 06:31 AM

Does anyone remember where in the Gospels Jesus says if your eyes could be anointed you could see the heavens opened and behold angels ascending and descending or something to that effect? I'm not thinking of the baptism but I saw It last night while researching something else and can't recall where??? I'm at work and can't spend all morning looking for it but I think we can use this statement to show that there are things that we can't see or energies that we can't detect like a stealth bomber. :tarkus:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users