2d earth 41 light years away?

[DesertFox]

A planetary system that may contain life has been found in orbit around a Sun-like star 41 light years from Earth - or 240,906,832,298,136 miles.

The discovery has excited Nasa, where astronomer Dr Geoff Marcy told a conference last night: "It has me jumping out of my socks."

The most significant point of the discovery is that it indicates that planets with temperatures similar to Earth and a plentiful supply of liquid water could be common in the universe. Scientists have guessed at this possibility for some years, but this is the first hard evidence.

Nasa announced that for the first time five planets, all of them huge, have been found in orbit around a star known as 55 Cancri.

More (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=492176&in_page_id=1965)

[DesertFox]

I think they've discovered Bizarroworld. When the 'scopes get bigger they'll be able to see the squared-off corners.

[Sarah]

55 cancri is definitely a place of interest with 5 planets discovered there so far. It seems the galaxy is likely a place full of solar systems.

[PaulRevere]

Tell the Mexicans that there are lots of jobs there. 40 acres and a Taco Bell franchise. They'll find the way.

[Franko]

There's so many conditions that must be matched up for life as we know it to exist, so much more than just being the right distance vs the power of the local sun. A gassy giant assumption to proclaim that this discovery means there are a bunch of planets out there supporting life. But they have an agenda in making such claims . . .

"hard evidence" - I fart in their general direction.

[Gonzo67]

There's so many conditions that must be matched up for life as we know it to exist


And life "as we know it" is the only life possible?


A gassy giant assumption to proclaim that this discovery means there are a bunch of planets out there supporting life. But they have an agenda in making such claims . . .


If you are correct in their "agenda", then they have failed miserably...

They never made such a claim. They stated that it's CAPABLE of supporting life. They stated, as a matter of fact, that the planet they are discussing:


there is unlikely to be life on the actual giant planet, it probably has rocky moons in orbit around it and those moons are prime possibilities.


But the fact remains, with the size of the universe, and the possibilities of billions of planetary systems in our own galaxy alone, not counting the billions of planetary systems in the billions of OTHER galaxies, to assume that life exists only here on earth and no where else is not only arrogant, but the odds are infinitely against such a possibility.

[Franko]

Gonzo -

the 'agenda' is that evolution makes the claim that life can come from non-life; it's just a matter of having the right combination of conditions.


There's a million dollar prize online for anyone who can come up with any highly plausible way life could ever come from non-life. No one has been able to claim the prize.

The evolutionists believe that life came from non-life - but can show no plausible way it could happen.

Only a transcendent cause can make life - in the real world, life only comes from what is already living.

There are many conditions that must be met for life to be possible on earth, so many particular conditions that even in a vast universe life may be incredibly rare - books have been written about it, that we may indeed be alone in the universe.

To say that I'm arrogant to be so skeptical is to just show your own ignorance on the subject.

[Beowulf]

Tell the Mexicans that there are lots of jobs there. 40 acres and a Taco Bell franchise. They'll find the way.:rotflmbo::rotflmbo:

Seriously though, I think this is kool. I for one have always found it difficult to believe that Earth is the only planet with life on it. I mean, there has GOT to be another out there somewhere! If so, hopefully it hasn't been ruined by Liberals.

[Gonzo67]

To say that I'm arrogant to be so skeptical is to just show your own ignorance on the subject.


I invite you to go back and read that article again. After doing so, I would like you to quote the part of the article that mentions "Evolution Vs. Creationism".

You've obviously been on your soapbox for so long, you're seeing "evolutionist conspiracies" in every black hole. As for my "ignorance" on the topic... well, think what you will. But with hundreds of billions of possible planets in the universe (and thats a LOW estimate I assure you), you can be "skeptical" all you like. But me, I'll play the odds.

[DoctorDoom]

I've been there. It sucks. Even the grays don't visit there.

[Franko]

Here's a link for reference Gonzo:

http://www.trueorigin.org/privplansmith01.asp

No conspiracy? You don't know the half of it.

But OK, go ahead, imagine what you will, even have fun. That's what science fiction is about. I probably shouldn't have made any post here about my skepticism, sorry.

Come on over to flamewars again sometime.

Even with hundreds of billions of planets, the odds of life 'evolving' on them is zero, same as here on earth.

[Gonzo67]

That link proves what?

That the people discussed in the article this thread was about are trying to use it as proof of Evolution?

The ONLY person who mentioned "Evolution" in this topic is YOU.

The fact is, this article was not about Evo vs. Creationism. This was simply about a planet with temps comparable to earth, and POSSIBLY capable of supporting life.

There are already a dozen or more threads in flame wars full of people arguing about that stale, boring topic of Creation vs. Evolution... was it REALLY necessary to attempt to hijack yet ANOTHER thread?

Not one single "Evolutionist" came into this thread yelling about it "supporting their belief", and yet, here you come, ragging about "Evo-Conspiracy". The ONLY one who seems to have an "agenda" in this thread is YOU.

So, if you want to continue arguing about Creationism VS. Evolution, how about you go BACK to the Flame Wars forum, and jump onto one of the many threads there. There should be PLENTY of them to keep you busy without having to attempt to hijack and derail yet another thread where people were actually having a good time discussing the actual TOPIC.

[Franko]

Just because Gliese 581c is habitable does not mean that it is inhabited, but we do know its sun is an ancient star - in fact, it is one of the oldest stars in the galaxy, and extremely stable. If there is life, it has had many billions of years to evolve.

But are these alien Earths home to life? No one knows. We don't understand how life began on our world, let alone how it could arise anywhere else. There may be an awful lot of bugs and bacteria out there, and only a few worlds with what we would recognise as plants and animals. Or, of course, there may be nothing.

From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=450467&in_page_id=1965


- - -


See the word 'evolve' Gonzo? This is often what is read in stories about new planets; no not the same link as what this thread is about, but I can find bunches of references to evolution concerning new planets.

[Gonzo67]

I'm not going to get into an argument with you in this thread. The fact remains, YOU are the one who seems to have an agenda. Not one single evolutionist has attempted to turn this into an argument for them. And usually, it's the EVO who takes the low road.... Glad to see a hard core Creationist is willing to display HIS "agenda" too.

[Franko]

The link I provided earlier from trueorigin shows how extreme are the evos against anything other than a humanist explanation for life; and the search for extraterrestrial life is driven by the belief that if life 'evolved' on other planets it can be used as a weapon against the idea of a creator. I can provide references for such, but won't bother at this point.

[Gonzo67]

Admit it. I told you to go back to the article this thread was in reference to and quote any "evo conspiracy", instead, you have to go to two OTHER articles to get your quote. The fact remains, YOU are the one who injected an "Evo vs. Creationism argument into this thread. NOT the article, NOT me, not ANYONE ELSE. It's ALL YOU.

[Franko]

That's right Gonzo, I did; because the search for extraterrestrial life is driven by those want to show 'evolution' on other planets.

[Gonzo67]

Ok, you know what, this thread is lost. So here, lets go for it. You're dying for yet ANOTHER argument of Evo vs. Creation, so I'll see what I can do to accommodate you...

Let's see, let me go back and scan your posts here... hmmmm ok... I see... so you say Evolution is wrong... The theory is stupid, full of holes, and offers absolutely no proof... ok... I see.... hmmm and Evolutionists have an agenda, and a seemingly inherent hatred of the bible that they'd be willing to swallow a science fiction tale if it furthered their cause in the ultimate and final destruction of God and all things Holy.. ok... hmmmm Ok, I understand your side of the argument.

Now, where should I begin...

Ok... I'll start with.. yep... You're right! I agree... The theory of Evolution seems like a poorly written science fiction tale.

There. You've won! Congratulations! You Have successfully rammed into a thread that did not contain an argument in favor of Evolution and you've successfully set up a non-existent conflict and then successfully defeated it! Allow me to be the first to offer you the praise you so deserve. And I'm sure I speak on behalf of ALL of us who DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION when I say that I am SO glad that we have you, battling and championing our cause and defeating arguments that do not exist.

You should be awarded a metal for your tireless service in the fight to stamp out the illiteracy that is "The Theory Of Evolution".

So once again, congrats, and keep up the good work! If there's anything else I can do for you, just let me know. Seriously... if you want, I can start a new thread and pretend to be in favor of raping and molesting 4 year old kids with epilepsy so you can successfully defeat THAT argument too! Anything to help a fellow "Evolutionist Debunker"!

But allow me to point out just one small detail...


That's right Gonzo, I did; because the search for extraterrestrial life is driven by those want to show 'evolution' on other planets.


Not all of us who believe life exists elsewhere in the galaxy or the universe believes in the theory of evolution.

[DoctorDoom]

Fact: given the impossible odds against life appearing spontaneously from random naturalistic processes, even if we are the only planet in the universe with life, it's unarguable evidence for design.

I for one believe that the universe it teeming with life, because I believe in a God who is partial to life. Whether the life is space-traveling golden gods ala Adamski or some unfathomably alien critters that we wouldn't recognize as life, the same insurmountable odds apply. Life itself is evidence for a supremely intelligent Source of life.

[Franko]

According to Gonzo I'm not allowed to be skeptical when scientists make outlandish claims based on the most frail of evidence. No Gonzo, you win, I insist, You're the biggest 'winner' here at taking my initial post and blowing it up.

I stated at the end of the post that those searching have an agenda. IT'S A FACT, they do.

[Gonzo67]

According to Gonzo I'm not allowed to be skeptical when scientists make outlandish claims based on the most frail of evidence. No Gonzo, you win, I insist, You're the biggest 'winner' here at taking my initial post and blowing it up.


Talk about "blowing it up"... I never said you're not allowed to be skeptical. I simply said that there was NO ARGUMENT going on about Evo vs. Creationism until YOU started it.

You claim Evolutionists have an Agenda, cool, no problem. So how about Creationists? You think showing up in a thread and starting crap in favor of Creationism or ID presents Creationists as NOT having "an agenda"? You're doing exactly what you despise about Evolutionists. That makes you WORSE... That makes you a HYPOCRITE with an "agenda".

Apparently, in your eyes, ANYONE who believes or searches for life elsewhere in the universe is an "evolutionist with an agenda".

So how about it Doc... when did YOU convert to evolutionism? Happened so suddenly, I bet you weren't aware that you were an evo with an agenda until Franko pointed it out for us all....

[Sarah]

I need popcorn for this thread.

[DeclinetoState]

This discovery may help us to understand better the origins of the likes of Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich, Rosie O'Donnell, Whoopi Goldberg, Algore, Paris Hilton ...

[Gonzo67]

This discovery may help us to understand better the origins of the likes of Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich, Rosie O'Donnell, Whoopi Goldberg, Algore, Paris Hilton ...


I don't think so DtS... I mean, When we do find sentient life on another planet, it's likely to be intelligent enough not to admit knowing any of those assholes.

[Beowulf]

Doc vs. Gonzo? I'll be strapping in for this one!

[Gonzo67]

Doc vs. Gonzo? I'll be strapping in for this one!


You lost me there Beo...

The "Doc" comment wasn't a slam on Doc...

Doc has made his "Anti-Evolutionist" stand very clear. He's also made his belief in life elsewhere in the universe clear.

It's Franko that seems to think that searching for life elsewhere makes one a supporter of Evolution with an agenda. So I was asking Doc if he knew that he was actually a supporter of Evolutionism because Franko has determined that beliefs such as Doc's MAKES one an Evolutionist With An Agenda.

It's safe to remove the seat belt. :)

[DesertFox]

Sentient life from elsewhere would wonder how Algore, Kerry, the Clintons, et al, ever survived in human form.

[Beowulf]

You lost me there Beo...

The "Doc" comment wasn't a slam on Doc...



Ah yes. Upon further review, I can see that I erred.

*unstraps seat belt and goes for some coffee*

Sorry!

[DoctorDoom]

Airline coffee?

[TeenageRepublican]

I for one believe that the universe it teeming with life, because I believe in a God who is partial to life. Whether the life is space-traveling golden gods ala Adamski or some unfathomably alien critters that we wouldn't recognize as life, the same insurmountable odds apply. Life itself is evidence for a supremely intelligent Source of life.

I don't believe in Evolution and I believe in life beyond our Earth. Earth is just a tiny grain of sand in a desert. I think God would put life on at least some of the other grains of sand. But, I think the human race is not ready to deal with life outside of Earth.

It's safe to remove the seat belt. :)

I'm keeping mine on...just in case...

[Beowulf]

Airline coffee?
No, the best kind there is:

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:MFcYQDT7jwWS6M:http://www.susqu.edu/wqsu-fm/datafiles/whatsnew/cup.gif

[CzechPrince]

I invite you to go back and read that article again. After doing so, I would like you to quote the part of the article that mentions "Evolution Vs. Creationism".

You've obviously been on your soapbox for so long, you're seeing "evolutionist conspiracies" in every black hole. As for my "ignorance" on the topic... well, think what you will. But with hundreds of billions of possible planets in the universe (and thats a LOW estimate I assure you), you can be "skeptical" all you like. But me, I'll play the odds.

Exactly. I'm sick of the extremists its on both sides.

I see no reason why other life cannot exist. Scientists discover new life all the time at the depths of the oceans, so I find it hard to believe there isn't ANYTHING at all out there.

[DoctorDoom]

If life were the product of random natuiralistric processes, there would be no life, period. Life is the most powerful and unarguable evidence for the existence of a preternatural Creator. And that being the case, there is no logical reason why the Creator didn't fill the universe with life. It's a really big place and there's a lot of room for others.

[DesertFox]

It's a really big place and there's a lot of room for others.Yeah.

[Franko]

I said they had an agenda Gonzo, they do. YOU took my reply and ran with it.

"The most significant point of the discovery is that it indicates that planets with temperatures similar to Earth and a plentiful supply of liquid water could be common in the universe. Scientists have guessed at this possibility for some years, but this is the first hard evidence."


They are making giant ASSumptions, claiming that this discovery means there are plenty of planets that can support life in the universe. It doesn't. They are calling it "hard evidence" - and it isn't. They are going by "wobbles" to predict what they'll find there.

Even secular humanist Carl Sagan suggested that we may be alone, due to the amount of conditions necessary for a possibility of life. Even with hundreds of billions of planets.

- - -

Doc - I'm curious to your response:

- as to life in other parts of the universe - do you believe the Bible? If so, then when Adam and Eve screwed up here on earth, they cursed everyone in the whole universe to disease and death. Implications.

Scientists look at the farthest reaches of the universe, and see (by the red shift/colors) that the laws of thermodynamics (universal laws) are present everywhere.

The whole creation was damaged by what happened here on earth. When 'the curse' is removed, there will probably be life EVERYWHERE. God DID make the whole universe (creation) to be inhabited. I just don't think it is YET. God has great and many plans for those who trust in him.

- - -

"Even with billions and trillions of galaxies, most of the universe is extremely hostile to any form of life. The gravitational effects, destructive gases, harmful radiation and a variety of other factors make it impossible for would-be human explorers to come within thousands of light years of these remote galaxies, never mind for life to form, evolve and flourish.
In fact, almost all basic conditions for life are missing in the vast majority of the universe. Over 98% of nearby galaxies are far less metal rich than ours—virtually eliminating any chance for earth-like planets to form."

[DesertFox]

It's just speculation, but I'm thinking "the missing mass" is going to turn out to be the exotic material that Kip Thorne says is necessary to hold open a wormhole, which could then be used for light-speed travel across stellar and galactic distances.

[DoctorDoom]

Doc - I'm curious to your response:

- as to life in other parts of the universe - do you believe the Bible? If so, then when Adam and Eve screwed up here on earth, they cursed everyone in the whole universe to disease and death. Implications.To begin, I'm not a YEC. I have no problem with a 4-billion-year-old and 15 BYO universe. A billion trillion times longer would not begin to be enough for random processses to result in life.

Re death following the fall, it is evident by the Bible itself that death existed prior to the sin. From a piece written for my church years ago ...

<hr>
DEATH IN EDEN - AND BEYOND

Once upon a time there was the Garden of Eden, a place of indescribable beauty and peace. Within it, two people lived, united in perfect harmony and love, untouched by sin, two people created by the very hands of Almighty God to live in intimate communion with Him. Adam and Eve had it made.

Around the world, there was only perfection, because God does not create imperfection. In the seas, on the land and in the air, every creature that existed was a translation into the material world of a concept in the infinite mind of God. And, life was absolutely untainted by death... right?

It is widely believed that only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned did death enter the world, and that before they fell from their perfection, nothing ever died. But, that assumption is not supported by the Bible. In fact, it says quite the opposite.

It is easily demonstrated that death was an integral part of life throughout creation. In fact, if but a single living cell died before the first sin, the premise of a deathless world is rendered invalid. So, did even one cell die? Let's look at Day One in the life of Man One.

What happened after Adam was created? He opened his new eyes, looked around in amazement at what God had provided for him, and set off on a tour of Paradise. Then, after several hours of strolling around in the garden, Adam felt a gnawing sort of emptiness. It was time for Adam's first lesson about life in Eden, so God sat Adam down on a grassy knoll, "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat" (Genesis 2:16).

When God finished outlining his culinary options, Adam arose, walked over to a nearby tree, looked at the fruit hanging in clusters, plucked one off, chomped into it and savored the taste. De-e-e-e-e-licious! He finished off the fruit, and set out again to explore some more of his domain.

Now comes the big question: what happens to any living thing when it is consumed? It dies! When Adam picked that first fruit (or whatever it was) and ate it, it died. There was no sin in the world then, but death came thereafter to whatever Adam and Eve found appetizing.

And, beyond them, everything that lived required food. The food chain by definition involves the death of a lower form of life to feed a higher form. In the rivers around Eden, the fish were snacking on bugs, smaller fish and whatever else appealed to their piscatorial palates. In the air, birds were flitting about scarfing down insects, or settling on bushes to munch on juicy berries. On the land, the herbivores were serenely dining on the lush vegetation, and the carnivores were serenely dining on the herbivores, all in accordance with God's perfect will.

Carnivores? Well, obviously! Animals such as lions are simply not equipped to survive on vegetation. Their feeding system is geared to the consumption of meat. The dental structure of carnivores is specifically designed for biting and tearing. Predators live by killing and eating prey. T'was always thus. God created every animal to fill a specific role in creation, and He instituted the food chain to allow nature to maintain balance without constant intervention.

Indeed, the effect of being fruitful and multiplying without the controls imposed by death would have been an exponential growth in life that would have overrun the planet. Death is necessary if only to provide room for subsequent generations. This has been going on since the dawn of time. Even before Adam took his first breath, the cycle of life and death was going on. God, in His infinite wisdom, designed nature that way. As we said earlier, God does not create imperfection. Therefore, death is as perfect and normal in nature as life.

However, Adam and Eve were not natural life forms. They were different. Unlike the plant and animal life, which God spoke into being, He personally attended to the creation of humans, and He designed them to live forever. Yet, even so, He gave Adam a severe warning. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:17). Apparently, either God or Adam told Eve as well, because she quoted the warning verbatim (Gen. 3:3).

Inasmuch as God's Word sometimes reveals truths by what it does NOT say, it is significant to note that they did not ask what it meant to die. God made them to understand death as a part of His natural order, and they accepted it. But, they were also well aware that they were unique, and were not created to suffer that fate. Thus, when God said, "THOU shalt surely die," it no doubt sent a cold chill down their spines.

"THOU shalt surely die." God did NOT say, "Everything I have created shalt surely die." He looked Adam squarely in the eye and made it an up-close and personal warning. He, the perfect and immortal man, would die. He would lose his special status and become just another mortal creature.

The Bible doesn't record the time that elapsed between God's warning to Adam and the temptation that led to the fall, but the event demonstrated how susceptible even the wisest are to flattery and self-serving promises. And, Adam and Eve rapidly discovered the new and horrifying KIND of death that sin had brought into the world, when God killed an innocent creature (arguably a lamb) before their eyes, and from its bloody skin fashioned garments to cover their now-shameful nakedness and to symbolically mask out their sin.

Infinitely more important, Adam's disobedience brought death to mankind. He gave us a fear that ultimately outweighs every other fear that a human being can face.

[snip]

[BabyBeastie]

Fact: given the impossible odds against life appearing spontaneously from random naturalistic processes, even if we are the only planet in the universe with life, it's unarguable evidence for design.

I for one believe that the universe it teeming with life, because I believe in a God who is partial to life. Whether the life is space-traveling golden gods ala Adamski or some unfathomably alien critters that we wouldn't recognize as life, the same insurmountable odds apply. Life itself is evidence for a supremely intelligent Source of life.Well said. God is omnipotent and I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

[Sarah]

All this talk about god or evolution is irrelevant. We all know it was a big black board that sparked intelligence on the earth!

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/6586/200104kb1.jpg

[BabyBeastie]

Oh yeah! The Monolith...Ooooohh! lol

[mkafrica]

I think the most irrefutable proof that there is intelligent life out there, is that none of it has ever contacted us.... :D

[BabyBeastie]

Yep...they saw an episode of Jerry Springer and decided we were a bunch of idiots.

[Madbomber]

That's right Gonzo, I did; because the search for extraterrestrial life is driven by those want to show 'evolution' on other planets.


Who are you to say that God doesnt like to experiment. Humans are by far not perfect maybe hes trying to get it right somewhere else?.

[Sarah]

I don't believe in evolution yet I hope we find life out there. That would be the coolest thing since the invention of the Wendy's frosty.

[DoctorDoom]

Yep...they saw an episode of Jerry Springer and decided we were a bunch of idiots.Revelation from the Zeta Reticulans: Earth is the Confederation's lunatic asylum and garbage dump.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Who are you to say that God doesnt like to experiment. Humans are by far not perfect maybe hes trying to get it right somewhere else?.


Speak for yourself. :smirky:

[Wyatt_Junker]

All this talk about god or evolution is irrelevant. We all know it was a big black board that sparked intelligence on the earth!

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/6586/200104kb1.jpg

Knock that shit over and its shuffle board night at the sports bar!

[DesertFox]

Daaaaah! Daaaaah! DAAAAAH!

DAH DAH!

(BOOM boom BOOM boom BOOM boom BOOM boom BOOM boom BOOM boom BOOM)

[Gonzo67]

Great, now I gotta find my 2001 Sound Track MP3 folder. I think Desert slipped a few extra "Booms" in there!

[DesertFox]

Yeah, lemme know how I did. I'm working from memory and that was 39 years ago. :D

[Gonzo67]

Well, ya did pretty good. There's only 12 "Booms", you finished up with a BOOM, but you should have stopped on the previous boom. :D

And More correctly, you should have dropped the first BOOM, and started with a boom, to end on the 12th BOOM. And you missed the timing some, because it wasn't a steady boom BOOM, it would have been more accurately displayed as:

boom BOOM boom BOOM boom BOOM boom BOOM boom.. BOOM.... boom...... BOOM.

But considering you boomed from memory, you were fairly accurate in your boom BOOM recall count.

EDIT: If you would like to check the results for yourself, this page (http://mp3forsale.net/Richard_Strauss/2001_A_Space_Odyssey_track540967.html) has a "preview" button that will let you listen to a 30 second snip from the opening number of 2001, which includes the boom BOOM sequence.

EDIT AGAIN: boom BOOM boom.

Sorry, I had 22 of them in this post, I wanted to throw the last 3 in so I could have a post with 25 of them in there. I think that might be some kind of record!

[DoctorDoom]

For the trivia buffs: "Also Sprach Zarathustra", aka "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", by Richard Strauss, Introduction.

This page at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Strauss-Also-Sprach-Zarathustra-Karajan/dp/B000001GQT) also has the familiar clip, but not the 2001 version. There are 13 Booms in the original. Why the film deleted one (the first BOOM) is anyone's guess. Maybe it was triskaidekaphobia.

The attached file is a zipped MP3 of the Amazon clip.

[CzechPrince]

If life were the product of random natuiralistric processes, there would be no life, period. Life is the most powerful and unarguable evidence for the existence of a preternatural Creator. And that being the case, there is no logical reason why the Creator didn't fill the universe with life. It's a really big place and there's a lot of room for others.

I'm actually surprised you see it this way, as I 100% agree. We don't say that far to often do we?

Well, we probably do on a lot of things, we just don't discuss those I've come to the conclusion.

[CzechPrince]

I don't believe in Evolution and I believe in life beyond our Earth. Earth is just a tiny grain of sand in a desert. I think God would put life on at least some of the other grains of sand. But, I think the human race is not ready to deal with life outside of Earth.



I'm keeping mine on...just in case...

I'm with you on the point about us not being able to deal with life outside earth, and it may be God created it so we never will. We won't know until we know kinda deal.

The only thing I part on is evolution, because I do beleive in evolution. I've said many times (i know some disagree that's fine, I don't want to start a huge debate on this) evolution to me is just another example of how awesome a creator God is. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, and based on scientific evidence and what we all know about the Creator, it makes perfect sense.

[BabyBeastie]

For the trivia buffs: "Also Sprach Zarathustra", aka "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", by Richard Strauss, Introduction.

This page at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Strauss-Also-Sprach-Zarathustra-Karajan/dp/B000001GQT) also has the familiar clip, but not the 2001 version. There are 13 Booms in the original. Why the film deleted one (the first BOOM) is anyone's guess. Maybe it was triskaidekaphobia.

The attached file is a zipped MP3 of the Amazon clip.Damn, I wonder if YouTube has a video of someone playing that song on a guitar with heavy distortion?

[Franko]

OK Doc - been busy at work, got back to this post:

While I respect your opinion, I disagree totally with the concept of death before sin. But I won't use this thread to debate - maybe we'll pick it up in another area here sometime.

For example: When the curse is removed, the lion will lie down with the lamb - what's the lion going to eat with its ''specially'' designed teeth? Grass, plants, fruit, just like it did before the 'fall' - and no, fruit and plants were not considered 'living' in the same sense as animals and people - the original text makes a distinction.

[Aaron]

I'm with you on the point about us not being able to deal with life outside earth, and it may be God created it so we never will. We won't know until we know kinda deal.

The only thing I part on is evolution, because I do beleive in evolution. I've said many times (i know some disagree that's fine, I don't want to start a huge debate on this) evolution to me is just another example of how awesome a creator God is. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, and based on scientific evidence and what we all know about the Creator, it makes perfect sense.

I tend to agree with this. I think God is so smart and all knowing that God created very complex processes to create us. And why not? The dawn of reason was the dawn of man, or Eve eating the apple.

I am not a literalist when it comes to the Bible.

[DoctorDoom]

While I respect your opinion, I disagree totally with the concept of death before sin.So be it. But defining "death" to suit the religious interpretation is dishonest.

Main Entry: death
Pronunciation: \'deth\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English deeth, from Old English death; akin to Old Norse dauthi death, deyja to die — more at die
Date: before 12th century

1 a: a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life ...

To say that there was no death before the fall is denying the unarguable facts.

For example: When the curse is removed, the lion will lie down with the lamb - what's the lion going to eat with its ''specially'' designed teeth? Grass, plants, fruit, just like it did before the 'fall' ...Compare the dentition and digestive systems of herbivores vs those of carnivores or omnivores. The teeth of carnivores is unsuitable for eating vegetation, and they are incapable of digesting it.

How many dogs are in pathetic condition because their idiotic owners are vegans who feed their pets the same crap that they eat? Ever watch a dog or cat with an upset stomach eat grass to cause vomiting?

It's foolish to assume that God redesigned the entire animal kingdom when Adam and Eve developed a taste for forbidden fruit. It's more logical to accept that when God said (Gen 2:17) , "THOU shalt surely die," that's exactly what He meant.

... and no, fruit and plants were not considered 'living' in the same sense as animals and people - the original text makes a distinction.Really? Even were that so, why would their "not (being) considered 'living' in the same sense as animals and people" make the slightest difference to biological fact? Are they or are they not living organisms? And if they are, is or is not the cessation of their life functions the definition of death?

Q: is a bug an animal? If Adam stepped on an ant, a beetle or a spider and killed it, would that not be a death in the animal kingdom?

Death is a natural part of life. Human death was not. And then ...

[Franko]

. . . like I said Doom, let's take this discussion to another place, a religion thread, flame wars maybe.

God DID make a distinction between plants, fruits - and animals, as to whether death had occurred or not. God clearly says death hadn't occurred until sin entered via Adam and Eve. He meant all of creation, not just Adam and Eve. The only reason to suggest animals were killing and being killed is to accommodate naturalistic assumptions, not because it's supported by any scripture.

Do you believe God looked over millions of years of death and suffering and pronounced it all 'very good'? You apparently believe lions were chasing down antelope in the Garden.

Maybe you believe almighty God can not clearly communicate with man.

Scientists today have trouble deciding where life begins, where the line is drawn. I'll provide a reference or two if necessary.

According to what is clearly stated in the Bible, everything changed when Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden. The curse began, death and suffering began. Not just to Adam and Eve, but the whole creation.


And again -

The first thing God says to Noah after the flood is "go eat some meat". When God speaks, he has something significant to say, he doesn't mince words. The world changed significantly after the flood. Man was in a different environment, would have more radiation in the atmosphere, would have trouble finding as wide a variety of food. God was giving him permission to be a meat eater; he wasn't before. It clearly states so in the Bible. This is a clear indicator that the world changed significantly after the flood, the same as it did when Adam and Eve were cast out and the curse began.

[DoctorDoom]

God DID make a distinction between plants, fruits - and animals, as to whether death had occurred or not. God clearly says death hadn't occurred until sin entered via Adam and Eve.Where? Chapter and verse, please.

[Timberwolf]

Doc, Genesis 1:29, 30 clearly states,
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
...so the argument that the dentition / alimentary canals of 'carnivores' couldn't handle vegetation is wrong. Something DID change after the Fall.

And there's a big difference between 'death' and 'harvesting for food'. I am of the mind that God created this world perfectly and to be eternal, like His nature is perfect and eternal. It wasn't until man corrupted creation with his sin that any kind of "natural" death occured.

[DesertFox]

Disagree. God changes His mind regularly, which is why prayer works.

[DoctorDoom]

The issue is the claim that there was no death whatsoever prior to the fall, despite the lack of scriptural evidence for it. One dead plant, or one squashed ant, belies that statement. Even if the death is accidental, such as a herbivore devouring a plant on which a bug was also dining, or a whale ingesting fish while feeding, it is unavoidable.

The passion for denying the concept of non-human creatures dying, whether as part of the food chain or by natural processes, has no scriptural justification or doctrinal value. IAC, "THOU shalt surely die" is very clear in its meaning, and Adam didn't ask what it meant to die.

IAC, this subject is more suited to the Religion forum than to Science.

[Franko]

The assumption is made that ants got squished in the Garden. There's absolutely no scripture to back that up. I don't have the reference here in front of me, but God made a distinction between fruits and plants and other life. The difference was called whether something had "nefesh" in the original text, I will look it up, and post it here.

ALSO, the time in the Garden may have been as little as a few weeks before the fall.

And I posted here before we should take this subject to a different area.

[Franko]

. . . from the Hebrew: the plants, herbs and fruits were referred to as 'chay nephesh' - not considered to be life. A struggle for life between creatures in the garden is contradictory to the perfect world God had created.

Had Adam and Eve not screwed up, life would have spread to the whole universe, a universe with no thermodynamics affecting it. The whole universe was originally made to be inhabited, and one day it will be. We have only the slightest inkling of what God can create, far beyond what we can imagine.

God DID intend to fill the universe with life.

I'll concede a bit - it's possible that perhaps on some planet in a galaxy light years away, some plants and grasses could exist - but nothing on the level of human intelligence or higher. The universe is the eventual inheritance of man when the curse is gone. We'll be able to beam ourselves anywhere across the universe, to witness and enjoy God's limitless creative power forever, truly heaven.

I caught a little bit of Art Bell's (now George Norey - sp) program on late night radio a couple nights ago, discussing the next super telescope (think it was called 'Keppler') that will be able to take a much closer look at planets. It may seem reasonable to man that there would be life out there in the vast universe. One can speculate, imagine, dream.

I apologize for apparently instigating a religious discussion here in the science forum - but giant assumptions are being made, as I quoted from the source/subject of the thread.

[Franko]

Another clarification for anyone interested: Chay Nephesh would mean something like "without soul".

Nephesh is the word for soul. So anything living that did not have a soul was considered chay nephesh. The Bible considers animals to have souls. Think you'll see your long-lost pet in heaven? A distinct possibility.

[DoctorDoom]

The assumption is made that ants got squished in the Garden. There's absolutely no scripture to back that up.When God said, "THOU shalt surely die", it was a personal statement to Adam. There is no theological rationale for stating that there was no death in the universe prior to the fall, no scriptural basis for making the claim, no logical reason for it, and no justification for parsing "death" to deny the obvious. Death is a natiural part of life. Only in man was it unnatural.

As for ants, the fact that the Bible does not specifically mention them is meaningless. Religious liberals use that "argument" to support a carload of flaky or bad doctrine.

[Timberwolf]

Was God's creation perfect or wasn't it? Death implies imperfection. Man's transgression screwed it up for everyone/thing.

[DesertFox]

The idea of "perfection" in God's eyes doesn't mean God doesn't make things that don't break. Happens all the time: Kids born with 47 chromosomes rather than 46; calves born with two heads; kids born Siamese.

God works statistically. The idea is perfect, but that doesn't mean individual things don't go haywire. They don't matter. What matters is the march of the main idea, just as God intended it.

[DoctorDoom]

Was God's creation perfect or wasn't it? Death implies imperfection.WHY does death imply imperfection? Where's the scriptural justification for the concept? Is there a verse in the Bible that states that prior to the fall, NOTHING in the animal kingdom (which includes even single-cell life, e.g., bacteria) died?

It takes far more creativity, assumption and denial of the obvious to try to support that concept than to assume that death was intended by God as a natural part of His creation, with the exception of man, whom He created to be different.

And no one has yet answered my question about why, when God said, "Thou shalt surely sdie," Adam did not ask Him to explain what "die" means. If indeed there was no death in nature, then "die" would be an alien concept to Adam.

Conclusion: Adam and Eve understood the concept of death because they had seen it around them in Eden.

[Sarah]

When our great great grandbabies colonize other worlds I wonder if this convo would still be going.

[Timberwolf]

WHY does death imply imperfection? Where's the scriptural justification for the concept? Is there a verse in the Bible that states that prior to the fall, NOTHING in the animal kingdom (which includes even single-cell life, e.g., bacteria) died?
Because GOD is eternal. He is perfect. He does not die.

It takes far more creativity, assumption and denial of the obvious to try to support that concept than to assume that death was intended by God as a natural part of His creation, with the exception of man, whom He created to be different.
But, He created no carnivores because he gave the green herb as meat for ALL His creation.

And no one has yet answered my question about why, when God said, "Thou shalt surely sdie," Adam did not ask Him to explain what "die" means. If indeed there was no death in nature, then "die" would be an alien concept to Adam.
Much as Noah asked God what "rain" was.

Conclusion: Adam and Eve understood the concept of death because they had seen it around them in Eden.
Just as much supposition as other thing posted.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. No worries.

[Franko]

There's perfect and there's less than perfect. There's no death in perfect. What Adam and Eve did affected the whole creation, the whole universe (trying to get back on subject) - the 2nd law took "effect". You can make up something else if you want to accommodate your own assumptions.

[DoctorDoom]

There's perfect and there's less than perfect. There's no death in perfect.That's assumption unsupported by scripture. But as TW says, it's a point on which we must agree to disagree. It has exactly zero effect on the doctrines of Christianity. Salvation does not depend on the resolution of the matter.

I'll ask Jesus after I've spent a few thousand years praising Him for saving a wretch like me.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I'll ask Jesus after I've spent a few thousand years praising Him for saving a wretch like me.

Yep, that's my story too, and I'm stickin' to it! :thumb:

[Timberwolf]

That's assumption unsupported by scripture. But as TW says, it's a point on which we must agree to disagree. It has exactly zero effect on the doctrines of Christianity. Salvation does not depend on the resolution of the matter.

I'll ask Jesus after I've spent a few thousand years praising Him for saving a wretch like me.
Which is something we'll just have to agree to agree about...LOL

[Franko]

. . . so then, the gas giants in our solar system serve as buffers, which help protect the earth from major impacts with asteroids and comets, so this new find . . . lol

[DoctorDoom]

If they happen to be in or near the flight path of junk headed our way, they will absorb it or deflect it to it misses us. The chance of that is so close to zero as to be meaningless. The moon offers far greater shielding from incoming detritus, and even that is minimal.

The benefit to living in a developed solar system is that the vast majority of loose stuff has been swept clear. There's not much out there to smack us.

[Franko]

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

"Since the first was discovered in 1992, the number of known Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) has increased to over a thousand, and more than 70,000 KBOs over 100 km in diameter are believed to reside there.[6"

[DesertFox]

For the trivia buffsAin't no tribia, dude; diss serious shit.

[DoctorDoom]

The Kuiper belt (pronounced /ˈkaɪpɚ/, to rhyme with "viper"),[1] sometimes called the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt, is a region of the Solar System beyond the planets extending from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU)[2] to approximately 55 AU from the Sun.1 AU = 92.9 million miles. Using the figures from Wiki, the area of the Kuiper Belt is 57,615,600,000,000,000,000 sq. mi. If we assume a billion objects in the belt of significant size, e.g., 10 KM in diameter), that means that each of them has 57,615,600,000 sq. mi. of space to itself. The volume of each object's space depends on the trickness of the belt. Even if it's a minuscule 1,000 miles thick, each object lives in a volume of 57,615,600,000,000 cubic miles.

It ain't overcrowded.

Due to the law of conservation of momentum, their orbits will not change unless acted on by an outsaide force. There are few outside forces there to disturb them, and the required force increases as their size increases. Thus we see very few comets, and they are not large.

And IAC, the likelihood that we'll be hit by one is nil. It would be akin to firing a BB from Earth in a random direction within the ecliptic and hittng a specific stone on the moon.


Summaizing, it's nothing to keep one awake at night.

[DesertFox]

Don't let Al Gore hear that.

[Trovalor]

There's perfect and there's less than perfect. There's no death in perfect.

It was how God intended it, therefor even Death is perfect. The complex cycle of a creature dying, its remains decompose to give life to what surrounds it, while its Soul lives on eternally, seems perfect to me. Death is not an end, like many chose to believe, but the ultimate change, or transition.

You may not view death as playing a part in perfection, but what it represents in the cycle of life truly is. Your body may die but your Soul will live on eternally. The question is will it live eternally in His presence, or forever in damnation, its not death thats eternal, only the final judgment after you die.

[Franko]

It was how God intended it, therefor even Death is perfect. The complex cycle of a creature dying, its remains decompose to give life to what surrounds it, while its Soul lives on eternally, seems perfect to me. Death is not an end, like many chose to believe, but the ultimate change, or transition.

You may not view death as playing a part in perfection, but what it represents in the cycle of life truly is. Your body may die but your Soul will live on eternally. The question is will it live eternally in His presence, or forever in damnation, its not death thats eternal, only the final judgment after you die.

Death was never intended by God, but believe what you will. There's no scripture to back up death of any kind of "nephesh" before the fall. Around in circles . . .

I was trying to get back toward the original subject matter of this thread . . .

As to Doc - is your belief that our solar system is 'developed' based on stellar evolution, or something else?

It was not too many years ago we witnessed a major impact on Jupiter.

[DoctorDoom]

Death was never intended by God ...Prove it scripturally.

As to Doc - is your belief that our solar system is 'developed' based on stellar evolution, or something else?It's based on the mechanisms that develop planetary systems around stars.

It was not too many years ago we witnessed a major impact on Jupiter.On 1994 July 16-22, over twenty fragments of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 collided with the planet Jupiter.

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 Collision with Jupiter (http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/sl9/sl9.html)

There are also craters on Earth that evince collisions with meteors.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/M3.jpg

However, the likelihood of an impact decreases with the increase in size of the objects, since there are far fewer large ones than small ones.

[DesertFox]

The astonishing thing about the Meteor Crater is that it's so square.

[Franko]

EDIT: additional note:http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v11i2e.htm

On confusing philosophy with science, click above link

- - -

I might add that the Oort cloud has never been verified - it's there for 'convenience'

Comets breaking up suggests that our solar system is not that old.

BUT THE FACT IS, no one knows how old the universe is, and that much of the dating of the universe is due to Big Bang assumptions, and the Big Bang is in serious trouble -


http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v2i8f.htm


Here's a couple segments -


Why it doesn't work.

Astronomers compute the distance to a star based on its apparent speed, plus several assumptions. To see why this doesn't work, imagine that you were given this problem in your high school math class.

A police officer uses his radar gun to clock two cars moving away from him. One is going 40 miles per hour. The other is going 60 miles per hour. How far away are the two cars?

Your math teacher never gave you a problem like this on a test, because you can't possibly answer it. There is not enough information given for you to solve it. You would have to guess some additional information. Suppose you guess that both cars passed the police officer one hour ago. Then one car would be 40 miles away, and the other would be 60 miles away. But was your guess correct? Let's see what happens if you check your answer for consistency. Assume that the cars really are 40 and 60 miles away. How long ago would they have passed the police officer? One hour ago! It looks like you guessed correctly! What a lucky guess!

But wait. Suppose you had guessed that the cars passed the police officer two hours ago. Then they would be 80 and 120 miles away now. If the cars really are 80 and 120 miles away, how long ago would they have passed the police officer? Two hours ago! That was a correct guess, too!

Obviously, the closer car can't be both 40 and 80 miles away. Why did both guesses appear to be correct? Because circular reasoning was used. The assumed time was used to calculate the position. Then the position was used to compute the assumed time. Unless there is an arithmetic error, the results will always be consistent, no matter what time we guess.

Not only that, we assumed that both cars moved at a constant speed the entire time, and that they both passed the police officer at the same time. Perhaps the cars started at different times from different spots. That's why we can't determine where the cars are simply from their speed.

Questionable Assumptions

Astronomers assume that all matter was in one spot billions of years ago. They assume that a big bang started everything moving at a variety of constant speeds, with uniform deceleration due to gravity. They assume that the apparent Doppler shift of light coming from the stars is an indication of their speed. They multiply that speed by the time since the big bang (the reciprocal of the Hubble variable) to determine their distance.

Consider all the assumptions they make. First, they assume that the red shift of the light coming from the stars is due to the Doppler effect. This is merely one possible explanation for the red shift. There may be another reason for it.

Second, they assume they know the true brightness of the reference stars. They obtain the brightness from their unverified models of how much light is produced by different kinds of stars.

Third, they estimate the distances of the reference stars from their apparent brightness. To do this they make some unverified assumptions about the propagation losses that the light experiences while traveling the unimaginably long distances between the stars and Earth.

Fourth, they assume that all the matter in the universe was once concentrated in a cosmic egg at a single point. They make this assumption despite the fact that no scientist has ever proposed any theory as to how that matter got squeezed together into the cosmic egg, or what made it explode.

If the big bang theory is wrong, then the predictions made by that theory will be wrong. The more space exploration we do, the more data we find that isn't consistent with the big bang.

[Franko]

. . . and that is a rather squarish indentation - maybe someone dropped a really large, hot piece of toast there bazillions of years ago.

[DoctorDoom]

Little known fact: it's a crash site for a Borg cube that time-jumped and rematted 791.63 feet above the ground.

[DesertFox]

That was just before the Higgs field tripped, fell on its ass and set off inflation.





And the dollar ain't been worth shit since