Do you believe in "aliens"

[sk8_tolivv]

Yes, I do believe there is some other form of life out there.

 

 

 

I don't believe that we may ever find "them/it" It would be amazing if we did.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

If we did find aliens, I wonder what the bible would have to say about that?

 

Something about us being the superior, God-given race, and that we should enslave this new race under divine mandate. Or something along those lines.

 

I hope that's what happens. I need me some sex slaves.

[Nom]

If we did find aliens, I wonder what the bible would have to say about that?

 

 

 

That's what I've always wondered. My guess would be that the "true believers" would just claim that God created man in His image, and these aliens are not man. Therefore, they are animals and have no soul.

 

 

 

And please not that I in no way believe this.

[amoeba_009]

If they do exist, they can keep their probeing tools to themself and I'm fine. :anxious:

[mrpez]

There is ice on Saturn.

[wild_goat_14]

There is ice on Saturn.

 

 

 

Mars too.

[Nom]

There is ice on Saturn.

 

 

 

Mars too.

 

 

 

And Europa is one giant ball of ice, believed to have an ocean beneath the ice crust.

 

 

 

There are better examples that you could have used than Saturn. It's a gas giant. Life wouldn't exist there.

[Korskin]

I say there is an apple somewhere on this planet, a very specific apple. Now you could spend your entire life looking for this one, certain, apple but never find it. Many people could spend their lives looking for it, but on a large planet the chances would be almost none.

 

 

 

However, the apple still exists. The same is true for aliens (par-say). I'm not saying its why they are real, I'm not, but I'm saying that to simply dismiss the idea (even though backing it is the sheer mathematically probability that out of billions or, nay, trillions of planets there are some that support life and some that could possibly have it) because we haven't 'seen' them yet is absurd.

 

I'd say it's just a matter of time. Sooner or later I will find that apple. There's a reason why we don't build towers anymore to find God but instead spend a lot of money to try and find alien life in space. It's because we should be able to find it.

 

 

Now you've said it yourself, the bible could be wrong but god still be there. Why than is it so difficult for you to believe that?

 

There are lots of religions with gods who have nothing to with the Bible. I believe the Bible is the truth and that God is the one the Bible tells us about.

 

 

 

There are two parts to the understanding of creation: science and religion. There are multiple interpretations of creation on the religion side, but only one explanation on the scientific side. Therefore, to choose any religious interpretation other than theistic evolution is to deny science altogether.

 

I'm questioning parts of the evolution theory. Parts such as common descent and macroevolution. I don't understand how that suddenly means that I'm denying sceince altogether.

 

The bible can also conflict with the possibility of alien life depending on interpretation, so is your attitude towards alien life entirely without the input of faith?

 

No, i don't think my attitudes toward anything are entirely independent of faith.

 

 

 

Response to me: So, if you can use evidence to support your chosen specific supernatural concepts, I should be able to use evidence to undermine them, which would, as you say, undermine Christianity. Although, I would argue that undermining creationism does not undermine Christianity unless you're a biblical literalist; it only undermines a literal reading of genesis.

 

I was thinking more like finding Jesus body and proving that something completely different than what the Bible says happened.

 

 

Response to clips: "It's not written in stone"? Have you done an exhaustive search on exactly why it's such a one sided affair in the scientific community that evolution happened? By the way nothing in science is technically "written in stone" as science is always correctable, falsifiable and dynamic in considering new knowledge and evidence. However, let me draw an analogy. Let me put it to you that evolution, for all intensive purposes, is set in stone, yet you could carve out the entire face of the tablet so that the words are gone and we're back to a level playing field. The issue is that this would obviously take a lot of hard work by way of evidence and a huge paradigm shift. Perhaps you'd like me to enlighten you as to why this is such a hard ask, given what we know...

 

You've said yourself that there are some gaps in the evolution theory. I'm not saying that the entire evolution theory is wrong, Basically to rephrase: "everything about the evolution theory isn't written in stone".

 

 

 

"It's really only when you're a metaphysical naturalist that evolution is the only option." Wrong. Theistic evolutionists, who aren't metaphysical naturalists, see evolution as far superior and totally compromisable with thier theology (some even see it as rediculous to regard young earth creationism as an option at all because, well, it contradicts known sciences). If a natural, verifiable, falsifiable, data encompassing theory has essentially proven the origin of species then there's no reason to conclude anything else. In doing so, you're (a) copping out by preferring unfalsifiable concepts instead of falsifying the already essentially proven theory, and/or, (B) being largely ignorant of the natural, verifiable, falsifiable, data encompassing theory.

 

Evolution becomes the only option if you believe that there is nothing else than nature. If you open up for the supernatural pretty much anything could've happened. Theistic evolutionists simply believe that evolution and christianity are compatible. They don't shut the door for another explanation. However, there's no need for them to search for another explanation as they've accepted evolution.

[warri0r45]

I say there is an apple somewhere on this planet, a very specific apple. Now you could spend your entire life looking for this one, certain, apple but never find it. Many people could spend their lives looking for it, but on a large planet the chances would be almost none.

 

 

 

However, the apple still exists. The same is true for aliens (par-say). I'm not saying its why they are real, I'm not, but I'm saying that to simply dismiss the idea (even though backing it is the sheer mathematically probability that out of billions or, nay, trillions of planets there are some that support life and some that could possibly have it) because we haven't 'seen' them yet is absurd.

 

I'd say it's just a matter of time. Sooner or later I will find that apple. There's a reason why we don't build towers anymore to find God but instead spend a lot of money to try and find alien life in space. It's because we should be able to find it.

 

 

Now you've said it yourself, the bible could be wrong but god still be there. Why than is it so difficult for you to believe that?

 

There are lots of religions with gods who have nothing to with the Bible. I believe the Bible is the truth and that God is the one the Bible tells us about.

 

 

 

There are two parts to the understanding of creation: science and religion. There are multiple interpretations of creation on the religion side, but only one explanation on the scientific side. Therefore, to choose any religious interpretation other than theistic evolution is to deny science altogether.

 

(1) I'm questioning parts of the evolution theory. Parts such as common descent and macroevolution. I don't understand how that suddenly means that I'm denying sceince altogether.

 

The bible can also conflict with the possibility of alien life depending on interpretation, so is your attitude towards alien life entirely without the input of faith?

 

No, i don't think my attitudes toward anything are entirely independent of faith.

 

 

 

Response to me: So, if you can use evidence to support your chosen specific supernatural concepts, I should be able to use evidence to undermine them, which would, as you say, undermine Christianity. Although, I would argue that undermining creationism does not undermine Christianity unless you're a biblical literalist; it only undermines a literal reading of genesis.

 

(2) I was thinking more like finding Jesus body and proving that something completely different than what the Bible says happened.

 

 

Response to clips: "It's not written in stone"? Have you done an exhaustive search on exactly why it's such a one sided affair in the scientific community that evolution happened? By the way nothing in science is technically "written in stone" as science is always correctable, falsifiable and dynamic in considering new knowledge and evidence. However, let me draw an analogy. Let me put it to you that evolution, for all intensive purposes, is set in stone, yet you could carve out the entire face of the tablet so that the words are gone and we're back to a level playing field. The issue is that this would obviously take a lot of hard work by way of evidence and a huge paradigm shift. Perhaps you'd like me to enlighten you as to why this is such a hard ask, given what we know...

 

(3) You've said yourself that there are some gaps in the evolution theory. I'm not saying that the entire evolution theory is wrong, Basically to rephrase: "everything about the evolution theory isn't written in stone".

 

 

 

"It's really only when you're a metaphysical naturalist that evolution is the only option." Wrong. Theistic evolutionists, who aren't metaphysical naturalists, see evolution as far superior and totally compromisable with thier theology (some even see it as rediculous to regard young earth creationism as an option at all because, well, it contradicts known sciences). If a natural, verifiable, falsifiable, data encompassing theory has essentially proven the origin of species then there's no reason to conclude anything else. In doing so, you're (a) copping out by preferring unfalsifiable concepts instead of falsifying the already essentially proven theory, and/or, (B) being largely ignorant of the natural, verifiable, falsifiable, data encompassing theory.

 

(4) Evolution becomes the only option if you believe that there is nothing else than nature. If you open up for the supernatural pretty much anything could've happened. (5) Theistic evolutionists simply believe that evolution and christianity are compatible. They don't shut the door for another explanation. However, there's no need for them to search for another explanation as they've accepted evolution.

 

 

 

(1) I can help you out there, if you want to hear a swag of data I have to show you. The issue is why you question these aspects of evolution. It's obviously because you favour your faith, there's no use beating around the bush. This then means that you favour one of many possible creation stories over the one and only scientific story, as paperclips said.

 

 

 

(2) And I wasn't; I was referring to data, test and theory that contradict your creation story. In your view, does the contradiction of your creation story by known facts undermine Christianity? By the looks of it, you're rigid in which you accept:

 

 

 

If you think that there is a conflict between evolution and the Bible you have to choose which one to believe in.

 

 

 

But sure, I suppose you could undermine Christianity in the way you suggest too.

 

 

 

(3) Of course, there are gaps; there are gaps in all scientific theories. Do you think that the human-chimp relationship is not "set in stone"? Have you read why science is so sure about evolution?

 

 

 

(4) Truth isn't an issue of options. Either something happened or something did not happen. You can very easily choose not to accept evolution, if you're a naturalist, and form your own theory, even if it does fail to do as good a job as evolution, so I reject your assertion. In science, you can choose which ever testable theoretical concept you like. As for how much scrutiny it will stand up to and how much data it will encompass, that's another issue. Many people just happen to favour to most rigorous, data encompassing, tried and tested theory, that being evolution.

 

 

 

(5) Are you sure? Theistic evolutionists, I'm assuming, accept the process of evolution because of the evidence (rejecting all other ideas based on thier contradiction with the evidence) and add thier footnote of "god did it" to the process. I don't think that they are so too and frow as you paint them out to be. I've encountered at least two on another forum which I couldn't ever imagine reverting to creationism, because, it's already essentially been falsified (by way of contradiction with known natural processes; you can never falsify or verify "god did" anything).

[reaper88888]

Yes:

 

-There are many other species of intelligent life in our galaxy alone, in all the universe, there are millions, if not billions of races with intelligent or semi-intelligent civilizations.

 

-Some of these species created space travel far before we have, and have been around for hundreds of thousand more years.

 

No:

 

-There are little green men that fly around abducting people, mutilating cows, giving people anal probes, and starring in c-list movies.

[ember3579]

I personally consider the fact that the universe is fundamentally unmeasurable in size, the possibility for life aside from us NOT being out there is equally immeasurable in percentage. Of the same coin, the possibilities for what said life is is as large as the universe itself. Depending on our luck, the form we first encounter could be anything from a tiny bacteria or smaller to creatures the size of a galaxy and beyond. Anyone who says definitively what the first ET we meet is going to look like is has little to no logical reasoning whatsoever. Theoretically, we could live out the life of this galaxy and not find another form of life. You just don't know.

[underu2000]

Is it possible for life to exist outside? Right now I have enough reason to believe either there is, in any form, or there isn't yet.

 

 

 

Note that I'm not saying that life cannot exist outside of the Earth, but it may not have occurred yet. Remember that a (relatively) mere 14ish billion years have passed since the universe was created (estimated from Doppler effect I think), and assuming evolution on average occurs at the same rate as it [may] had on Earth, either there may be no life at all, or uncountable numbers of super-sentient civilizations out there, or something in between. Who knows? The "mathematical evidence" would point either way.

 

 

 

The main problem I have with life out of Earth is how it could have started. We hardly know how life started here in Earth. I believe that God had at least some role in this, that some degree of intelligent design was at play. at least until somebody thinks of a better explanation for spontaneous creation of life other than a lightning bolt and some sludge.

 

 

 

Oh, maybe we're looking for the wrong kind of life? A lot of people mentioned water, and presumably cell-based life which happens because of it. It's understandable, since all life is cell-based in Earth. But what if life could develop that isn't like the ones here? What if we can't find that "apple" because we're looking for some other fruit? For all we know, there are walking and talking rocks, and we're just being oblivious to it.

[Rebdragon]

Is it possible for life to exist outside? Right now I have enough reason to believe either there is, in any form, or there isn't yet.

 

 

 

Note that I'm not saying that life cannot exist outside of the Earth, but it may not have occurred yet. Remember that a (relatively) mere 14ish billion years have passed since the universe was created (estimated from Doppler effect I think), and assuming evolution on average occurs at the same rate as it [may] had on Earth, either there may be no life at all, or uncountable numbers of super-sentient civilizations out there, or something in between. Who knows? The "mathematical evidence" would point either way.

 

Er, depends how you look at it relavitely, but there are probably uncountable sentient civilizations in the universe. They're just a lot of space between 'em.

 

 

 

The main problem I have with life out of Earth is how it could have started. We hardly know how life started here in Earth. I believe that God had at least some role in this, that some degree of intelligent design was at play. at least until somebody thinks of a better explanation for spontaneous creation of life other than a lightning bolt and some sludge.

 

You not a fan of the Milley-Urey experiment :-s ? It's pretty much foundationally proven the base of the creation of life on Earth. No need to dumb it down to "spontaneous creation" and "a lightning bolt and some sludge", as if to make some point by doing so.

 

 

 

Oh, maybe we're looking for the wrong kind of life? A lot of people mentioned water, and presumably cell-based life which happens because of it. It's understandable, since all life is cell-based in Earth. But what if life could develop that isn't like the ones here? What if we can't find that "apple" because we're looking for some other fruit? For all we know, there are walking and talking rocks, and we're just being oblivious to it.

 

Yes, but there is no precedence for that kind of life formation here or on any planet that we've examined, so the current basic criteria for a life-sustaining has to include water. No one says that life couldn't be formed other ways, it's just there's nor evidence for other reasons beyond the current criteria.

[warri0r45]

Is it possible for life to exist outside? Right now I have enough reason to believe either there is, in any form, or there isn't yet.

 

 

 

Note that I'm not saying that life cannot exist outside of the Earth, but it may not have occurred yet. Remember that a (relatively) mere 14ish billion years have passed since the universe was created (estimated from Doppler effect I think), and assuming evolution on average occurs at the same rate as it [may] had on Earth, either there may be no life at all, or uncountable numbers of super-sentient civilizations out there, or something in between. Who knows? The "mathematical evidence" would point either way.

 

 

 

(1) The main problem I have with life out of Earth is how it could have started. We hardly know how life started here in Earth. I believe that God had at least some role in this, that some degree of intelligent design was at play. at least until somebody thinks of a better explanation for (2) spontaneous creation of life other than a lightning bolt and some sludge.

 

 

 

(3) Oh, maybe we're looking for the wrong kind of life? A lot of people mentioned water, and presumably cell-based life which happens because of it. It's understandable, since all life is cell-based in Earth. But what if life could develop that isn't like the ones here? What if we can't find that "apple" because we're looking for some other fruit? For all we know, there are walking and talking rocks, and we're just being oblivious to it.

 

 

 

(1) Although you do recognise this as a belief, it's a god of the gaps argument. You're using supernature to explain what we at current do not know. It's no different from Norse mythology and how they labelled the phenomenon of thunder with the god Thor.

 

 

 

I'm quite certain that if we actually knew for a fact that it happened naturally (currently hypothetical), that you would not need to and thus would not pick out the specific occurance of the molecular formation of life and the first cell and label it with "god" or "intelligent causes".

 

 

 

It would essentially be like you labelling the cellular process of transcription by the work of god when we know how it happens, i.e. it would be nonsensical.

 

 

 

(2) People often justify a view by the language they use. "spontaneous creation" and "lightning bolts hitting sludge" is a bit more crude than ammonia, hydrogen and methane interacting with electrical energy to form amino acids, fatty acids and nucleic acids.

 

 

 

(3) Maybe, but cellular life (as in H2O cytoplasm surrounded by phospholipid bilayer membrane and various organelles also surrounded by phospholipid bilayers) is structured because of the very nature of the molecules themselves, i.e. it's the most sensible "design", electrochemically speaking, and the most likely to exist elsewhere.

[underu2000]

@warri0r

 

I agree that I was crude with the whole spontaneous life thing (abiogenesis to be accurate), but it's because I think the whole thing is a crude theory itself, especially compared to the rest of the relatively detailed theory of evolution. It's definitely the weakest link, seeing that every theory that tries to explain abiogenesis also has an array of problems with it, making it require as much faith as say, intelligent design. And the "one scientific theory vs multiple religious theories" doesn't work here, seeing there are dozens of different explanations of the phenomenon.

 

 

 

@rebdragon,

 

The Miller-Urey experiment has not clinched anything, it just suggests a possible direction where abiogenesis could have occurred. In fact, it doesn't even explain abiogenesis, it just explains the events that leads up to it, that is, the creation of organic compounds in prebiotic conditions. There are other theories on how these amino acids and nucleotides actually arrange themselves into a protocell, but they're all equally dubious. And even then, the development of all the characteristics of life including reproduction and even the slightest homeostasis is hardly known.

 

 

 

 

 

But I digress, I'll give spontaneous life a little leeway because it's still being studied.

[warri0r45]

@warri0r

 

I agree that I was crude with the whole spontaneous life thing (abiogenesis to be accurate), but it's because I think the whole thing is a crude theory itself, especially compared to the rest of the relatively detailed theory of evolution. It's definitely the weakest link, seeing that every theory that tries to explain abiogenesis also has an array of problems with it, making it require as much faith as say, intelligent design. And the "one scientific theory vs multiple religious theories" doesn't work here, seeing there are dozens of different explanations of the phenomenon.

 

 

 

@rebdragon,

 

The Miller-Urey experiment has not clinched anything, it just suggests a possible direction where abiogenesis could have occurred. In fact, it doesn't even explain abiogenesis, it just explains the events that leads up to it, that is, the creation of organic compounds in prebiotic conditions. There are other theories on how these amino acids and nucleotides actually arrange themselves into a protocell, but they're all equally dubious. And even then, the development of all the characteristics of life including reproduction and even the slightest homeostasis is hardly known.

 

 

 

 

 

But I digress, I'll give spontaneous life a little leeway because it's still being studied.

 

 

 

The bold was in reference to evolution vs. all creation myths in which case it does work. But as for the rest of the abiogenesis talk, I largely agree. It's still largely hypothetical as far as I'm aware.

 

 

 

I disagree that the Miller-Urey experiment didn't clinch anything, though. It showed us that compounds such as amino acids, nucleic acids and fatty acids could all synthesise naturally in the absence of life, which is the obvious first fact you need to ascertain if abiogenesis were true. I also find it interesting that we find amino acids on meteorites that hit earth. But, from here to the first cell is obviously a big gap. The material is there, we know they can be polymerised and we know protocell structures are favoured in terms of hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions. So we have a groundwork, but not much meat yet.

 

 

 

By the way abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution axiomatically presupposes life and deals with it's change over time.

[Korskin]

(1) I can help you out there, if you want to hear a swag of data I have to show you. The issue is why you question these aspects of evolution. It's obviously because you favour your faith, there's no use beating around the bush. This then means that you favour one of many possible creation stories over the one and only scientific story, as paperclips said.

 

The Bible isn't scientific literature so it's difficult to compare creation stories and scientific stories. However, I still think that there are some things in the book genesis that are difficult to fit in with the theory of evolution. Evolution offers no clear distinction between animals and humans. The Bible says that we're the image of God, put on earth to rule all other species and animals are basically our food. The idea that all animals are equal is to me absurd but if we're just another animal it actually seems to make sense.

 

(2) And I wasn't; I was referring to data, test and theory that contradict your creation story. In your view, does the contradiction of your creation story by known facts undermine Christianity? By the looks of it, you're rigid in which you accept:

 

I think it undermines the creation story to some extent. The creation story suddenly doesn't mean much of what it actually says.

 

 

 

(3) Of course, there are gaps; there are gaps in all scientific theories. Do you think that the human-chimp relationship is not "set in stone"? Have you read why science is so sure about evolution?

 

I've never studied any actual evidence for it. All information I have is either from people who believe the current scientific model is correct or from people who believe it's wrong. So it's more up to which people I trust are more likely to tell the truth.

 

 

 

(4) Truth isn't an issue of options. Either something happened or something did not happen. You can very easily choose not to accept evolution, if you're a naturalist, and form your own theory, even if it does fail to do as good a job as evolution, so I reject your assertion. In science, you can choose which ever testable theoretical concept you like. As for how much scrutiny it will stand up to and how much data it will encompass, that's another issue. Many people just happen to favour to most rigorous, data encompassing, tried and tested theory, that being evolution.

 

Haven't you and other people with you been saying that evolution is the one and only explanation on the scientific side? That it's not a theory among theories and that it's THE theory. If I was a strong believer that there was nothing beyond nature, I don't see how life could've originated otherwise.

 

(5) Are you sure? Theistic evolutionists, I'm assuming, accept the process of evolution because of the evidence (rejecting all other ideas based on thier contradiction with the evidence) and add thier footnote of "god did it" to the process. I don't think that they are so too and frow as you paint them out to be. I've encountered at least two on another fo{rum which I couldn't ever imagine reverting to creationism, because, it's already essentially been falsified (by way of contradiction with known natural processes; you can never falsify or verify "god did" anything).

 

I'm sure just by looking at some premises. If you're a theist you believe in God. Therefore you open up the possibility of a omnipotent God. An omnipotent God could've done anything and of course created life without following the principles of the theory of evolution.

 

 

 

I also have an example of a swedish geologist Mats Molen(swedish wiki unfortunately) who once was a theistic evolutionist. But as he studied science, he found it more and more difficult to believe in the theory of evolution and eventually became a creationist.

[warri0r45]

(1) I can help you out there, if you want to hear a swag of data I have to show you. The issue is why you question these aspects of evolution. It's obviously because you favour your faith, there's no use beating around the bush. This then means that you favour one of many possible creation stories over the one and only scientific story, as paperclips said.

 

The Bible isn't scientific literature so it's difficult to compare creation stories and scientific stories. However, I still think that there are some things in the book genesis that are difficult to fit in with the theory of evolution. Evolution offers no clear distinction between animals and humans. The Bible says that we're the image of God, put on earth to rule all other species and animals are basically our food. The idea that all animals are equal is to me absurd but if we're just another animal it actually seems to make sense.

 

 

 

(2) And I wasn't; I was referring to data, test and theory that contradict your creation story. In your view, does the contradiction of your creation story by known facts undermine Christianity? By the looks of it, you're rigid in which you accept:

 

I think it undermines the creation story to some extent. The creation story suddenly doesn't mean much of what it actually says.

 

 

 

(3) Of course, there are gaps; there are gaps in all scientific theories. Do you think that the human-chimp relationship is not "set in stone"? Have you read why science is so sure about evolution?

 

I've never studied any actual evidence for it. All information I have is either from people who believe the current scientific model is correct or from people who believe it's wrong. So it's more up to which people I trust are more likely to tell the truth.

 

 

 

(4) Truth isn't an issue of options. Either something happened or something did not happen. You can very easily choose not to accept evolution, if you're a naturalist, and form your own theory, even if it does fail to do as good a job as evolution, so I reject your assertion. In science, you can choose which ever testable theoretical concept you like. As for how much scrutiny it will stand up to and how much data it will encompass, that's another issue. Many people just happen to favour to most rigorous, data encompassing, tried and tested theory, that being evolution.

 

Haven't you and other people with you been saying that evolution is the one and only explanation on the scientific side? That it's not a theory among theories and that it's THE theory. If I was a strong believer that there was nothing beyond nature, I don't see how life could've originated otherwise.

 

(5) Are you sure? Theistic evolutionists, I'm assuming, accept the process of evolution because of the evidence (rejecting all other ideas based on thier contradiction with the evidence) and add thier footnote of "god did it" to the process. I don't think that they are so too and frow as you paint them out to be. I've encountered at least two on another fo{rum which I couldn't ever imagine reverting to creationism, because, it's already essentially been falsified (by way of contradiction with known natural processes; you can never falsify or verify "god did" anything).

 

I'm sure just by looking at some premises. If you're a theist you believe in God. Therefore you open up the possibility of a omnipotent God. An omnipotent God could've done anything and of course created life without following the principles of the theory of evolution.

 

 

 

I also have an example of a swedish geologist Mats Molen(swedish wiki unfortunately) who once was a theistic evolutionist. But as he studied science, he found it more and more difficult to believe in the theory of evolution and eventually became a creationist.

 

 

 

(1) I agree, the Bible isn't scientific literature, yet many people treat it as such (but of course it's not), which then makes it very easy to compare to other science. What you see as absurd is irrelevant to what the evidence tells us.

 

 

 

(2) There we go, metaphorical. It's the obvious alternative to the creation story being a literal, factually consistant truth.

 

 

 

(3) You're looking at it the wrong way. Don't trust anyone, for or against. Read the literature. Google has a new section "google scholar". You can search in there and likely get some good reults. Always take peer reviewed literature as the final judge over my or anyone elses opinions on the matter.

 

 

 

(4) Yes, it is currently THE theory. My point was that you don't need to accept it as if it were true if you're a naturalist. Science is dynamic and falsifiable; it never claims absolute truth, thus leaving open any other scientific explanations. The weight of evidence and data in favour of one theory over another are the scales in which we choose which theory is currently THE theory. In my opinion, I don't see how life could have originated otherwise. Many naturalists agree, but accepting evolution isn't a prerequisite of naturalism.

 

 

 

(5) Now we both have anecdotes. Both are true - there are some who are theistic evolutionists because they take the scientific position and see creationism as essentially falsified then there are some who are theistic evolutionists but can revert to or choose creationism.

[dippymister]

The way I look at it is, that there is a certain distance from the sun, that's not too hot/cold, and is able to sustain life. Therefore, since we know that there are other millions of other solar systems, with planets revolving around a star (like our sun), the odds are that there are probably multiple planets that are in just the right spot to sustain life.

[FalconBomba]

*imagines a moose like people far out in the universe, typing on a moosescape forum* I don't think there will be aliens that are all pink and squishy with big eyes and little hair on their heads, like in the movies, but, there has to be life somewhere out there. *laughs*

 

 

 

Its all perspective :wink: have some fun with it, we don't know, that is why some make millions in sci-fi literature. I believe there is something out there, but, if they do anything its definately not probe the nearest life form, unless they are frat aliens... *thinks of that for a few seconds* :-X

[i_trollz_u]

I've posted my thoughts about his on a similar thread but i'll post them again.

 

 

 

I believe that there ARE most likely aliens out there. Even if the chances of it occuring on one planet is slim, the universe is too big not to have some other form of life. However, the "aliens" I do imagine to be out there will be prokaryotic cells.

 

 

 

FYI: On Earth, prokaryotic cells are bacteria cells.

[jokemaster]

I think, out of the trillions of stars in our universe and hundreds of planets orbiting them, the chances of there being life elsewhere is extremely high. But our chances of finding them may be considerably lower. Some scientists say there must be water on land or below ground and oxygen in their atmosphere but I think it's more likely that they survive of a different gas such as nitrogen or hydrogen. Also they say conditions should be that of Earth's but they may be suited to a completely different temperature or pressure. But if other civilizations did need water and oxygen then Europ (one of Jupiter's moons) the huge ocean under the sheet of ice could be a perfect habitat. Also the phrase 'little green men' could be so wrong, they could look exactly like us :-k

[Barihawk]

If we can not even get over Euro-Centrism worldwide, how the hell does anyone expect to believe in life otherwhere?

 

 

 

Mankind's view of the Universe right now is Earth-centric. For all people care, we might as well have the Sun revolving around us.

[purfishx]

Aliens are there alright.

 

 

 

If they are secretly planning conquest. . . :wink: .

[assassin_696]

Guys, I appreciate some of this debate is someway relevant to aliens (abiogenesis etc.), but can we please leave the validity of evolution out of it?