What If The Labour Party Got Rid Of...
Politics1 min ago
god v aliens
do aliens exist, cause it occurred to me the other day that if they do then that totally rules out the theory of god because in the bible it says that there are no other planets in the universe or any other galaxy that have life on so if there is aliens then were all screwed cause theres no heaven either
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by willow27. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Lucy,
From: A. Zihlman, et al, New Scientist, Vol. 104, pages 39-40
On November 20, 1986 Donald Johanson, discoverer of the celebrated "Lucy" fossil, lectured on the campus of the University, of Missouri, Kansas City. In the course of the lecture Dr. Johanson showed a slide which suggested that Lucy's knee joint had an angle much like a selected human knee joint. In the discourse which followed the lecture the discoverer admitted that he had found that portion of the fossil 60 to 70 meters [over 200 feet] lower in the strata and two to three kilometers [1.24 to 1.86 miles] away. Anatomical similarity appeared to be his basis for placing it with the rest of Lucy's skeletal remains. Her arm/leg length ratio, listed at 83.9%, is admittedly based on an estimated leg length. The left pelvic bone is complete, but "distorted" according to her discoverer.
Negative evidence relating to Lucy's claim as a genuine hominid continues to mount. Her chimp-shaped skull of only 400 cc's and many osteological features certainly indicate that walking erect was very unlikely. Possible erect locomotion is indicated by only one angled view of her pelvis, and the pelvis was distorted when found. A long list of ape features are indicated by the skeletal remains.18 This specimen had curved fingers and toes for tree climbing, an ape-type angle of the shoulder socket, a chimp-like iliac blade, an ape ankle bone (talus). The valgus angle of the knees is similar to the orangutan and the spider monkey, a feature which is also found in man. Strong chimp affinities are shown in her hip joint. She may well have walked with flat feet like the chimpanzee.19 According to J. Cherfas her ankle bone (talus) angles backward like a gorilla. This makes it impossible for her to locomote bipedally. Zihnman called our attention to the fact that there is astonishing similarity between Lucy and the pygmy chimps.20
By the way, seems I erred in attributing "Lucy" to the Leakey's, when it was Johanson who discovered the remains...
I discussed the problems with the bird transitions... you might have missed it.
The discovery of two 50-million-year-old whales from the family *********** suggest that the previously thought link between the mesonychians and whales seems unlikely, according to Dr. Hans Thewissen (Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine). The fact that these fossils have more primitive teeth than the mesonychians from which they were supposed to have evolved led Dr. Thewissen to conclude that there was "considerable doubt" that cretaceans (whales) are closely related to mesonychians. Paleontologists now are attempting to link whales with the hippopotamus (artiodactyls). However, Dr. Maureen O'Leary (State University of New York) stated, "it's difficult to connect hippos with whales in the fossil record."
Dennis Normile. 1998. MAMMALIAN EVOLUTION MEETING: New views of the origins of mammals. Science 281: 775.
Next?
And... did you catch this little nugget from you own site:
A subtle, yet important point is that a strict cladistic evolutionary interpretation precludes the possibility of identifying true ancestors; only intermediates or transitionals can be positively identified. (For the purposes of this article, transitionals and intermediates are considered synonymous.) The only incontrovertible evidence for an ancestor-descendant relationship is the observation of a birth; obviously this is normally rather improbable in the fossil record. Intermediates are not necessarily the same as the exact predicted ancestors; in fact, it is rather unlikely that they would be the same. Simply due to probability considerations, the intermediates that we find will most likely not be the true ancestors of any modern species, but will be closely related to a predicted common ancestor. Therefore, the intermediates we do find will likely have additional derived characters besides the characters that identified them as intermediates. Because of these considerations, when a new and important intermediate fossil species is discovered, careful paleontologists will often note that the transitional species under study is probably not an ancestor, but rather is "representative of a common ancestor" or is an evolutionary "side-branch". The fewer extra dervied characters that an intermediate fossil has, the higher the probability that an intermediate fossil is an actual ancestor. (My emphasis) Rather significant, don't you think?
And that is what Neanderthalus is. We have a common ancestor with them. But that is nothing like a comparison with ourselves and chimps. Neanderthalus is just off the tree from our direct lineage, whereas chimps are way off. Which is why the possibility of our line-neanderthalus mating is entertained.
It's important also to realise that even if Neanderthal were shown not to have much affinity to the DNA of modern humans, this does not mean that we did not necessarily come from a mating between them and homo sapiens.
Why do you think its rather significant that we have only intermediates to rely on. What do you think the presence of these intermediates tells us? This is an inescapable feature of probability. It does not tell us that the dictated lineage is wrong.
haha well late to the party and not particuarly bothered about referencing but amused to see Clanad still not letting evolution off the hook. I simply haven't the time to go back through the whole debate and discover the various arguments already covered, but as we seem to be on evolution I will make some comments.
1. Micro-evolution has been accepted as fact and documented to the satisfaction of the scientific community.
2. There are thousands of species already extinct proven as such through the fossil record - through various criteria - while one could extend various theories for this, and I would genuinely be interested in their proposition - the only logical explanation is a change in enviromental factors.
3. These same fossil records indicate the lack of thousands of currently existing species prior to what I shall the current era.
4. It logically follows that species die, and species arise.
5. The mechanism by which species arise is admittedly open to debate - I have not read MargeB's link re: the transitional forms but let us suppose none have been found.
6. Now, if we suppose that natural factors are responsible for extinction - after all I would hope that an omnipotently benevolent god would not eliminate a species through mere whim and one could definitely argue that such interference is contrary to stated principles of the xstian god - it is logical to assume that natural factors are also reponsible for their arisal.
1. Micro-evolution has been accepted as fact and documented to the satisfaction of the scientific community.
2. There are thousands of species already extinct proven as such through the fossil record - through various criteria - while one could extend various theories for this, and I would genuinely be interested in their proposition - the only logical explanation is a change in enviromental factors.
3. These same fossil records indicate the lack of thousands of currently existing species prior to what I shall the current era.
4. It logically follows that species die, and species arise.
5. The mechanism by which species arise is admittedly open to debate - I have not read MargeB's link re: the transitional forms but let us suppose none have been found.
6. Now, if we suppose that natural factors are responsible for extinction - after all I would hope that an omnipotently benevolent god would not eliminate a species through mere whim and one could definitely argue that such interference is contrary to stated principles of the xstian god - it is logical to assume that natural factors are also reponsible for their arisal.
7. If natural factors are not responsible for the arisal of a species, then basically we are talking about an external force. This external force would have to desire to interfere in the natural equilibrium of the planet and yet remain hidden from quite concentrated surveillance from humanity. It would have to refrain from the introduction of larger animals into the food chain as being too noticeable and also any animal too extreme for the enviroment in which it finds itself.
8. It logically follows that given the increasing intervention and surveillance of humanity into the animal world this force will not be able to continue to introduce new factors without being discovered as an anomaly while refraining from interfering with human free will.
9. It therefore logically follows that if species die due to natural factors and are replaced through supernatural intervention (!) then this process is finite.
10. It therefore follows that 'god' would have created through his intervention an unsustainable ecosystem.
11. More than this the end of the ecosystem would have been precipitated by the arrival of humans as explained above.
12. Therefore the introduction of humanity at the detemined point in history signals the end of the natural world and completely undermines the intent of the presupposed xstian god unless he plans in addition to the thousands of species already destroyed he plans to exterminate humanity. Omnibenevolent?
13 Given points 1-6 I fail to see any other option than to bow to logic and either accept evolution as the most reasonable theory at present or to deny the currently held image of the xstian god. Evolution happens - we know the process. We have proved it in principle. What we do not have is proof of divine intervention in the natural order.
14. yawn ;)
I am only 14. I dont know about metaphysical reactions with the bla blas or other stuff.
I am agnostic. I need more proof about any god before I let him control bits or all of my life (if he exists). I also beleive that our universe is just one of many and that our universe has a boundary of some type of bubbled gravitational force (holding everything within our contrainsts of our universes reality and our universes boundary) and that that boundary is expanding. The size of our universe, from my knowledge, is not even measuralble so it is either very very small compared to everything else or vastly huge or just average universe size. Despite all of this compared to us it is vastly huge so I believe that there must be something else out there in our universe and definitely in the multiverse of all the infinite universes that exist. (phew).
Evolution, I understand but as I have already said I cant give it quotes or amazing back ups e.t.c as I am not clever enough (i am only 14!). Anyway, I believe in evolution so on other possible worlds life may exist. Maybe not intelligent on all worlds but some sort of life on some. But what most people seem to forget is that on other worlds, that we have not found, anything could be possible. In the case of some fictional books it has infact broadened the scale of what is possible. e.g. from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: The Hooloovoo, an intelligent shade of the colour blue that could only be seen by being refracted through a prism. That in my opinion is possible under other frames of reality in other universal boundaries but maybe not ours. Anything is possible just not here.So my answer is that God maybe another alien from another universe with frames of reality allowing Him to create our frames of reality. That alien races also exist but dont follow the same reality courses as us so therefore they dont need a god and that we just dont know whether we have a god or not.
�For nation will rise against nation,
and kingdom against kingdom.
And there will be famines, pestilences,
and earthquakes in various places."
This has been happening since the year .dot!
In my own honest opinion.. the bible was written as a form of control. Back in the old days people were very Superstitious and/or stupid. What better way to convince the mob to behave than to teach them from a young age that unless they lead a "good and wholesome" life folowing the eddicts of the bible (don't kill... don't steal... dont cop off with the neighbours wife... don't eat everyones food etc etc in basic terms. All these are socially preferrable right?) that they would go straight to hell and be rended limb from limb for eternity. Sounds pretty convincing to me! Only in the last century or two have we begun to open our minds to other ideas/throries in the western world. Anyone who has read the bible knows that it is flawed.. and even if from a divine source.. it has been written..re-written and edited by Man. We are corrupt, hence the bible is unreliable.. as is the Koran etc etc etc...
We should all convert to Rastafarianism, smoke a fat joint and stop worrying about this sort of $hit :D
***
Maybe those are two of the best posts I have read on this thread, lol. I shall cut out and keep. Superpigeon, you are very wise beyond your years.
If people have faith in God and this gives them hope and light, I do not think that the humanist/atheist world is therefore devoid of hope and light. In fact, I take great consolation from the type of things you say (intelligent shade of blue). Just look at the basics of quantum mechanics, or theories of the very very start of the universe....extremely strange indeed!
If anyone tells you 'get a grip, get common sense, get your head out of the clouds', you know for sure they are in the total cloud cuckoo land that is 'normality' or have gone under with the 'anaesthetic of familiarity' (Dawkins). Reality is very very weird indeed.
thanks for those interesting posts. my only major criticism would be towards the_ren, who mentions joints but refuses to pass them around. Tch.
SuperPigeon - you'll make an excellent philosopher, although I would think being a scientist would drive you mad :-) (Having to back up theories with evidence, dealing with reality - none of that nonsense for you!!) We could I suppose, just throw out all of the evidence, and hypothosise about the universe, other universes, and a load of other things which may or may not exist. We could write some mega scripts for Star Trek, but I don't think we'd be much wiser at the end of it!
theren_911 - I look forward to some examples of how you know that the Bible has been "re-written and edited by man". Why would anyone need the Bible as a control mechanism? "Touch my wife and I'll beat your head in some night when you're sleeping" would probably be every bit as effective as "Touch my wife and you'll be punished in the next life (which I've just invented to scare you)". What do you mean by "we are corrupt" - and if we are, dosn't that support the Bible rather than contradict it?
I agree and good point from lizbang. We dont fully know if aliens know about God. They might know more than us. They might not know about God, but we do. That quite hard to think about.
Aliens could of been created after God finished making the earth and animals, tho God not making the aliens. The aliens could of been made from the movement of the universe and living things.
pastafarianism will answer all your questions and doubts ----
http://www.venganza.org/
blessed be his noodly appendage.........
http://www.venganza.org/
blessed be his noodly appendage.........
Latest Posts
Instead Of Crowing About The Win.......
Politics10 mins ago
Confirmation Of A's And I's Please
Crosswords13 mins ago
