News3 mins 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.
Badams
you keep coming up with this word proof. I am not trying to prove anything. I could equally say to you: disprove evolution, or prove god but i know you can't. Even if you can prove evolution is a false theory this does not prove the existence of God. Similarly, if i prove evolution to you, this does not disprove god.
I think you know the theory though:
!. We are born to a living parent this is always the case
2. other animals are also always born to a living parent many are very different from ourselves, say ohhhhh, a spider
3. in the deepest rock layers there is no sign of life, then as we move up in time, primitive life and then more complex life is found.
now, go on tell me about the gaps and how dinosaurs are made up and how the world was made in 1963 or whatever. jim
Ok. Say:
Evolution does not happen.
The bible is 'true'.
God exists.
Tell me, Clanad/Green badams: how do you reckon it all happened. When was the world created, how, and how are all the different species related to each other. Why do I seem so very similar to a chimp but very unsimilar to a fish, and yet this phenotypic similarity with chimps is matched by a relative DNA similarity to them. And how do we explain the fossils that exist of all the hominid line, between me and a chimp ancestor, all of which have been dated? Huh????????????.
Point is jimmer, theories of origins based on purely natural underpinnings can't be proven either. They are as much faith based as are those of the Creationists. The difference being that most Christians are willing to discuss their belief in the evidence presented as having a modicum of faith, whereas almost all naturalists deny any faith base for their interpretations.
You'd have to ask the scientists how they came to their conclusions... however, isn't it even a little bit curious that the debate now raging is within the scientific community? I freely admit that I don't have all the explanations, but I find, after careful examination, no discrepancies between Scriptural evidence and science. A corollary is that the Scriptures have not changed, but science has. Which takes more faith to believe? That the creation and fine-tuning of the universe point to some means by which the universe created the universe, or that we created the universe, or that God (Elohim of Hebrew Scripture)created the universe? These are our only options...
MargeB, we've been around this mulberry bush many times, haven't we? See, you assume, that you have a chimpanzee as an ancestor. Problem is, (cautiously avoiding the word proof) there exists no evidence. The evidence as interpreted by scientists, not creationists, is that there is no direct lineage. A few years ago, you may recall, an in-depth study of the mitochondrial DNA of Homo neandethalensis was accomplished. This evidence clearly indicates no linkage or parentage of Homo sapiens sapiens. This evidence is considered remarkable since the two species co-existed and always been assumed to be related. So... we have zero evidence for precedents and at least one piece of evidence elimanating a cherished belief... held by science. That, at the very least requires thoughtful consideration...
It's a fact jimmers, my view of evolution is as a creationist (old Earth variety). However, it's equally true (take my word for it) that the position gradually came into being only after a study of factual support (actually, lack thereof) for evolution and was not preceded by a belief in creationsim as described in Judaeo/Christian Scripture... some times a background in the study of Geology does that for one... entirely unintended by the venerable Professors...
jimmers - you tactfully used the red herring of "proof" to side-step the meaning of my question. You asserted that science was about obtaining reliable results through experiment. This is simply not true. So let me rephrase my question:-
"Okay - tell me one experiment which convincingly demonstrates that evolution occured!"
As I said science is as much about interpretation of observations as it is about experimentation.
Your rudimentary summary of evolutioniary "evidence" fits much better with the creationist theory of "long days" than it does with evolution. (Most species appear suddenly in the fossil record, rather than showing any sign of a gradual transition). You seem to be under the impression that I havn't examined the evidence, but have simply chosen to accept creation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've spent decades studying the various theories from the geologists, anthropologists, astronomers, biologists and just about any other branch of science you care to mention. I do not pretend to be an expert on any of these, but neither am I a complete idiot, even though from your remarks, you seem to think I am!
One thing we do agree on - you cannot prove the existance of God. (Although if you could prove evolution, it would automatically disprove the existance of God).
Actually, badams, I prefer the green color as well... it matches my socks, at least for today. I'm afraid there are many things over which we, personally, have no control. The color of our names is one of those.... the proliferation of zucchini in August (seemed the right thing to plant in April) is another. Here in small town western U.S., August is the only month in which everyone locks their cars... if one doesn't, they will find them, each morning, filled with zucchini...
Too much of a physical overlap with us an neanderthalus for their not to be a huge genetic similarity. Similarly, with chimpanzees and our co-ancestor (chimps aren't our ancestor): far too many huge physical and psychological similarities with them not to have enormous genetic overlap (93-97 percent), and too much genetic overlap not to have huge physical and psychological similarities with them.
It may not be attractive to you to have to admit that it is EXTREMELY likely that we evolved from a common ancestor with the chimp, gorilla, and orang utan, but this is by FAAAAAAAAAAR the best model we have to explain it. To say that we need 'faith' to believe it since it is not 'experimentable' like idealized models of science is to grossly misunderstand what science is about. And the alternative being offered (I notice, despite my repeated questions, that it's never fleshed out) is what? That earth was just popped into existence and we were zapped down here from nothing, and a bunch of fossils were chucked under the ground just to 'test' us?
Do you know how ridiculous this proposition sounds? Please can someone on the creationist side answer the questions I have put in my last post.
MargeB - I'd like to answer your questions, but with a 2000 character limit per post, that's not going to happen here, is it!?
All I can say in this space is that I have given consideration to all of those issues, and have found no evidence which leads me to a conclusion that evolution is a fact - in fact the opposite is true - the more I look into them, the more convinced I am that there must be a creator.
How did we get here from aliens? Did you give any consideration to the probability maths? Do you think there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?
Eh? Did I hear you say 97%? Well, latest revised DNA comparisons between humans and chimpanzees reveal the following:
One recent study compared five regions of the chimpanzee genome (encompassing 780,000 base pairs) with the corresponding regions of the human genome and found only a 95% sequence similarity when differences called �indels� (insertions/deletions) were considered in addition to substitutions. Another study found only 86.7% genetic similarity when segments of human and chimpanzee DNA (totaling 1,870,955 base pairs) were laid side by side. This study also included indels in its analysis of human and chimpanzee DNA.
As the comparisons move from single genes to larger regions of the genome, researchers are exposing substantial distinctions. Humans and chimpanzees just don�t prove as genetically similar as some once thought, existing classification schemes seems ill-conceived. (Source: Fazale Rana, Ph.D.)
What is true is that nearly 90% of similar gnetic links between humans and any other mammal, including chimps, has to do with body structure, shared by all, i.e., bilateralism, binocular vision, etc. Additionally, genetic expression is only one area of questionable similarities; A German group of microbilogists recently determined that gene expression in the brain tissue of humans differs markedly from that in chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys, whereas nearly identical gene expression occurs in the brain tissue of chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys. In contrast, gene expression in the liver and blood of chimpanzees, rhesus monkeys and humans show much similarity. According to the team�s head scientist, �Among these three tissues, it seems that the brain is really special in that humans have accelerated patterns of gene activity.�
Contd.
Contd.
Scientists from UCSD identified another important difference in brain chemistry between humans and chimps. Sugars found on the surface of tissue cells vary between the two.
Chimpanzees, great apes, monkeys and other mammals produce N-glycolylneuraminic acid (GC-neur), a sialic sugar associated with cell surfaces. Humans, however, do not produce this sugar. GC-neur serves as a binding site for certain pathogens. The absence of GC-neur makes humans immunologically distinct from great apes and other mammals.
MargeB - the similarities you describe could be equally well acounted for by the fact that there is a common designer! I've worked with some architects, and I can fairly safely predict before seeing one of their new buildings, what some of the charcteristics will be.
Since genes are what control what we and our offspring will look like, and what features we will have, why should we be surprised that creatures which look like us have similar genetic structure. Similar genes does not in any way prove common ancestory - it just accounts for similar features!
MargeB - as I've said there are not enough characters available in a post to answer your questions, but here's a comment on one. No - the earth did not just "pop out of nowhere". Neither did my garage. One day I got the founations dug. About a week later a concrete lorry filled it with 12 cubic meters of concrete. About 3 months later (when I'd got some more cash gathered up!) a bricky started to build the walls, and so it went on.
Now when the bricky started, the concrete had changed - it was a heck of a lot harder than the day we poured it. I believe the creative process of the universe was similar. God made major changes at particular stages, and in between times, allowed it to continue as he had designed it to. After I poured the concrete, I didn't do anything - I just waited. This was not leaving things to chance - this was part of the plan. So I beleive the formation of the earth in its raw state was a planned consequence of the big bang - not a random occurence. Then at a later date God made more changes and so on - just like me building my garage, but on a bigger scale.
Problem is (I keep repeating that it seems) MargeB., you're free to use any descriptive word you like, but your choice doesn't square with Mr. Darwin... and that's the problem in a nutshell. I wonder if you've read Darwin's theory? That's not a criticism, by the way, it's just that I exchange ideas with lots of different folks that believe what they've been told about his writing, but have never really read it themselves. To compound matters, they've never given much time, if any, to what Scripture says either.
I'd be more than happy to describe for you how I believe the evidence indicates how Elohim of the Old Testament accomplished what we see today. However, it did take 14.5 billion years, so, as badams intimates, we would soon lose whatever audience remains and inundate willow with e-mail notifications ad infinitum.
Suffice it to say, Scripture is not meant to be an exhaustive description of how God accomplished creation, including man, but it does give enough information, proven to be accurate in its rendering, that one can understand, how He did it. However, the writings, taken as a whole, do clearly describe in intimate detail, why He did it. The answer to that question, my friendly antagonist, looks you in the face each morning (assuming you shave or otherwise do toilette)... (and thanks for the heads up... I'll watch for the green sock vixen)...
