What if? (religious reaction to extraterrestrial life)

Yes. That would probably disprove evolution. It certainly would require a major new theory if bears regularly gave rise to gorillas. Well, consider what the theory says. It says that, since genotype affects phenotype, and environment selects phenotypes, then an organism's genome will tend to change in response to environment. You could disprove that by observing that genotype has no relation to phenotype, or that natural selection doesn't ever happen, or that organisms don't pass on genes to their offspring, or any number of other observations.Don't mistake a theory that hasn't been falsified yet for one that isn't falsifiable. There are conceiveable situations that could prove evolution false. It's just that none of them ever occur. Totally dissimilar. No shared genes whatsoever. That would disprove evolution.

PaulK
"A bear giving birth to a gorilla - assuming it was entirely natural rather than a gorilla embryo being implanted in a bear - would disprove evolutionary theory."Crashfrog
"Yes. That would probably disprove evolution. It certainly would require a major new theory if bears regularly gave rise to gorillas."Lam
"Actually, I think if a bear give birth to some weird creature whose genetic makeup is composed of a completely different genetic language than the bear's, it would totally send all scientists to the nut houses. When I say different genetic language, I'm talking about different types of bases than thymine, cytosine, adenine, and guanine."So Lam...does that mean...No?
So you disagree with PaulK and Crash, since a Gorilla WOULD carry the same bases. I'm not saying you HAVE to agree with them I just want to highlight it.Mr.Munroe
I'm a bit confused by your statement and HEY maybe you're a bit confused with mine. It happens
But if you mean to say that I'm changing the subject, then you're right, I did. Ooops, that was not my intention, sorry.AnywaysI think I can safely say that for all the questions asked the answer would be, nothing would happen. Since God would be the reason for all the occurrences. Which is not too different from Crash's position that if bears gave birth to gorillas, "It certainly would require a major new theory..." Notice, that even IF such a thing did happen and disprove evolution, the idea of a Creator being behind the phenomena would NOT be the first thought or conclusion but rather the idea that a "new" theory is required instead. Which is why I was insinuating that it "wouldn't" disprove evolution.

I think it would disprove the current theory of evolution. It would not disprove that evolution has happened but it would show that our explanationf or it is futzed badly.You seem to think that we should then jump to "god-did-it". Disproving evolution does not prove God in anyway. It isn't possible to prove or disprove God.When we found that Newton was wrong that didn't prove anything about God did it? Nope, we just needed another explanation.If you want to prove God you don't do it by disproving anything else. You need your own theory with testable predictions.If you want the idea of a Crator considered you'll have to say what you'd expect to see. So far it's always been "just what the current scientific theory says". Since invoking deities has proven to be a bad explanation for things so many times before would be legitimately to try it too quickly again.It didn't work for the sun, lightening, volcanoes, disease, mental illnes or the nature of living things on earth. Why be too quick to try it again?

Right, because that's how science works - we propose natural explanations for natural phenomenon. That's the scientific methodology, and that's what scientists do when observation contradicts their models - they make new, better models. Evolution is not the position that God didn't create organisms. It's the position that the diversity of life on earth is the result of random mutation and natural selection.A bear giving rise to a gorilla in one generation disproves that. It doesn't disprove that natural explanations can't account for natural phenomenon, and it certainly doesn't prove that the God of the Bible exists.If you want God to be included in a scientific theory, then you're going to have to prove that God exists and is avaliable to scientific examination. Otherwise no scientific model can ever be expected to take God into account.

Well I'm not necessarily saying that to reject, disprove etc. evolution should or would cause anyone to conclude that God exists. I'm saying that the "idea" the "thought" of it being a "possibility" would be discarded as the "reason".It goes something like this. We'd all agree that blind people can't see, right? Right? I'm not talking about grandpa Jimmy is "going" blind, I'm talking about those born with it, whose mechanism has a malfunction which makes his eyes basically useless for seeing. Here's the question, How do you go about describing color to a blind person? How do you make them understand what color looks like? How can they recognize the color hues of orange, red and deep purple from a sunset? Kinda hard to do aint it? All the blind people have to base their belief that color even exists is by the testimony of so many others talking about it. I say belief because there's no real way that they can know it really does exist. But say for a very brief moment they woke up one day and saw a rainbow, would they know what they saw?Crash you made an interesting point, "If you want God to be included in a scientific theory, then you're going to have to prove that God exists and is avaliable to scientific examination." I think that's a fair position because it insinuates that if this God does exist he lies beyond any scientific examination because "IF" you want God to be included THEN you have to prove He exists and is available to scientific examination. Like my color analogy if you replace the word God with color as if a blind person were making the statement you'll understand where I'm coming from. Because I'd agree that God would be in the realm of "belief" not the evolutionary "theory".Now I'm not here trying to convince anyone of anything. Believe what you want, I'm just one bringing up some issues and questions I have about evolution.[This message has been edited by Milagros, 04-03-2004]

C. Munroe question:
______________________________________________________________________
1) Contact was made with an extraterrestial civilization?
______________________________________________________________________As a creo I would say this would exacerbate the atheo - creo debate.
ET's would probably be more in the dark about God because the Bible teaches that Adamkind is His master creation and science tells us that the Earth is more or less in the center of the universe. ET's want to know too - that is the point.______________________________________________________________________
2) A life form was discovered on Mars?
______________________________________________________________________Then it would be the product of ID ______________________________________________________________________
3) Science is able to create a crude form of life in the laboratory?
______________________________________________________________________The Bible indicates that God will have to shorten the time at the "end" to prevent man from destroying himself. This indicates astronomic advancement in the hands of evil sinners AKA mankind in general. A laboratory life form doesn't disturb me a bit.______________________________________________________________________
4) Medical science discovers a means of extending human life
indefinitely?
______________________________________________________________________The Bible says God originally created us to live eternally - this would be congruent with number 4.

I think there is a high probability that we will find life in the solar system.I think it is near certain that we will someday find life outside our solar system.The really interesting thing will be finding out if it is based on the same underlying rules as life here.So far we have been limited because there is only one form of life to study. But suppose we find life based on a whole new set of rules, maybe lefthanded, or based on something other than carbon, or showing something entirely different than our twofold forms? Suppose instead of a two part DNA there is some other basic structure?Now that would be interesting.My personal belief is that so far, all of the basic laws we have been able to descern seem to be universal. Gravity behaves about the same anywhere if the conditions are the same. Light seems to be the same everywhere. Mass and particles seem to behave the same under the same conditions everywhere. So I expect that we will find that the same basic underlying rules for life will also be the same everywhere.But it sure would be great if I was wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Of course they would be in the dark about your God. They would either have their own or have advanced beyond the "need" for religion. Don't you think its a little arrogant especially after they are discover to still think you are the center of the universe and that Human kind is the most perfect life?This message has been edited by DC85, 05-21-2004 03:32 PM

---

My site The Atheist BibleMy New Debate Fourms!

oops double post.....This message has been edited by DC85, 05-21-2004 07:41 AM

---

My site The Atheist BibleMy New Debate Fourms!

Though the probability of a billion or so mutations simultaneously turning out gorilla-like in a bear zygote is virtually impossible, it wouldn't change the physical laws that determine the science of genetics. Evolution isn't even involved because it is the study of populations. If you flipped a billion heads in a row, you might want to re-evaluate your religious stance, or buy a lotto ticket, but it wouldn't change the mathematics of probability.If you change the "genetic language" as Lam mentions, though, we are no longer talking about mutation probabilities. You would need to come up with entirely new chemical and genetic mechanisms to explain the transistion from old complex entity to new complex entity. Or, give up and go with the God theory, like we did before modern science.

quote:

---

The Bible says God originally created us to live eternally - this would be congruent with number 4.

---

So, you're saying that you'd agree with medical science doing God's work for him? That puts you on thin ice in terms of medical ethics. For example, if you believe that God gives and takes human life at will, the same principle would lead you to condone such action in the field of medicine.I don't know the scriptural basis for teaching that the human body was meant to physically last forever. I have heard it inferred from the supposed shortening of the human lifespan, but it is not explicit at all - and going from a few hundred to 100+, less than a factor of ten, is not the same as going from infinity to zero. It's a small quantitative difference when a radical qualitative difference is claimed. Is there actually a chapter and verse where we are told that eternal life on earth was the original intent? Also, if it was the original plan of an omniscient, omnipotent deity, how could it fail to come about?

DC85:Just because you do not have relationship with God does not mean that He does not exist. It just means that thus far you have rejected His overtures because of a psychological state of mind that refuses to WANT a Boss.

Zeph quote:
______________________________________________________________________
So, you're saying that you'd agree with medical science doing God's work for him?
______________________________________________________________________Absolutely not !I am vehemently against all ghoulish tinkering. I only tried to communicate that it wouldn't effect my beliefs about God IF these attempts are "successfull".Medicine can extend life; as you know they can keep a person alive, albeit, as a vegetable. When is a person dead ? The courts argue about this constantly.The Bible says in Lev. 17:11 "the life of the soul resides in the blood". Pour out the blood and you are dead.Dr. Scott says Henry Drummond best defined life "the capacity to relate to ones environment".Mankind lost the ability to relate to the source of life (God) WHEN God expelled them from the Garden for sinning.Prior to the expulsion, Adamkind was created to live eternally, this is drawn from the Genesis text directly AND by interpretation.Adam/Eve failed by misusing their freedom and eating from the no no tree. God, arbitrarily placed everyone born after Adam/Eve in this state of separation/original sin. Unfair ? The Bible NEVER debates the fairness of it - it just declares what God did. However, Jesus, in the Book of Romans is called the Second Adam, get right with Him and ALL curses are null and void and God promises "newness of life".Zeph quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Also, if it was the original plan of an omniscient, omnipotent deity, how could it fail to come about?
______________________________________________________________________IF free will exists (and it certainly does) then how could God be PERFECTLY omniscient ?God is omnipotent with one exception: He cannot create the one thing He wants: Which is for free will beings who have the opportunity to do otherwise to choose to trust what He says. (right use of freedom)Whether a free will being trusts what He says or not is the ONLY exception to His omniscience. This exception is derived from Genesis 22 when God tells Abraham "Now I know thou fearest Me". Until that moment God did not know if 120 year old Abraham feared Him. Fear is a synonym for trust/love.God's intended plan of eternal life for Adam and his descendants failed when Adam/Eve chose to misuse their free will and listen to the devil. God intends to fill the vacancy left by the fallen Lucifer with free will beings that choose to trust what He says when they have the freedom to do otherwise.God knows everything except what a person will do given the chance to trust Him or not. He can predict what you will do but He doesn't know for SURE until you do what you do. He is ready in either scenario but He doesn't know for sure because man has the ability to change his mind at will.Without trust freely given, love of, cannot be determined. The only way to love an invisible God is to do what He says pleases Him, and Hebrews 11:6 tells us plainly what that is.

quote:

---

Just because you do not have relationship with God does not mean that He does not exist. It just means that thus far you have rejected His overtures because of a psychological state of mind that refuses to WANT a Boss.

---

Just because you think you have a relationship with a diety, it doesn't mean that the diety exists. It just means that you have a psychological need to WANT a Boss. Both of these views are equal in my judgement, and it is rude to expect other people to take your opinion over their own emotions. People disbelieve in dieties for personal reasons, not the lack of them.Added in edit: Just noticed how far off topic I just went. Feel free to reply Willow, I will leave it alone from then on.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 05-21-2004 02:51 PM

I can agree with your point. It makes sense too.