Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What if? (religious reaction to extraterrestrial life)
Charles Munroe
Member (Idle past 3634 days)
Posts: 40
From: Simi Valley, CA USA
Joined: 09-07-2003


Message 1 of 65 (96134)
03-30-2004 8:40 PM


Modern science is making remarkable progress in may areas. The question is what would be the reaction of the religious community if any of the following were to happen :
1) Contact was made with an extraterrestial civilization?
2) A life form was discovered on Mars?
3) Science is able to create a crude form of life in the laboratory?
4) Medical science discovers a means of extending hman life
indefinitely?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Prinny Squad!, posted 03-30-2004 9:22 PM Charles Munroe has not replied
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 03-30-2004 9:58 PM Charles Munroe has not replied
 Message 4 by berberry, posted 03-30-2004 10:11 PM Charles Munroe has not replied
 Message 6 by Biophysicist, posted 04-01-2004 9:47 PM Charles Munroe has not replied
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-21-2004 12:19 AM Charles Munroe has not replied

  
Prinny Squad!
Inactive Junior Member


Message 2 of 65 (96165)
03-30-2004 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Charles Munroe
03-30-2004 8:40 PM


About creating life, I read this awhile ago. Dont know if it counts, but its still intriguing.
http://www.usatoday.com/...ce/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Charles Munroe, posted 03-30-2004 8:40 PM Charles Munroe has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 65 (96178)
03-30-2004 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Charles Munroe
03-30-2004 8:40 PM


2) A life form was discovered on Mars?
I think they'd adamantly claim that it was contamination from one of our probes.
3) Science is able to create a crude form of life in the laboratory?
They'd claim that was proof that it took intelligence to create life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Charles Munroe, posted 03-30-2004 8:40 PM Charles Munroe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 04-01-2004 10:48 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 39 by Myron, posted 08-18-2004 9:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 65 (96182)
03-30-2004 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Charles Munroe
03-30-2004 8:40 PM


They'd find some obscure passage, re-interpret it and say that the bible has told us about this all along, we just weren't listening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Charles Munroe, posted 03-30-2004 8:40 PM Charles Munroe has not replied

  
Stipes
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 65 (96536)
04-01-2004 1:24 AM


this is sweet
I saw something on the discovery channel that scientists are able to extend the lifetime of basic organisms by threefold. They do this by "blocking" the freeradicals of aerobic respiration. They are currently trying to get it passed so they can start administering this to humans, but obviously it could be a touchy issue.
Just thought I would share that.
I honestly think though that people would actually like the idea of living longer. I mean extending the lifetime of an organism...that isn't breaking any ethic lines....right?

  
Biophysicist
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 65 (96782)
04-01-2004 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Charles Munroe
03-30-2004 8:40 PM


If you could extend the life of an orgasm indefinitely, I don't think anyone would object. Oh, wait, sorry... just found my glasses...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Charles Munroe, posted 03-30-2004 8:40 PM Charles Munroe has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 7 of 65 (96822)
04-01-2004 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
03-30-2004 9:58 PM


quote:
I think they'd adamantly claim that it was contamination from one of our probes.
I disagree. Nothing could survive the vacuum and coldness of space that long to get to Mars. The only thing that comes close to that is some species of cocroaches. And even then, they could only survive in space for a very short time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 03-30-2004 9:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 10:56 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 65 (96826)
04-01-2004 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by coffee_addict
04-01-2004 10:48 PM


Nothing could survive the vacuum and coldness of space that long to get to Mars.
Tardigrades could, I think. If what they say about them is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 04-01-2004 10:48 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 65 (96837)
04-01-2004 11:10 PM


1) Contact was made with an extraterrestial civilization?
2) A life form was discovered on Mars?
3) Science is able to create a crude form of life in the laboratory?
4) Medical science discovers a means of extending hman life
indefinitely?
Interesting questions. Although I'm curious as to why THOSE questions.
1)Are you saying that if an extraterrestrial civilization is NEVER found this "weakens" the evolutionist position?
2)If life was NOT discovered on Mars, even microbial life, does this "weaken" the evolutionist position as well?
3)If science "Isn't" able to create "any" life does that also "weaken" the evolutionist position?
4)Lastly,If medical science "cannot" figure how to extend human life does that also "weaken" the evolutionist position? I'll add to this, does the fact that we haven't evolved past a certain amount of years of life (that is there is no species we know of that can live longer than say 100 years on "average")"weaken" the evolutionist position?
If the answer is no then I have to ask what "would" weaken the evolutionist position?

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 11:14 PM Milagros has replied
 Message 14 by Charles Munroe, posted 04-02-2004 1:23 AM Milagros has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 65 (96839)
04-01-2004 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Milagros
04-01-2004 11:10 PM


If the answer is no then I have to ask what "would" weaken the evolutionist position?
The discovery that the offspring of organisms bear no similarity to their parents genetically. That would more or less disprove evolution, I think...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Milagros, posted 04-01-2004 11:10 PM Milagros has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Milagros, posted 04-01-2004 11:56 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 65 (96873)
04-01-2004 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
04-01-2004 11:14 PM


You so crazy...
You're going to tell me that if the offspring of a bear was a gorilla that'll disprove evolution? You really think so? Think about it crash, is there really anything that can disprove evolution? Any "one" thing?
The problem with the bear giving birth to a gorilla, as ridiculous as that is, is that the gorilla and bear "still" bear some similarity genetically. So how "un-similar" are we talking about here? A bear giving birth to a Gungin?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2004 11:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 04-02-2004 12:04 AM Milagros has replied
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2004 1:27 AM Milagros has not replied
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 04-02-2004 2:43 AM Milagros has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 12 of 65 (96878)
04-02-2004 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Milagros
04-01-2004 11:56 PM


quote:
So how "un-similar" are we talking about here? A bear giving birth to a Gungin?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Milagros, posted 04-01-2004 11:56 PM Milagros has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Milagros, posted 04-02-2004 12:44 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Milagros
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 65 (96904)
04-02-2004 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by coffee_addict
04-02-2004 12:04 AM


quote:
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.
EXACTLY, my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 04-02-2004 12:04 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Charles Munroe
Member (Idle past 3634 days)
Posts: 40
From: Simi Valley, CA USA
Joined: 09-07-2003


Message 14 of 65 (96926)
04-02-2004 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Milagros
04-01-2004 11:10 PM


Eisegesis?
Milagro I believe you are engaging in eisegesis. The questions all revolve around 'what would the Creationsts reactions be'. The failure of any of these questions being resooved would have no effect on either Creationism or Evolutionary thought. Only if they came to pass would they potentially have an impact on Creationism negatively and Evolution positively.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Milagros, posted 04-01-2004 11:10 PM Milagros has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 15 of 65 (96933)
04-02-2004 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Milagros
04-01-2004 11:56 PM


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.
It is not just the degree of difference - although that in itself would be a major problem - it is the fact that under current theory it is massively unlikely that the offspring would be a classified as an already existing species.
In all we can say that it is effectively impossible under the current theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Milagros, posted 04-01-2004 11:56 PM Milagros has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024