|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3634 days) Posts: 40 From: Simi Valley, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What if? (religious reaction to extraterrestrial life) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Charles Munroe Member (Idle past 3634 days) Posts: 40 From: Simi Valley, CA USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prinny Squad! Inactive Junior Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stipes Inactive Member |
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 |
If you could extend the life of an orgasm indefinitely, I don't think anyone would object. Oh, wait, sorry... just found my glasses...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Milagros Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Milagros Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Milagros Inactive Member |
quote: EXACTLY, my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Charles Munroe Member (Idle past 3634 days) Posts: 40 From: Simi Valley, CA USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024