if other Life is Discovered wouldn't this Pose a problem?

That is unfair, Schrafinator, no doubt Defender had solid (to him) reasons for his beliefs; thus it is entirely rational to believe that anything that would contradict those beliefs is false. In other words, evidence for any given thing is evidence against any other given thing that contradicts the first thing.We on the other hand, have no evidence for life on other planets other than vague probabilistic arguments.

yes But finding life one day would be extremely Important to things like this.
Think about it if the Universe is booming with life it might mean the life isn't some magical thing. it just happens and isn't anything amazing. I know its hard to think that way for alot people. But it could very well be true..... Now however I do have some problem with this... I think if life on Other planets is extremely similar to earth to me that would point to some kind of problem........ I mean creatures we commonly picture Space aliens as are Human looking. I doubt life would take such a similar course commonly.... I mean like the only reason we have 4 limbs is Because some ancestor long ago happened to have 4 fins....

quote:

---

The Bible does indicate that Earth is the centre of the universe, at least in matters of God's purpose,

---

OK, I can accept that interpretation, although it clearly departs from the authors' literal meaning.

quote:

---

and possibly physically also. (No, I'm a heliocentrist! Really!)

---

So, if you are a heliocentrist, do you ackowledge that the Bible is in error about the Earth being the center of the solar system?

quote:

---

I can also infer from the Bible that aliens do not exist,

---

Uh, what parts of the bible indicate anything about space aliens or our lack thereof?

quote:

---

and science is also involved, because there is no scientific basis for aliens' existence.

---

I don't think you want to use that argument.There is actually a scientific basis for the existence of other life in the Universe. There just isn't any scientific evidence.However, there is no scientific evidence nor bases for God, either, so you can't really have it both ways.

quote:

---

The chances against evolution producing the multitude of efficient creatures on this earth alone are impossible.

---

The thing is, many forms of life are very inefficient.Take pandas, for example. Why would a divinely-designed large creature with dentition obviously meant for an omniverous diet eat nothing but bamboo? Since bamboo is extremely poor in terms of nutrients and calories, the panda needs to eat a HUGE amount of it every day.Why would God design a creature like this?For that matter , why would God design humans with crossover air and food pipes in our throats, making it very easy for us to choke on food or small objects?If God is all-powerful and designed every creature, he/she certanly seems to be a poor designer.

quote:

---

Agent Uranium believes it is possible, but he does see the way that similar evolution producing all these works of art on other worlds as well, in the same cosmic timeframe as that in which we exist, would raise further issues with probability.

---

No. The more planets we have, the more likely it is that life could occur on one of them, not less likely.More chances to happen, you know.

quote:

---

That is unfair, Schrafinator, no doubt Defender had solid (to him) reasons for his beliefs; thus it is entirely rational to believe that anything that would contradict those beliefs is false.

---

No, it is not rational for him to believe "for his own reasons" if those reasons contradict logic and/or contrary evidence.

'If God is all-powerful and designed every creature, he/she certanly seems to be a poor designer.'Could you do as good a design ?If it aint broke dont fix it. Just look at the fantastic earth (photos at space.com) I don't care what anyone says, the earth and all the things therein are wonderfully brilliant! I dont think any human will ever come close in brilliant design!

I'm not saying his belief in Biblical literalism is rational, I'm saying it would be irrational to believe in biblical literalism and believe in something that contradicts that literalism.On the specific issue of alien life: there is no contradiction with logic, or evidence - at least not within the framework believed by Defender.

quote:

---

So, if you are a heliocentrist, do you ackowledge that the Bible is in error about the Earth being the center of the solar system?

---

I have not seen such a claim in the Bible.

quote:

---

Uh, what parts of the bible indicate anything about space aliens or our lack thereof?

---

(Steels self)Well, it's because of humans' original sin that evil and death exist in the world today. And the Bible says "the whole creation groans and labours" (Romans 8:22). So all of creation is cursed, yet why would any aliens be part of it if they didn't have anything to do with the rebellion? If they are sinful, Jesus became a human - not an alien - and died only once on the Cross to save humanity from condemnation. Thus aliens would not be included. The non-inclusion of any aliens in this salvation, meaning that they'd be doomed, indicates that there aren't any. This is why the Bible excludes the possibility of aliens.

quote:

---

No. The more planets we have, the more likely it is that life could occur on one of them, not less likely.

​

More chances to happen, you know.

---

Statistically the chances are not good of there even being a life-supporting planet in the first place. There are certain parameters required to support life - galaxy size, location, star type, size, location, star luminosity change relative to speciation, carbonate producing creatures, methanogens, Earth's distance from the sun, planetary gravity... etc. I could list them all if you want or just give you the source: Muncaster, Ralph. A Skeptic's Search for God. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002.Anyway, estimated probabilities calculated together give a chance of 10 raised to the negative 166th power of a life-supporting planet like Earth forming at random. (Although we're looking for another besides Earth.) The estimated total possible number of planets in the universe is only 10 to the 22nd power. (Indeed, I believe the entire estimated number of electrons in the observable universe is 10 raised to the eightysomething power...) With all that one would have enough problems explaining Earth, much less another fertile world.

Please list them all.I find all supposedly statistical descriptions of life-supporting planets rather nonsensical. We have no where near enough data to calculate such a probability, all we know is that our solar system has one life bearing planet, and two that almost are (Venus is too close to the sun, Mars is too small) - that implies to me that the probability of a life supporting planet is good.I believe Asimov calculated that there should be something like 10,000 space age aliens in our galaxy alone, using a clearly more generous set of figures.

"and two that almost are (Venus is too close to the sun, Mars is too small). . ."Almost are? A planet either has life or it doesn't. There's no middle ground. Also, even if evolution is true, there would be a lot more factors than just the distance from the sun and the size of the planet. I'm sure Venus' atmosphere of sulfur that is at times 800 degrees Fahrenheit would pose a problem. . . .

While I am certainly not an expert, I think that statements similar to these place to many restrictions on what forms life might take. If there is life out there, who says that it has to be anything like us (besides those requirements that would make it 'life')?------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[quote]'If God is all-powerful and designed every creature, he/she certanly seems to be a poor designer.'[quote]

quote:

---

Could you do as good a design ?

---

Irrelevant.I'm not claiming to have designed all life.You, on the other hand, claim that an all-powerful god did design all life.I'm simply pointing out that an all-powerful god could have done a much better job.When one actually examines how the creatures of this Earth are constructed, what one actually begins to notice rather quickly that they are pretty much designed in a "good enough" fashion. Structures once used for one thing are now used for another, often with adaptations.None of them are perfectly adapted in every single way. Some of them have some problems, such as the weakness of human knees and human lower backs. Neither one is adequate for upright locomotion nor weight bearing. However, most humans get along OK; the construction is "good enough", but not great, not ideal.

quote:

---

If it aint broke dont fix it.

---

Crossover air and food pipes ARE, in a sense, "broke".Why wouldn't God have designed us, his most important creation, with separate air and food pipes, so it would be much less likely to choke to death?Why did God design human skulls with a sharp ridge on the inside such that a not-too-hard blow in the right place causes significant brain damage?Why would God design the human knee to be so weak that even a slight blow to the side of the knee, or a slight twist of the knee, can render a person permenently injured?

quote:

---

Just look at the fantastic earth (photos at space.com)

---

Yep, I love those photos from space too. What does that have to do with the above?

quote:

---

I don't care what anyone says, the earth and all the things therein are wonderfully brilliant!

---

I think they are wonderfully brilliant, too.

quote:

---

I dont think any human will ever come close in brilliant design!

---

The question is not if a human could design anything as brilliant as life or a planet.The question is IF God is all powerful and designed everything, the why did he/she do such a poor job much of the time?

'The question is IF God is all powerful and designed everything, the why did he/she do such a poor job much of the time? 'I dont think he did do a poor job, personally I think the even lets say, the human brain, is amazing. Thats one good thing. Now think of other good things. (you seem to prefer complaints)'Yep, I love those photos from space too. What does that have to do with the above?'
'I think they are wonderfully brilliant, too.'You agree these things are brilliant but give no pointer towards God, yet you mention the bad things and point to God. No offense, but I think I can see where the problem lies.

Hi Mike, I don't think Shraf is pointing "to or away" from god. You have to remember that many here do not believe in the existance of the Christian god, any discussions concerning what god can and cannot do is strictly from a "what if" POV. Like reading a fiction thriller and poiinting out that the author made some mistakes, it doesn't mean that you believe that the characters in the book are real. Shraf is just pointing out the inconsistancies between the biblical beliefs of many Christians and the design of the human body.IF the god of the bible is correct, than the human body (and many other life forms) should be designed better, after all, god is suppose to be all powerful, all knowing, and infallible.BUT if you go by the TOE, then the designs of living things are exactly what would be expected, just good enough.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

quote:

---

I dont think he did do a poor job, personally I think the even lets say, the human brain, is amazing. Thats one good thing. Now think of other good things. (you seem to prefer complaints)

---

So you think our brain is amazing, but you have no answer to the statement that our skull design constantly endangers it?

quote:

---

'Yep, I love those photos from space too. What does that have to do with the above?'
'I think they are wonderfully brilliant, too.'

​

You agree these things are brilliant but give no pointer towards God, yet you mention the bad things and point to God. No offense, but I think I can see where the problem lies.

---

Watch the ad hominem there, buddy.Personal attacks aside, you're oversimplifying to a painful degree. Here are the two arguments you're comparing:1. The beautiful things we can see in the world do not necessarily imply the existence of a particular divine creator.
2. The sub-optimal designs in the world give us reason to doubt the existence of a perfect creator.These statements are completely consistent with one another. Rewriting both of them and managing to squeeze in the phrases "pointer to" and "point to" doesn't make their substance different. It only produces a semantic similarity that allows you to claim there is a conflict in reasoning - while it is, in fact, your sentence structure that is in conflict.Enjoy the false dichotomy while it lasts [This message has been edited by zephyr, 09-06-2003]

What are you on about, it's not an attack, it's a very simple observation. She agrees the things of space and the earth are brilliant but doesn't give God credit, yet she was quick to point out 'supposed' problems with other things in the universe, and says they are bad designs. By her logic, you can say things in the universe are brilliant but nothing to do with God, but complain about other things in the universe and say 'bad design'. Remember, she did say what have the 'brilliant things got to do with it?' Well in this case a lot to do with it.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 09-06-2003]