What if? (religious reaction to extraterrestrial life)

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?

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?

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.

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.

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]