life on other planets?

Alunyel · #41 3rd October 2009, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Even 9000 posts is far too many to claim I've never admitted a mistake.

The quantity of posts you've made is irrelevant in determining that.

For all I know, 5000 of those posts could be in the "What are you listening to." thread.

What exactly have you changed your mind about?

DoubtingJesus · #42 3rd October 2009, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by Boss_BlueAngels

Intersting conversation going on here. I really don't know what to believe about their being (any) life on other planets. But the thing that really gets me is what if we DID know one way or another? How would life here change if it was somehow conclusively proven that there was NO life anyplace else in the universe? Or vise versa, what if we knew there was life all over the universe?

It could never be proven that life doesn't exist anywhere else in the universe, because we could never explore everywhere in the universe (or other universes for that matter). Even if we were the only life in the universe it would only suggest that life is rare, but it would in no way imply that there is a god.

On the other hand, if life were found elsewhere it would be a major discovery. We would be able to examine the products of independent evolutionary history which would answer questions like 'is DNA the only hereditary material?', 'are all life forms carbon based?' etc. Such a discovery would have the potential to develop new biotechnology, and may profoundly change the future of technology.

Wiccan_Child · #43 3rd October 2009, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Pretty good evidence for the existence of God = massive repercussions?

Yes. It's arguably the only thing of more significance than the discovery of alien life itself.

DoubtingJesus · #44 3rd October 2009, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child

Actually, evolution is entirely about adaptive variation. That organisms die is a consequence of a harsh environment; evolution doesn't require that organisms die, but, since they do, it adapts around this inevitable fact.

Just saying .

Actually, evolution does require organisms to die, with natural selection favoring short term survival traits. If parents live too long, it may reduce the resources available to it's offspring, but on the other hand, they need to be around long enough to produce enough surviving offspring or to raise offspring.

Also, adaptations can be rather 'cruel' as well, for example (I got this example from David Attenborough) there is a worm in South Africa which can only live by burrowing into human eyes and causing blindness to the individual.

Wiccan_Child · #45 4th October 2009, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by DoubtingJesus

Actually, evolution does require organisms to die, with natural selection favoring short term survival traits. If parents live too long, it may reduce the resources available to it's offspring, but on the other hand, they need to be around long enough to produce enough surviving offspring or to raise offspring.

Not really. There's a species of jellyfish that is effectively immortal: it reverts back to its sexually immature state and grows up all over again.

Evolution just requires allele variation in environmental attrition. Death is certainly useful for a species, as resources are limited. But this needn't be the case: if resources are effectively (or even actually) infinite, then a population reproduce indefinitely with no loss of members.

Originally Posted by DoubtingJesus

Also, adaptations can be rather 'cruel' as well, for example (I got this example from David Attenborough) there is a worm in South Africa which can only live by burrowing into human eyes and causing blindness to the individual.

True, but again, it needn't be cruel. It just so happens to be.

SimplyNothing · #46 4th October 2009, 02:02 PM

Actually, evolution is entirely about adaptive variation. That organisms die is a consequence of a harsh environment; evolution doesn't require that organisms die, but, since they do, it adapts around this inevitable fact.

Just saying .

Alright, so death is just a useful tool for this process.

Yo dat.

Still sounds kinda cruel.

Also, adaptations can be rather 'cruel' as well, for example (I got this example from David Attenborough) there is a worm in South Africa which can only live by burrowing into human eyes and causing blindness to the individual.

Wow that's gnarly. Definiitely not going to South Africa

Pretty good evidence for the existence of God = massive repercussions?

Undeniable factual evidence that God exists, of any sort, would likely dramatically alter the course of human history. Actually no, not likely... it would.

Yes. It's arguably the only thing of more significance than the discovery of alien life itself.

^

DoubtingJesus · #47 5th October 2009, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child

Not really. There's a species of jellyfish that is effectively immortal: it reverts back to its sexually immature state and grows up all over again.

Evolution just requires allele variation in environmental attrition. Death is certainly useful for a species, as resources are limited. But this needn't be the case: if resources are effectively (or even actually) infinite, then a population reproduce indefinitely with no loss of members.

I agree that in a theoretical environment containing no predators and unlimited resources and space, then it is possible that death may not be necessary. But in the real world, where resources are limited, it plays a dominant role in the lifespans of organisms over long time periods.

The jellyfish is an interesting example, but potential immortality is not the same as actual immortality.

Doveaman · #48 8th October 2009, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by Merlin

Many say life on other planets would be a problem for Christians.
I don't think so.
I'd be disappointed to find our Lord didn't make life elsewhere.

OTOH, it's a must for evolutionists.
There must be life elsewhere for them.

Thoughts?

This is a question I sometimes ponder.

If there is life on other planets, on how many planets is their life...two planets, two thousand planets, two trillion planets?

And are the life-forms on these planets fallen beings as we are, or are they sinless?

If they are fallen beings on these planets, did Christ have to die to redeem them, too, as He did for us?

If He did, how many planets did He have to die to redeem...two planets, two thousand planets, two trillion planets?

Was Christ crucified two trillion times?

LifeToTheFullest! · #49 9th October 2009, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Doveaman

This is a question I sometimes ponder.

If there is life on other planets, on how many planets is their life...two planets, two thousand planets, two trillion planets?

And are the life-forms on these planets fallen beings as we are, or are they sinless?

If they are fallen beings on these planets, did Christ have to die to redeem them, too, as He did for us?

If He did, how many planets did He have to die to redeem...two planets, two thousand planets, two trillion planets?

Was Christ crucified two trillion times?

I propose no.

lukeman · #50 16th October 2009, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Merlin

Many say life on other planets would be a problem for Christians.
I don't think so.
I'd be disappointed to find our Lord didn't make life elsewhere.

OTOH, it's a must for evolutionists.
There must be life elsewhere for them.

Thoughts?

i doubt it.
i also hope not.