Created by extra-terrestrials

[Mallon]

Is that right? Then show us the quote to support the basis of your seemingly malicious and unfounded assertion -- without editing the trust of my message. Again, I challenge you to PROVED IT by providing us directly the "quote" that you claimed "I said it here".

I did. Twice. In my last reply to you, I quoted you twice contrasting natural phenomena with the work of God, as though they are somehow mutually exclusive. I even bolded the relevant lines. Not sure why you're asking me to quote you again. I made it abundantly clear the first time.

 

[Mallon]

It's funny how evolutionists like to talk so much about MACRO-evolution ("from goo to you" theory) but all they can offer as evidence are examples adaptation WITHIN a specie.

The singular of species is 'species'.

Again, facts talk, conjectures walk. Cite a clear example of a new FUNCTION (sight from sightlessness, feathers from scales, etc.) that arose out of a NEW GENETIC INFORMATION CREATED.

I'm not sure why I'm pandering to your request, since it seems nothing short of a crocodile giving birth to a mouse will convince you of the reality of macroevolution (an utterly rediculous scenario with no grounding in the theory of evolution). Regardless, if it's a "clear example of a new FUNCTION" you're looking for, then there's an excellent example to be found here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

The story tells of the evolution of a new species of lizard that, in just 30 years, evolved cecal valves and the ability to digest plant food (a new function by anyone's standards).

And since you asked, the evolution of feathers from scales is no mystery either. We're even starting to get a handle on some of the biological pathways involved. You can find an out-dated article discussing the real-time, experimental appearance of feathers from scales here:

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys,

First of all what you listed above are examples of MICRO-evolution.

Not true. I included examples of speciation which is macroevolution. I can include more if you like.

but all they can offer as evidence are examples adaptation WITHIN a specie.

Adaptation within a species is evolution. Adaptation + speciation is macro-evolution. Have you ever found a science text that says otherwise? Isn't the idea that macro-evolution is something different and unexplainable only a fantasy found in anti-evolution propaganda?

When was the last (or even first) time you ever read anything about evolution from a source that is not peddling anti-evolution? All you keep doing is repeating fantasies that no book, article or journal on science ever claims about evolution. Is it too much to ask that you actually find out what scientists actually claim for evolution before you get all hyper about stuff that is not claimed?

Well for your information, Creationism has no problems with adaptations and micro-evolution. It's this BLIND LEAP in logic that says MACRO is just an extrapolation of MICRO

What blind leap? If you are going to accuse anyone of illogic, you should be able to say what the logic is and where the fallacy is.

I expect as well that you are confusing macro-evolution with common descent. Not the same thing. Although common descent is well-supported too.

that we don't accept because 1) there is no evidence for it and 2) there are irrefutable evidence against such a notion particularly in modern genetics.

Again you are glibly repeating mantras that you have never checked out for yourself. There is plenty of evidence on both counts. Far from being irrefutable evidence against evolution, genetics is now one of the strongest supports of common descent.

This you would know if you read science instead of propaganda.

The fact is macro-evolution from simple to complex creatures requires more than beneficial mutations and natural selection, it also requires the creation of NEW genetic information.

What is genetic information? What does new information look like? Does it require new nucleotides we have never seen before? Does it require a different genetic code? Does it require more DNA arranged in novel ways?

Or is it something else altogether you have not described yet.

You cannot keep riding the information hobby horse until you define information clearly and show what is meant by "new information".

The difference between a simple and a complex creature isn't just that the latter has more genetic materials than the other, it's that complex creatures have greater amounts of genetic information than simple creatures.

So, you are agreeing that it is not a simple matter of counting base nucleotides. If two creatures have the same number of base nucleotides and one is simple but the other complex---what makes the difference other than the arrangement of the nucleotides? Is one using a different DNA coding system? Does one have more genes than the other? Does it have a different type of gene than the other?

You know a children's story and a sonnet are just different arrangements of letters of the alphabet. The sonnet can be even shorter, yet it is more complex.

How would you tell what genetic sequences are more complex?

Mutations and natural selections will not yield new genetic information.

Another mantra which has already been disproven. Nylonase IS new genetic information producing a novel function.

You might also check out the recent appearance in Richard Lenski's long-running E. coli experiment of E. coli which digest citric acid.

Again, facts talk, conjectures walk. Cite a clear example of a new FUNCTION (sight from sightlessness, feathers from scales, etc.) that arose out of a NEW GENETIC INFORMATION CREATED.

I just did. Flavobacteria which developed nylonase and cit+ E. coli.

On sight, check out the Pax 6 gene.

I believe the gene which produces the scales found on a chicken's legs is the same (or very nearly the same) as the one that produces its feathers. Why could one not be derived from the other?

Now you might suggest that if the gene that produces feathers is derived by mutation from the gene that produces scales then it does not qualify as (in your view) this is not NEW genetic information. But in that case, it stands as evidence that you can get new functions without new information.

You say facts talk. Then it is time you began acknowledging facts.

All you can do is cite supposed novel genes, but you can't cite novel functions with new information added because you say that takes time, well that's speculation, that's blind faith.

The E. coli cit+ strain is not speculation. It did take time. 35,000 generations.

 

[Jerrell]

I once gave considerate thought to this idea. That beings from somewhere created us, but then it came to me. How dumb can you be to allow the devil to get this into your mind? And now I want to ask all of you the same question. The possibility of aleins creating us is slim to none considering that they had to be created themselves; moreover, all of it rests upon the belief in the theory of evolution, the total rejection of God, and the acceptance that we are mere experiments. I would go on but i have to work...

 

[Mallon]

The possibility of aleins creating us is slim to none considering that they had to be created themselves; moreover, all of it rests upon the belief in the theory of evolution, the total rejection of God, and the acceptance that we are mere experiments. I would go on but i have to work...

I hope you will go on, because I fail to see the connection between evolution and panspermia.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I once gave considerate thought to this idea. That beings from somewhere created us, but then it came to me. How dumb can you be to allow the devil to get this into your mind? And now I want to ask all of you the same question. The possibility of aleins creating us is slim to none considering that they had to be created themselves; moreover, all of it rests upon the belief in the theory of evolution, the total rejection of God, and the acceptance that we are mere experiments. I would go on but i have to work...

What has this idea to do with the devil?

If a christian accepts the idea of aliens creating us, he probably posits that God created the aliens with full knowledge that they would create us.

Now, I agree it is useless as it merely pushes the God-explanation back a level and I don't see a point to that -- unless there were definitive proof that aliens did it and therefore posit God's creation of aliens as his mechanism to save one's faith.

 

[busterdog]

I once gave considerate thought to this idea. That beings from somewhere created us, but then it came to me. How dumb can you be to allow the devil to get this into your mind? And now I want to ask all of you the same question. The possibility of aleins creating us is slim to none considering that they had to be created themselves; moreover, all of it rests upon the belief in the theory of evolution, the total rejection of God, and the acceptance that we are mere experiments. I would go on but i have to work...

I agree. If you can read this much into the text in despite of what the plain text says, then you can read in anything you want. There has to be a limit for reading in.

Scripture goes on and on and on about who created us and how. There is far too much there to entertain aliens.

 

[Mallon]

I agree. If you can read this much into the text in despite of what the plain text says, then you can read in anything you want. There has to be a limit for reading in.

Scripture goes on and on and on about who created us and how. There is far too much there to entertain aliens.

Who said anything about reading aliens into the text?

 

[busterdog]

What has this idea to do with the devil?

A popular speculation is that alien are really demons in league with the devil.

Can we exclude that speculation as being impossible?

If not (and of course we can't), what are we doing?

Besides, God is Jehova-Raffa, Jehova-Jirah, not the god of anal probes. Even Newton from Men in Black understands that one.

 

[Tinker Grey]

A popular speculation is that alien are really demons in league with the devil.

Can we exclude that speculation as being impossible?

Why should we give such an idea any credence ... merely because it is possible?

Why should we give any more time to that idea than the idea that aliens aren't in league with the devil?

And, I would counter that that speculation is not popular. A few crack-pots in the National Inquirer, or its equivalent, doesn't define popularity.

If not (and of course we can't), what are we doing?

Besides, God is Jehova-Raffa, Jehova-Jirah, not the god of anal probes. Even Newton from Men in Black understands that one.

What if aliens are real sapient beings that God created with a real redemption plan (assuming they need one), that God created billions of years ago with a built-in plan to seed suitable planets with life?

The idea isn't inherently un-christian (even if it is an unnecessary idea) just because someone else speculates that demons might be involved.

 

[busterdog]

Why should we give such an idea any credence ... merely because it is possible?

Why should we give any more time to that idea than the idea that aliens aren't in league with the devil?

And, I would counter that that speculation is not popular. A few crack-pots in the National Inquirer, or its equivalent, doesn't define popularity.

We are saying this in the context of a discussion of aliens, right? I mean, the point is that we are comparing types of speculation?

What if aliens are real sapient beings that God created with a real redemption plan (assuming they need one), that God created billions of years ago with a built-in plan to seed suitable planets with life?

What if angels fly out of their arses? So? Its all speculation. And its all being done in a world where we are ripe for deception.

We do understand that scripture says that the entire world is going to be deceived, demonically, at some point? So, why are we speculating about things we know not of in such a context? Isn't the fact that something is speculative in the first place of some significance here?

I am not putting my chips on demonic aliens. I am simply saying that we are treating speculative ideas as serious ideas.

I cant really tell how seriously you are taking this idea, maybe that is the problem. I dont understand why this is important. The only thing that seems important to me is to avoid taking seriously matters involving 1. speculative beings; 2. speculative beings in a universe when fallen and irredeemable beings do seem to exist; 3. speculative beings in a world capable of being totally deceived; 4. speculative beings in a world where a certain God is sufficient for all of our concerns.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Jerrell said that supposing that aliens from elsewhere created us is "to allow the devil [...] into your mind."

I want to know why speculating on aliens is of the devil. There is no reason given for this so far. You said something about aliens being in league with the devil and yet there is no reason given for why anyone would believe this.

1) Your follow up to my question to Jerrell is a non sequitor. I want to know why speculating on aliens creating us is of the devil -- not whether aliens are in league with the devil. Shoot, I don't even believe we have any evidence whatsoever for aliens of any extra-solar system sort -- ergo, I don't care whether they are in league with the devil.
2) My primary assertion is that such speculation is not inherently un-christian.
3) I agree that such speculation is fairly useless.

So, why should I accept Jerrell's rhetorical question as valid? Which was, "How dumb can you be to allow the devil to get this into your mind?"

Shoot, just get Jerrell to answer "why is it dumb?"

 

[busterdog]

Jerrell said that supposing that aliens from elsewhere created us is "to allow the devil [...] into your mind."

I want to know why speculating on aliens is of the devil. There is no reason given for this so far. You said something about aliens being in league with the devil and yet there is no reason given for why anyone would believe this.

1) Your follow up to my question to Jerrell is a non sequitor. I want to know why speculating on aliens creating us is of the devil -- not whether aliens are in league with the devil. Shoot, I don't even believe we have any evidence whatsoever for aliens of any extra-solar system sort -- ergo, I don't care whether they are in league with the devil.
2) My primary assertion is that such speculation is not inherently un-christian.
3) I agree that such speculation is fairly useless.

So, why should I accept Jerrell's rhetorical question as valid? Which was, "How dumb can you be to allow the devil to get this into your mind?"

Shoot, just get Jerrell to answer "why is it dumb?"

Well, that would be actually shifting the burden of proof.

The first issue is why speculating that aliens created us is of any use to us or the notion that aliens can be "saved."

That is the first problem and it remains unresolved, if not avoided.

As for speculating that aliens is a vehicle to allow devils into your head. That is probably not helpful as speculation.

However, Jerrell is right to this extent. Scripture is chock full of admonitions against indulging in speculation.

Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

Speculation is "imagining a vain thing." Since scripture condemns wasting your time with speculation, that would appear to be "of the devil." But, I am not particularly interested in developing a demonology of aliens. Wasting time with speculation is a better gloss on the problem, since it removes the element of speculating about what these things are.

Now, the notion that aliens might be demons is not so useful as a proposition for itself. But, it does hint at the nature of what is beyond us and the reason why we are strongly cautioned not to presume we have any idea what we are dealing with in the "sprit realm" or whatever you call it.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

QED

Now, the ball is in your court.

 

[busterdog]

A little trolling:

"I, Clark C. McClelland, former ScO [Spacecraft Operator], Space Shuttle Fleet, personally observed an 8 to 9 foot tall ET on his 27 inch video monitors while on duty in the Kennedy Space Center, Launch Control Center (LCC). The ET was standing upright in the Space Shuttle Payload Bay having a discussion with TWO tethered US NASA Astronauts! I also observed on my monitors, the spacecraft of the ET as it was in a stabilized, safe orbit to the rear of the Space Shuttle main engine pods. I observed this incident for about one minute and seven seconds. Plenty of time to memorize all that I was observing. IT WAS AN ET and Alien Star Ship!"

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/70032



All of our conversations about such things remain speculation. There isn't a "belief" that is of any edification to anyone about such things.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, that would be actually shifting the burden of proof.

Well no. He asserts that it is dumb. He should explain why?

The first issue is why speculating that aliens created us is of any use to us or the notion that aliens can be "saved."

That is the first problem and it remains unresolved, if not avoided.

I agree that it is useless.

As for speculating that aliens is a vehicle to allow devils into your head. That is probably not helpful as speculation.

Agreed.

However, Jerrell is right to this extent. Scripture is chock full of admonitions against indulging in speculation.

You might be right about that, but I'll get to it in a moment.

My perception is that Jerrell was not saying that thinking about aliens is satanic because it was vain. If I had to guess, I'd say he was saying it was satanic because it is false ... and that is a different thing. How does he know it is false? How does he know it is dumb?

As to your scripture, what is it about an idea that allows us to perceive it is vain? How does one know it is vain? My grandmother-in-law thought it was vain that man would think they could fly to the moon. Surely God would put out his hand and the rocket would explode!

I would suppose that many thought that imagining atoms was a vain thing. Was it? I would suppose that many thought that imagining the theory of relativity was a vain thing. Was it?

Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

This scripture doesn't work. The NIV has it that the people are plotting in vain. The NAS has "devising a vain thing."

That psalm seems to be generally about plotting against God's order for the universe or at least for the kingdoms of this world. It has nothing to do with imagination.

Now, the notion that aliens might be demons is not so useful as a proposition for itself. But, it does hint at the nature of what is beyond us and the reason why we are strongly cautioned not to presume we have any idea what we are dealing with in the "sprit realm" or whatever you call it.

Seriously? Spirit realm? Why should any speculation about aliens have anything to do with the spirit realm? When I think of aliens, I certainly don't think of them as supernatural. Surely they would be as natural as you and me.

QED

'Fraid not.

 

[busterdog]

As to your scripture, what is it about an idea that allows us to perceive it is vain? How does one know it is vain? My grandmother-in-law thought it was vain that man would think they could fly to the moon. Surely God would put out his hand and the rocket would explode!

The technology was demonstrable with flying to the moon. With aliens, there isn't any technology or science that will tell you whether they even have a soul, if they exist, let alone that they might have engineered life. THe moon shot had some science behind it.

I would suppose that many thought that imagining atoms was a vain thing. Was it? I would suppose that many thought that imagining the theory of relativity was a vain thing. Was it?

Imaging is one thing. Comparing aliens to the creator is somthing else.

Seriously? Spirit realm? Why should any speculation about aliens have anything to do with the spirit realm? When I think of aliens, I certainly don't think of them as supernatural. Surely they would be as natural as you and me.

Well, lets make it a question then. THere is a "prince of hte power of the air". We are talking about spiritual evil in high places. What are the boundaries for such things? There is certainly much "spiritual" signficance in "high places." My point is that lots of it is beyond us and drawing boundaries is difficult. So, I would not be willing to assuming anything about the intentions of aliens.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The technology was demonstrable with flying to the moon.

Not when they imagined going to the moon it wasn't. They used their imagination to invent the technology.

With aliens, there isn't any technology or science that will tell you whether they even have a soul, if they exist, let alone that they might have engineered life.

There isn't any technology or science to tell you whether you have a soul and yet you believe it.

Comparing aliens to the creator is somthing else.

Is this what we call shifting goal posts? First it was imagining aliens, now it is comparing them.

What is it about comparing them that is wrong? We create, God creates.

We understand God through making analogies of our behavior to God's. We understand his revelation by making analogies to everyday life and thereby extract meaning.

You should note that I said that God created the aliens (see, God is still on the throne) and might have given them the purpose of seeding appropriate planets, of which we are one.

None of that speculation detracts from God.

Well, lets make it a question then. THere is a "prince of hte power of the air". We are talking about spiritual evil in high places. What are the boundaries for such things? There is certainly much "spiritual" signficance in "high places." My point is that lots of it is beyond us and drawing boundaries is difficult. So, I would not be willing to assuming anything about the intentions of aliens.

I should have thought that standard theology posits that that is the devil and his angels -- nothing about aliens. Aliens are physical, natural beings. They would be life that God created on another planet in another star system. Nothing "high" about any of that.

 

[busterdog]

Not when they imagined going to the moon it wasn't. They used their imagination to invent the technology.

Actually, they didn't at all.

Now, Werner Van Braun and people of his age did. What he did does not make everything before him useful or edifying. Most of it was an enormous waste of time, except where folks were clear that they were dealing in fairy tales.

Here, the OP is not intended to be about fairy tales, but is intended to be a serious observation about not the existence of aliens, but their position in theology. There is no Werner Van Braun here. There isn't even any MOther Goose here. The OP is about aliens serving as the actual Father God of the human race. Mother Goose is fine when we can all agree that we dealing in fairy tales. When we are not sure if it is fairy tales or theology, that is when there is a problem. So what are we doing here?

There isn't any technology or science to tell you whether you have a soul and yet you believe it.

Not relevant.

Is this what we call shifting goal posts? First it was imagining aliens, now it is comparing them.

It is just as easy not to speak of them at all. It wasnt my OP. If it is waste of time, lets delete the thread and forget about it.

What is it about comparing them that is wrong? We create, God creates.

I think the question speaks for itself. Jesus loves us. Saddam loved his soninlaw before he tortured him to death.

We understand God through making analogies of our behavior to God's. We understand his revelation by making analogies to everyday life and thereby extract meaning.

But just because an analogy can be made doesnt mean it isnt more deceptive than helpful.

You should note that I said that God created the aliens (see, God is still on the throne) and might have given them the purpose of seeding appropriate planets, of which we are one.

He created satan too. There is very little description of satan. Its a subject we largely avoid because we arent competent to deal with much of it. That is the point. Can satan repent and be saved? Having no idea how to answer that question, how can we possibly do more than speculate about aliens? If we are just calling it speculation where we really have no idea, then the OP makes some sense.

None of that speculation detracts from God.

When it is offered as reasonable assumption it does.

I should have thought that standard theology posits that that is the devil and his angels -- nothing about aliens. Aliens are physical, natural beings. They would be life that God created on another planet in another star system. Nothing "high" about any of that.

YOu have no idea what aliens are. HOw can you possibly say otherwise?

No matter what standard theology says, the Bible says that there are areas of creation with unclear boundaries and enormous amounts of malice and rebellion. My point is that you neither know the boundaries of this realm, nor the nature of the beings the populate it, nor can you account for how many different ways evil might be spoken or embodied. That is why the OP needs to distinguish between meaningful theology and speculation.

The "spirit realm" as used here is lacking in some logic. There are two ways this idea can be used: 1. we can say that we know what it is and what is in it; or 2. we can say that we don't know much about it except that it is an example of something we can't know much about and should be very careful with. This logic applies to the alien question. We need to be clear about what 2. means and why the subject of aliens should be dealt with using the same type of caution. That is quite different from saying that ET is satan.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The OP is about aliens serving as the actual Father God of the human race. Mother Goose is fine when we can all agree that we dealing in fairy tales. When we are not sure if it is fairy tales or theology, that is when there is a problem. So what are we doing here?

I don't know about the OP so much. I went back and re-read it and it seems unclear as to what the question was.

In post #19, Melethiel said that alien-seeding was incompatible with Christian theology. I asked her why and bumped once and still haven't seen a response from her.

This largely is where this conversation derives from for me. I don't recall at what point you and I started conversing (and not going back to figure it out), but if you aren't on this page with me, perhaps this is why we are talking passed each other.

I assert that alien-seeding is not incompatible. This is largely because I come from a TE perspective. By and large, TEs don't try to make Genesis say anything other than "whatever happened, God did it." As such, if we were to discover evidence that aliens really were involved (and know, I don't think this is plausible for several reasons), then we could just say that God created aliens with the foreknowledge that they would create at which time he would establish a relationship with us. No problem.

Now a YEC (forgive me for generalizing) insists that in some way a literal interpretation will be borne out by reality. That is, eventually we'll be able to show that the earth (if not the universe) really is less than, say, 100,000 y.o. This interpretation necessary entails that God really did mold us out of clay. As such, yeah, alien-seeding is incompatible with Christian theology.

I wanted to know if a TE like Melethiel could explain why she thinks they are incompatible.

Again, I agree that alien theories are useless. But, I want to know why they are to be considered incompatible. I think what I said above explains why a YEC thinks it is and why a TE might not think it is, but not why some TEs think it is.

You cited an scripture about imagination that obviously doesn't apply. So, as it is, the only reason for continuing to assert incompatibility is that human-centric concept that in all the universe we alone are God's central focus.

With aliens, there isn't any technology or science that will tell you whether they even have a soul, if they exist, let alone that they might have engineered life.

There isn't any technology or science to tell you whether you have a soul and yet you believe it.

Not relevant.

Oh, it absolutely relevant. You complain that even if aliens exist, science couldn't tell us whether they have a soul. I'm responding that that shouldn't matter because you believe in your soul without science and technology.

Again, my chain of thought here is not that there is evidence for aliens (I don't believe that) or whether that speculation is useful (I don't think so and I've said so many times in this thread), it is whether and why such a supposition is incompatible to Christian thought.

I think the question speaks for itself. Jesus loves us. Saddam loved his soninlaw before he tortured him to death.

We've been down this road before. I think persuing it is unprofitable.

YOu have no idea what aliens are. HOw can you possibly say otherwise?

I should have thought that by definition aliens are beings that live on different planets. Of the two choices, supernatural satanic allies v. physical beings like us, the second is the only one we have an example of and therefore is a suitable default position.

No matter what standard theology says, the Bible says that there are areas of creation with unclear boundaries and enormous amounts of malice and rebellion. My point is that you neither know the boundaries of this realm, nor the nature of the beings the populate it, nor can you account for how many different ways evil might be spoken or embodied. That is why the OP needs to distinguish between meaningful theology and speculation.

Humans have done many things that crossed boundaries that previous generations would have considered dangerous if not uncrossable.

Your default position may be fear. Mine isn't. Boundaries are only useful for outlining where we haven't been yet.

The "spirit realm" as used here is lacking in some logic. There are two ways this idea can be used: 1. we can say that we know what it is and what is in it; or 2. we can say that we don't know much about it except that it is an example of something we can't know much about and should be very careful with. This logic applies to the alien question. We need to be clear about what 2. means and why the subject of aliens should be dealt with using the same type of caution. That is quite different from saying that ET is satan.

Again fear.

Anyway ... I'll let you have the last word.

 

[Jerrell]

What has this idea to do with the devil?

If a christian accepts the idea of aliens creating us, he probably posits that God created the aliens with full knowledge that they would create us.

Now, I agree it is useless as it merely pushes the God-explanation back a level and I don't see a point to that -- unless there were definitive proof that aliens did it and therefore posit God's creation of aliens as his mechanism to save one's faith.

The Bible says God created us, more specifically Jesus. To pose that Aliens created us would be putting YOUR OWN teachings into the Bible, which are NOT THERE. The closest things to aliens (foreign beings) mentioned in the bible are angels and we know that we were not created by them.

Moreover if you believed aliens created us and not God then that totally disregards the biblical creation account. Why would God create everything and then leave it up to aliens to bio-genetically create human beings on the 6th day? Why not go ahead and teach that aliens also brought the animals here? My reasoning is that this is not scripture. That itself is nowhere mentioned in the bible. We cannot teach "new" Christian concept without it being the word of God. Anyone who does so is following a lie of the devil.