Would life on Mars be a problem for your religious beliefs?

[CabVet]

That's not from the OP.

The database mentioned would cost $4000 or more to read the full results.
This likely limits both his searching ability and our ability to check on his narrow claim to ignorance.

ScienceDirect - Search Results: ALL(Extraterrestrial Genomes mars)

Doing it again? However narrow it was, you cannot falsify his claim by searching for something else. None of the results you link describe a hypothesis of life from Mars going to earth. Try searching what the OP actually said he didn't know about evidence for. Maybe a string like this: "earth life originating from Mars".

 

[1000Flames]

Let's talk about the "clothes= not animals" more. This is hilarious!

 

[freezerman2000]

We have higher brain functions and animals don't. Good point.

We are still animals,as displayed in one of my previous posts,we still have animalistic traits.
Every day,there are news stories of people acting like animals towards one another.

 

[CabVet]

Let's talk about the "clothes= not animals" more. This is hilarious!

Yeah, according to that criterion the organism pictured below is a human, not an "animal".

 

[serge546]

Thank you for answering in my defense, CabVet. As, CabVet mentions, SkyWriting, your results are not scientific literature. I could care less about what a blog by a journalism major says.

I forgot that the Science Direct database is paid by my institution and I have free access to it. For that, I am sorry. That, however, does not invalidate anything of what I have posted. There are other databases, Google scholar, etc. which you can search.

When you find actual, peer-reviewed, scientific literature on whether life on Earth came from Mars please post it. Until then, you have no invalidated my post.

 

[1000Flames]

Yeah, according to that criterion the organism pictured below is a human, not an "animal".

I wonder if shells count as clothes. Snails, crabs, lobsters. This could get really fun!

 

[Elendur]

I wonder if shells count as clothes. Snails, crabs, lobsters. This could get really fun!

Well it wouldn't, logically, because we don't call our skin/nails/hair clothes.

 

[Elendur]

We can choose to lay down our lives for others or not.

Animals does that too.

We choose to live by law and not instinct.

Instincts play a vital role still in how we live.

We choose to discard animal connections and live according to our decisions.

What does that even mean?

We are self aware.

So are plenty other animals.

We are spiritual.

How do you know?

We can communicate abstract philosophical ideas.

Because we can communicate easier.

We are aware of the passage of time.

How would you know animals aren't?

We understand cruelty.

We also understand algebra, some of us.

We control our reproduction (by choice).

So do animals.

We have a written language.

Because we can communicate easier.

We keep records of past events.

Are you certain animals don't? Also, because we can communicate easier.

Our brains are structured differently from animals.

Is it?

We have a culture that is recorded and built on and shapes our lives that is not dependent on biological transmission.

The first part is because we can communicate easier, I don't understand the second one.

We alter and control the environment we live in to suit us rather than have it control us.

Beavers.

 

[juvenissun]

And why does that matter? Clothes don't get anything from us, please don't change the subject.

It matters. If sponge benefited from the crab, then it is not a clothes.

 

[juvenissun]

the main reason we wear clothes is for warmth.Our higher brain function gives us the common sense to cover up to protect our selves from the elements.

How can an evolutionist or biologist easily debate that?Higher brain function means having morals,learned intelligence,long term decision making,etc.

Not at all. It is a side effect.

 

[Elendur]

Not at all. It is a side effect.

Then I invite you to visit Sweden in the wintertime, you'll wear a lot more clothes than you'll usually do. Shocking!

 

[juvenissun]

Yeah, according to that criterion the organism pictured below is a human, not an "animal".

You just won't quit in finding these odd cases, will you?

A few rare animals decorated their bodies by external object for a practical purpose (survival). Human wear clothes without a practical purpose. That is all the difference.

 

[juvenissun]

Then I invite you to visit Sweden in the wintertime, you'll wear a lot more clothes than you'll usually do. Shocking!

Are swedish people all naked during the summer time?

 

[Elendur]

Are swedish people all naked during the summer time?

No, but I have noticed a lack of clothing when the weather turns warmer.

I can guarantee you, clothing have a practical purpose and warmth is one of the top contributors (because without that warmth people wouldn't survive the winters here).

Edit: Sometimes mitigation of warmth is as important as mitigation of cold.

 

[florida2]

Of course, according to your assumption. Then there is simply no animals.

But, a planet is not that simple. The earth was barren because its harsh physical conditions. But the earth evolved. I would expect any other planet that permitted life will be similar to the earth and is able to meet the required conditions of biological evolution.

What? When did I say there are no animals?

You're not going to get complex multicellular life on Mars, but you could have single celled organisms. Your earlier posts seem to think this disproves evolution.

 

[freezerman2000]

Not at all. It is a side effect.

A side effect of what?

Of the cold weather.
There is evidence of neolithic peoples wearing fabric, long before Adam and Eve were supposedly made to wear fig leaves,if we are to believe that A&E were created 6000 years ago.
History of Clothing - From an Inventors Perspective

 

[freezerman2000]

Originally Posted by juvenissun
Of course, according to your assumption. Then there is simply no animals.

But, a planet is not that simple. The earth was barren because its harsh physical conditions. But the earth evolved. I would expect any other planet that permitted life will be similar to the earth and is able to meet the required conditions of biological evolution.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Why must all life be carbon based like it is here on earth? Why not silica based? Beings of pure energy? Something we can not comprehend?
It's shallow to think that if there is life elsewhere, it has to be like us..it's pretty arrogant too.

 

[jpcedotal]

Finding life or water in it's liquid state on another planet would not shake my faith in God but it would shake up my theology for sure.

 

[freezerman2000]

Finding life or water in it's liquid state on another planet would not shake my faith in God but it would shake up my theology for sure.

Would that necessarily be a bad thing?
Sometimes folks get so comfortable in their theology,that they put on blinders to all other ideas that go against it..
A "shaking up" of their theology may be just what they need to take a serious leap forward in their faith.

 

[jpcedotal]

Would that necessarily be a bad thing?
Sometimes folks get so comfortable in their theology,that they put on blinders to all other ideas that go against it..
A "shaking up" of their theology may be just what they need to take a serious leap forward in their faith.

I agree to a point, but where the trouble would come would be with the Word, the Scripture. I believe it is 100% infallible. Now would life on another planet go against any part of Scripture?...I am not sure and that is where hit theology would take a hit.