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

[Gxg (G²)]

Ponder this: The son of John Carter and Dejah Thoris, was hatched from an egg!

Yeah...when I read that in the book, it was a bit interesting. Nonetheless, the girl was still beautiful. Wouldn't have a problem with it, as the lady from John Carter looked beautiful as a Red Martian and the same was the case in the comics. It'd simply be different...

The film was very loosely based on the book "A Princess of Mars". There was a whole series, and I, as a pre-adolescent, read them all. They were not very good, even by the standards of cheap pulp fiction.

Everyone's different in how they view reading material. But yes, I was aware of the film being based more so on "A Princess of Mars"

I would agree that the special effects in the movie were very good. I just wish they had hired a writer. Even Burroughs was better than that.

Thought the film had a good plot/script, personally.

 

[BobRyan]

The bible mentions principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

Job 1 and 2 indicate that the leaders of planets with intelligent life - present themselves before God on some cyclic basis.

And then of course there are those Christian prophets taken to the 3rd heaven - and even to other planets in the universe - in vision.

 

[someguy14]

Matthew 7:14
Becausehttp://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/matthew/7-14.html#fn-descriptionAnchor-a strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you referring to land plants?

Plants, land or aqueous.

 

[juvenissun]

No, not at all. As long as we can still observe how life forms that should be capable of evolution evolve, the theory will be fine.

The evolution theory doesn't postulate that life has to become more intelligent, or even complex. It simply becomes better at surviving. If this means that life will stagnate in the bacterial stage because anything above this stage will die, then life will stagnate.

Look at thermal vents in the sea. Do you think the bacteria that feed of this vents would gain anything by becoming conscious?

I don't. Evolutionists do.

 

[juvenissun]

If we find the same species on other worlds, then that would be a problem. if we find different life on different worlds, would you still think it would "break" evolution?

As long as there were no animals, the evolution theory is finished.

 

[pgp_protector]

If we find the same species on other worlds, then that would be a problem. if we find different life on different worlds, would you still think it would "break" evolution?

Unless both planets were seeded by the same source

 

[GodActsOnMe]

Unless both planets were seeded by the same source

There was no mention of a second seed, and I would think that it would be an important thing to tell us.

 

[pgp_protector]

There was no mention of a second seed, and I would think that it would be an important thing to tell us.

the Bible doesn't mention a lot of things.
Are you saying if the Bible doesn't mention it, then it doesn't or can't exist?

 

[GodActsOnMe]

the Bible doesn't mention a lot of things.
Are you saying if the Bible doesn't mention it, then it doesn't or can't exist?

No. I am simply implying that two seeds seems like an important fact, concerning our theology, that would be mentioned in the Bible.

 

[The Engineer]

I don't. Evolutionists do.

I just told you that I (an evolutionist) doubt that bacteria which roam at thermal vents would gain anything from becoming conscious!

Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

As long as there were no animals, the evolution theory is finished.

It isn't, and I told you why. Evolution doesn't mean that bacteria will become animals if there is no need for this.

 

[Split Rock]

As long as there were no animals, the evolution theory is finished.

Do your posts actually make sense to you?

 

[AECellini]

As long as there were no animals, the evolution theory is finished.

lolwut.

 

[serge546]

As long as there were no animals, the evolution theory is finished.

You realize "animals" did not exist for 1.5 billion years after life began, right? Well obviously you do not. Evolution has no problem with those 1.5 billion years when prokaryotes ruled the earth alone.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Plants, land or aqueous.

So, according to you, there might be single celled organisms, some algae and...land plants! But no animals, like fish.

Have you ever had a close look at the timescales and order in which things evolved? I'm guessing not.

 

[Metal Minister]

The chances are slim. However, I feel that with enough probing, they will find evidence of past life there.

I think that would depend on how long mars has been without an atmosphere. If it took as long as it did here to "evolve" life, then the absence of an atmosphere makes even the beginning stages impossible under evolutionary doctrine.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[GodActsOnMe]

So, according to you, there might be single celled organisms, some algae and...land plants! But no animals, like fish.

Have you ever had a close look at the order in which things evolved? I'm guessing not.

Or even the order in which life was introduced to the Earth in the literal creation story? xD

I think that would depend on how long mars has been without an atmosphere. If it took as long as it did here to "evolve" life, then the absence of an atmosphere makes even the beginning stages impossible under evolutionary doctrine.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Atmospheres can change in density.

 

[Metal Minister]

I agree my posts were a bit contradictory. I didn't mean to come off that way. I was merely stating what I believe in my second post and did not mean to say that everyone is wrong because it is not the way I would like it to be.

In my own defense, I did type the disclaimer "feel free to discuss any topics that arise out of this".

As Split Rock says, if we were to find the SAME species on Mars then Evolutionary theory would be in a lot of trouble. After all, evolutionary theory is based on organisms sharing a common ancestor and there is a lot of explaining to do if you have the same organism on both planets.

However, if there are DIFFERENT species/organisms on Mars then there is no problem for evolutionary theory. In fact, it would revolutionize the field. Just imagine, a new field of biology named "Martian evolution"! That would be a truly fascinating subject of study.

Furthermore, it would shed some light on abiogenesis (unless you attribute these organisms to God).

Understood, and I still don't believe they will find anything. As I stated in my reply to selfinflikted, mars has no atmosphere, so it makes it impossible for life to exist there. It would all depend on a timeline running pretty much exactly as ours, and then somewhere shortly after life starts, something removes mars' atmosphere, leaving behind some trace of the life that was there. I find that a little more than highly improbable. Anything that could strip a planet of its atmosphere would strip nearly everything on the surface right along with it.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[juvenissun]

I just told you that I (an evolutionist) doubt that bacteria which roam at thermal vents would gain anything from becoming conscious!

Do you know what a rhetorical question is?


It isn't, and I told you why. Evolution doesn't mean that bacteria will become animals if there is no need for this.

There is always need. That is what evolution is about.

 

[Metal Minister]

Or even the order in which life was introduced to the Earth in the literal creation story? xD

Atmospheres can change in density.

Change sure, but dissipate completely?

May God Richly Bless You! MM