Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[ChristineM]

I am saying that there's a lot of work to be done and improved on this earth, not to spend so much brain power asking and examining if there's life out there.

The development of scientific / astronomical equipment also has huge benefits for improving earth.

 

[gnostic]

Then again, I have seen some here claim dead people can visit humans in their dreams and that they're REAL.

Do you think that it is stupid?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Just watching a show on cable about astronomy and exploration of space and the possibility scientists say of life out there. (It's so stupid...) So they say they see no signs of life out there, and then wonder if there is life like ours. Imagine that. Life like ours somewhere out there maybe........

I find there is No 'maybe' about it at this time because the 'sin issue' is Not yet settled here on Earth.
If there was faithful life elsewhere there would be No need to settle the 'sin issue' here on Earth.
Sin started here on Earth in Eden, if there was sin-less life elsewhere it could be pointed out to Satan that he failed elsewhere so there is no need to settle it here on Earth.
Once Jesus comes then sin will end. Mankind will reach the original sin-less state that Adam & Eve started with.
After the thousand years perfected sin-less mankind will have one last final test before gaining everlasting life forever on a beautiful paradisical Earth as originally Eden was.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The development of scientific / astronomical equipment also has huge benefits for improving earth.

However, I find developed equipment does Not develop fallen human nature.
Mankind's long history shows that it is man who has dominated man to man's hurt, man's injury.
Prince Charles spoke about our world in crisis. A Desperate Need to:
RE-imagine
RE-think
RE-invent
RE-design
RE-vive
RE-form
RE-present
RE-balance
RE-create
RE-invest
RE-start ( the whole planet )

Since mankind's long history shows that man can Not correct corruption either by political or social movements,
then humans can't get rid of super-human problems so that leaves us needing a super-human hero.
That super-human Hero to me is for Jesus to come ! - Rev.22:20
Come and RE-set and RE-new this planet.
Come and bring ' healing ' to earth's nations as mentioned at Revelation 22:2

 

[ChristineM]

However, I find developed equipment does Not develop fallen human nature.
Mankind's long history shows that it is man who has dominated man to man's hurt, man's injury.
Prince Charles spoke about our world in crisis. A Desperate Need to:
RE-imagine
RE-think
RE-invent
RE-design
RE-vive
RE-form
RE-present
RE-balance
RE-create
RE-invest
RE-start ( the whole planet )

Since mankind's long history shows that man can Not correct corruption either by political or social movements,
then humans can't get rid of super-human problems so that leaves us needing a super-human hero.
That super-human Hero to me is for Jesus to come ! - Rev.22:20
Come and RE-set and RE-new this planet.
Come and bring ' healing ' to earth's nations as mentioned at Revelation 22:2

Personally i think prine charles is a bit dippy and he certainly does not hold a PhD in any sciences i know of

And yet you use quantum theory, electronics, fibre optics etc to post that post. Have you ever had an mri or cat scan? I am assuming you have lived way past your late 20s/ early 30s.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Personally i think prine charles is a bit dippy and he certainly does not hold a PhD in any sciences i know of
And yet you use quantum theory, electronics, fibre optics etc to post that post. Have you ever had an mri or cat scan? I am assuming you have lived way past your late 20s/ early 30s.

Point: known science, social movements, nor political action will solve the world's crisis.
Problem is not with science but with lack of morality in that man dominates man to man's hurt, man's injury.

 

[ChristineM]

Point: known science, social movements, nor political action will solve the world's crisis.
Problem is not with science but with lack of morality in that man dominates man to man's hurt, man's injury.

Correct its not with science. Or at least only slightly. Though what i know of morilty, and i am atheist, i would pit morality against the majority of Christians (and orher religious) that i know. And come out on top. Religious morality to me is pretty low on the scale

 

[syo]

they see no signs of life out there

Aliens avoid us. Humans are poison. Who wants poison???

 

[ChristineM]

Aliens avoid us. Humans are poison. Who wants poison???

Hey, speak for yourself, as an atheist i have human babies for breakfast and have never been poisoned yet

 

[syo]

Hey, speak for yourself, as an atheist i have human babies for breakfast and have never been poisoned yet

Ok...

 

[AdamjEdgar]

We've been broadcasting radio and television for 100 years, plus or minus. So we've been sending signals into space at the speed of light (more or less) for 100 years. Those first signals have traveled through only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of our galaxy. So even if we talk only about our galaxy out of billions of other galaxies, our signals have only scratched the surface of making their way to everywhere in our galaxy. Not only that, but when it comes to this scale of distance, the signals we broadcast are incredibly weak.

Put another way, there could well be other civilizations in our galaxy (the Milky Way), and their signals might not have reached us. We're all bound by the speed of light.

Put yet another way, it's like looking at one grain of sand in a huge, many-miles-long beach, and thinking that you've now explored the beach.

The big problem with his argument...why haven't we received any signals from other life that would have, because of evolution long developed such an ability, been sent in our direction millions or even billions of years ago?

I do not see the consistency in the evolutionary doctrine just based on this, let alone more localised problems it has in explaining our own environment.

For example, given that evolutionist claim it requires a certain number of millions of years for life to evolve to a given point, then, when those earlier civilisations that have evolved on distant planets were at our point in the process (and approximately our same distance from the singularity that was the big bang origin), then they would have sent such signals then.

That would mean that the expanding universe exceeding the speed of light issue becomes irrelevant...because those earlier evolved planets were not at the other side of the known universe beyond the range of the speed of light when said signals would have been sent...it would have been more localised, therefore, we should receive signals, however, we have not! That tells me there is a huge flaw in the evolutionary idea even in this field of study...it does not support the theory.

I think this means the more likely theory is the one that becomes plainly obvious...those other planets civilisations are choosing (or have chosen) not to communicate with us. So why would that be? Well its now obvious, because either they don't exist or...because, just as the bible says, we are the only "fallen" or sinful planet!

 

[YoursTrue]

I find there is No 'maybe' about it at this time because the 'sin issue' is Not yet settled here on Earth.
If there was faithful life elsewhere there would be No need to settle the 'sin issue' here on Earth.
Sin started here on Earth in Eden, if there was sin-less life elsewhere it could be pointed out to Satan that he failed elsewhere so there is no need to settle it here on Earth.
Once Jesus comes then sin will end. Mankind will reach the original sin-less state that Adam & Eve started with.
After the thousand years perfected sin-less mankind will have one last final test before gaining everlasting life forever on a beautiful paradisical Earth as originally Eden was.

Yes that's what the Bible says and I believe it. It makes sense.
I have a lot of things to explore on this earth. A lot of things to learn. I'll wonder more about life elsewhere as if it evolved (which of course, scientists like that MUST believe but I don't, just for the record). It's gonna take a long time...for me to explore the earth and learn.

 

[YoursTrue]

The big problem with his argument...why haven't we received any signals from other life that would have, because of evolution long developed such an ability, been sent in our direction millions or even billions of years ago?

I do not see the consistency in the evolutionary doctrine just based on this, let alone more localised problems it has in explaining our own environment.

For example, given that evolutionist claim it requires a certain number of millions of years for life to evolve to a given point, then, when those earlier civilisations that have evolved on distant planets were at our point in the process (and approximately our same distance from the singularity that was the big bang origin), then they would have sent such signals then.

That would mean that the expanding universe exceeding the speed of light issue becomes irrelevant...because those earlier evolved planets were not at the other side of the known universe beyond the range of the speed of light when said signals would have been sent...it would have been more localised, therefore, we should receive signals, however, we have not! That tells me there is a huge flaw in the evolutionary idea even in this field of study...it does not support the theory.

I think this means the more likely theory is the one that becomes plainly obvious...those other planets civilisations are choosing (or have chosen) not to communicate with us. So why would that be? Well its now obvious, because either they don't exist or...because, just as the bible says, we are the only "fallen" or sinful planet!

Likely, very likely, they don't exist. Very, very likely. Very very very likely. Very very very likely. But yet these esteemed, educated scientists keep looking, keep wondering, while of course, the rivers and drinking water are being polluted, etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

Aliens avoid us. Humans are poison. Who wants poison???

It's sad in my mind, but humans cannot be trusted. By that I mean the population. Therefore, I basically agree with you. Except for the fact that I don't believe aliens inhabiting other planets exist. Period. We're it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Correct its not with science. Or at least only slightly. Though what i know of morilty, and i am atheist, i would pit morality against the majority of Christians (and orher religious) that i know. And come out on top. Religious morality to me is pretty low on the scale

Not to compare moralities, but in general I would agree with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The big problem with his argument...why haven't we received any signals from other life that would have, because of evolution long developed such an ability, been sent in our direction millions or even billions of years ago?

I do not see the consistency in the evolutionary doctrine just based on this, let alone more localised problems it has in explaining our own environment

How would they get here? Why would they come here? How would they even send a signal and why?

Space is vast. The distance between us and another possible civilization may raise an insurmountable problem.

 

[icehorse]

I think this means the more likely theory is the one that becomes plainly obvious...those other planets civilisations are choosing (or have chosen) not to communicate with us. So why would that be? Well its now obvious, because either they don't exist or...because, just as the bible says, we are the only "fallen" or sinful planet!

I think yours is a textbook false dilemma argument.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

The big problem with his argument...why haven't we received any signals from other life that would have, because of evolution long developed such an ability, been sent in our direction millions or even billions of years ago?

I do not see the consistency in the evolutionary doctrine just based on this, let alone more localised problems it has in explaining our own environment.

For example, given that evolutionist claim it requires a certain number of millions of years for life to evolve to a given point, then, when those earlier civilisations that have evolved on distant planets were at our point in the process (and approximately our same distance from the singularity that was the big bang origin), then they would have sent such signals then.

That would mean that the expanding universe exceeding the speed of light issue becomes irrelevant...because those earlier evolved planets were not at the other side of the known universe beyond the range of the speed of light when said signals would have been sent...it would have been more localised, therefore, we should receive signals, however, we have not! That tells me there is a huge flaw in the evolutionary idea even in this field of study...it does not support the theory.

I think this means the more likely theory is the one that becomes plainly obvious...those other planets civilisations are choosing (or have chosen) not to communicate with us. So why would that be? Well its now obvious, because either they don't exist or...because, just as the bible says, we are the only "fallen" or sinful planet!

I would strongly suggest reading a science book or two.

 

[Polymath257]

And especially life that looks like humans. No one is expecting to find life that 'looks like humans'. When they say life similar to humans they mean CARBON BASED life, which includes ALL life on Earth, not just humans. It's been surmised that it's possible life could evolve that is SILICON BASED.

Nobody is expecting life from other planets to look like humans (or any other species on Earth). At least, no scientists does.

Yes, the most likely scenario is for carbon based life (silicon is rather inflexible when it comes to forming the types of structures required for life).

But being carbon based does NOT mean that it would use the same amino acids, the same nucleic acids, use DNA and RNA for its genetics (especially with the same bases in Earth life), etc.

It would be likely that the genetics is based on some form of polymer and the enzymes and structural molecules are also polymer based. Being carbon based means that *some* combination of sugars, amino acids, and nucleic acids are likely involved, but they may not be involved in the same aspects (maybe amino acids are used for the genetics and nucleic acids for the enzymes).

Most likely, any other life would be based on water, although ammonia is another strong possibility (but it is only liquid at low temperatures, which would reduce the rate of chemical reactions). It may be possible to base the energy cycle on sulfur or even methane as opposed to oxygen (some archebacteria on Earth do this).

So 'life like that on Earth' is a *very* broad brush and not claiming that there would be actual overlap of species or even chemistry.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Nobody is expecting life from other planets to look like humans (or any other species on Earth). At least, no scientists does.

Yes, the most likely scenario is for carbon based life (silicon is rather inflexible when it comes to forming the types of structures required for life).

But being carbon based does NOT mean that it would use the same amino acids, the same nucleic acids, use DNA and RNA for its genetics (especially with the same bases in Earth life), etc.

It would be likely that the genetics is based on some form of polymer and the enzymes and structural molecules are also polymer based. Being carbon based means that *some* combination of sugars, amino acids, and nucleic acids are likely involved, but they may not be involved in the same aspects (maybe amino acids are used for the genetics and nucleic acids for the enzymes).

Most likely, any other life would be based on water, although ammonia is another strong possibility (but it is only liquid at low temperatures, which would reduce the rate of chemical reactions). It may be possible to base the energy cycle on sulfur or even methane as opposed to oxygen (some archebacteria on Earth do this).

So 'life like that on Earth' is a *very* broad brush and not claiming that there would be actual overlap of species or even chemistry.

why not? Why wouldn't other evolved life on other planets want to do exactly was we have? Evolution claims that we evolve...i don't see why that fundamental should be such that other evolutionary processes that would clearly be on other planets not follow the same pathway as ours!
Are we now saying that statistical probabilities don't allow for repeated outcomes? If that be true, our lottery system needs an overhaul because only one person should ever win it!