NASA Scientists Claims to have Found Alien Life

[Richard L]

Nobody has really answered my question.



If God is actually a highly advanced, intelligent being or beings from another planet that came to earth thousands or even millions or billions of years ago, how does that change our religious beliefs?



It certainly is conceivable to me that ancient man would look upon anybody descending/ascending from the sky emitting fire and thunder (rockets) as Gods. Wouldnt ancient man have been so completely overwhelmed to witness such events, describe this as some miraculous act of God in the only terms he knew at that time.



Now that modern man understands the concept of flying, and even space travel, we dont see those event as only belonging to the realm of Gods.



Man is now in the early stages of understanding Genetics and DNA. If God was a highly advanced being from somewhere in our universe, he likely had mastered genetics and DNA long before our planet was developed enough to support life. God could have easily planted the seeds of life here and even created Adam and Eve through genetic engineering.



Science has still never found the missing link between apes and man, and perhaps, if man was created by alerting the DNA of an ape, we may never find a missing link. Perhaps man was created with Gods DNA since we are supposed to have been created in Gods image?



That could explain why the short time man has been on this earth, we have advanced more rapidly and gotten more intelligent while other animals have basically not changed their level of intelligence. So even if God is a highly advanced being for another planet, that sounds like divine intervention that does not conflict with our basic religious philosophy.



...Rich

 

[H D]

Judaism changed the world in that it introduced monotheism. I think that answers all of your questions.



Consider this: evolution has never been observed, never recreated in a lab, and man has never created a living being.



Scientific method:

1. Define the question

2. Gather information and resources (observe)

3. Form hypothesis

4. Perform experiment

5. Analyze data

6. Interpret data and draw conclusions

7. Retest



Based on the scientific method, scientific evidence demands that evolution is no more valid than Creationism. Neither theory has gotten past the hypothesis stage. To stand on that leg claiming evolution is backed by science but Creation is not, you undercut the very source of that knowledge.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh, I would tend to disagree with a couple of your "Consider this" items.



Yes, evolution is a theory, and as a theory it makes claims. Claims require evidence, and there is ample evidence of evolution in action out there.



I'd say that there is more evidence supporting evolution of man than there is evidence supporting Creation.



If I understand your argument you seem to be implying that since man has not successfully experimented in the lab to reproduce evolution (e.g. create some new, evolved life form), then the theory is stuck in the hypothesis phase. Actually, I would disagree that such lab experimentation hasn't been done, but let's not go there for a second.



If we accept the arguement for a moment, then the way I see it, that same argument could be used to dismiss gravity as only a theory because man hasn't created gravity in a lab experiment. Yet, there is ample evidence supporting gravitational theory, to the point that everyone agrees gravity exists and how it works.



Evolution is no more than a genetic mutation, or a change in genetic makeup over time. Man has perform such genetic changes in the lab. So, by definition, evolution does exist. The evolution of man is still a theory.



TJR

 

[Kevin Lang]

If God is actually a highly advanced, intelligent being or beings from another planet that came to earth thousands or even millions or billions of years ago, how does that change our religious beliefs?

It wouldn't. The "religion" that came about from worshiping the alien "gods" would be long extinct in the modern world by the time we found out the the truth of it.



The movie Stargate, and the plethora of spin-off series, already answer your question. Would Kurt Russel & James Spader lie to you?



This is getting too close to Scientology :smack:

 

[H D]

I'd say that there is more evidence supporting evolution of man than there is evidence supporting Creation.

I would disagree. There are more hypotheses created that are based on supporting evolution, but not necessarily evidence. I only want people to recognize that "scientifically speaking," evolution is no more valid a theory than Creation. I would also add that evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive.



For the record, I believe in evolution. I don't think that in any way changes my faith in the Creator God, His Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe the Bible is an outline for the slow revelations of God's creation to man. If you consider that as close as Abraham was to God, I know more about God's plan than he ever did. We all work in a different purpose to His vision at different moments in time. God's creation is a work in progress and we will slowly be revealed His plan.



Those who rely on a prehistoric interpretation of God's plan, in my opinion, deny God the ability to have created a more complex universe than man could have understood 6,000 years ago (dates are unimportant). They also deny the very clear tenants of revelation (not the Book, which is a whole other topic).



Speaking of time, I think it's ridiculous to confine God's days to our man-made 24 hour, 365 day calendar. How arrogant can we be? I think time, as we know it, is entirely a man-made concept to fill our need to organize our experiences. Time is not necessary to God, only humans. That could go into a whole other set of discussions, though.

 

[Richard L]

KL,

I agree that our religious beliefs do not have to change, but I do not understand your statement:

The "religion" that came about from worshiping the alien "gods" would be long extinct in the modern world by the time we found out the the truth of it.

I am not talking about about the future, I am talking about now....What if scientist discovered today that God was really a space/time traveler. Or better yet, what if God landed in a UFO and declared that he was the God that spoke to Moses and gave hime the Ten Commandments???



My point is would it make any difference if God was a flesh and blood being like us, but with millions or billions of years more intelligence? So I don't know what you mean by your point that "Religion would be extinct by the time we found out the truth". Remember the Mayan calendar ends 12/21/2012...we may know the truth sooner than we all think?



Again, just food for thought



Hugh,

I disagree with you completely because you take everything from a religios point of view. Most of what is in the Bible as little or nor proof and relies solely on the faith of the believer, but you expect scientists to prove every theory they suggest, then you ignore the proof they present.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



You keep saying "supporting evolution". I just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.



Note above that I was talking about the general theory, concept and term "evolution", and not necessarily the set of theories by Darwin in his "evolution of species", or more specifically the theory that man evolved from a primative, primate form.



I agree with you on the ridiculousness of assuming God's days in Genesis were 24 hour days. However, for many in the debate of "Creation vs Evolution" that is exactly what they will define as the meaning. More on that below. But, I agree, that seems kinda dumb in what we know about the age of the earth. Again read the "Science of God", as it explains how an non-literal interpretation of Genesis can fit into big bang, and evolution.



Now, back to what we were discussing, when I hear someone say "evolution" vs "creation", then I take that as the classic debate of the following to definitions:



a. The universe was created in a big bang (or other event), things formed, collected, cooled, astrologically over billions of years, then 100s of millions of years ago the earth formed, then life evolved from smaller, less complex, to larger, more complex species over millions and millions of years with man evolving from some primative form just recently in that long time-line.



vs



b. God created the heavens, the earth, all the animals, and man, in their current form, some 6,000 years ago.



Again, these are not my definitions. Science theory and evidence defines a., above, and biblical scripture, teachings and theologians define b, above.



So, to me, when I see someone talk about the theories of "evolution" vs "creation", then I think they are talking about a., and b..



Lastly, and again, to me, there is much more scientific evidence to support a., above, then there is b., and so much more scientific evidence to contradict b., than a..



Now, if you want to come up with some loser definition/interpretation of creation, one that supports an old earth, one that allows for things going on in a way that is not defined in Genesis, than that is fine (again, see "Science of God"). But, that is not Genesis, and that is not the "Creation" that I am debating or discussing.



There is a lot of evidence against "New Earth" Creationist theory, and lost of evidence that support an very old earth, and species that evolve. Those are the two that I am talking about.





P.S. There is still a lot of cool questions in b., like: How did even the most simple life forms get onto that cooling planet in the first place? Was their some designer to them? How does something so perfect as DNA just "exist?" All cool questions.



TJR

 

[H D]

I disagree with you completely because you take everything from a religios point of view. Most of what is in the Bible as little or nor proof and relies solely on the faith of the believer, but you expect scientists to prove every theory they suggest, then you ignore the proof they present.

Richard, you are confusing observations with proof. I observe that eating more chocolate makes me fat. That observation is not proof. It makes sense to us, but observing the correlation does not in and of itself prove that eating more chocolate makes people fat. I am merely pointing out the fact that science has not gone beyond observations that would lead us to conclude that species have evolved. Based on our observations, and the connectedness of which we don't fully comprehend yet, we may be led to believe that evolution occurs, but currently there is not proof. If you try to say that you are using common sense, you are undermining everything science stands for.



TJR, genetic mutations have never created a whole other species as evolution would suggest. Species do change, but a genetically altered amoeba has not produced a bacterium, just an altered amoeba. As of yet, species beget similar species and there is zero evidence to prove otherwise. Unless we consider theories and proof as the same thing, as Richard does.



Not all theologians, and I contend certainly not the Bible, hold the strict 6,000 year interpretation of time. I see no evidence of that timeline in the Bible. I have studied the reasons some have come to that conclusion, but I find them very weak to say the least. There are many theologians that suggest a theory of time very different than the 6,000 year absolute. We shouldn't confuse the loudest voices with the most representative. That idea is a very Western interpretation and is pretty localized to the U.S. actually. Biblical scholars the world over are easy to find debunking that theory.



The very problem with the big bang and science as an absolute for human understanding is that matter cannot be created or destroyed (determined a law, not theory). So, even if you get down to absolute proof of the big bang, you still haven't answered some more important questions:



1. Where did the matter come from that is responsible for the bang? Based on the laws of nature, the bang wasn't the beginning, there was something before the super condensed form of matter that exploded to form the universe. So what was the matter before? Can there be a beginning? Could all matter have always existed?



2. Why?

 

[H D]

Also TJR,



You grant yourself the ability to separate the common understanding of evolution as Darwin conceptualized it, but you deny me the ability to separate Creation as some fundamentalists conceptualize it. That's not fair.

 

[EddieS'04]

Just one statement of my personal theology.

"Isnt it posible that 1 day to God could be 5 billion years or more."

Actually that realy doesnt matter. We either have faith or we dont.

For me it is Gods creation and the Father, Son and Holy spirit.

The unkown doesnt matter to my existance. It only creates arguments for non believers and doughters.

End results is God doesnt mind our questions. But lack of faith creates dought.

Or extreme dought creates lack of faith.

I choose faith and not to argue about the unknowns. The unkowns that only God knows. Doesnt make or break who Iam. That is a mind, body and spirit being. Thats enlightenment.

Also I believe God may have created other beings on other worlds. Someday I may find out the truth. It doesnt do anything for me to ponder on it.



I would like to see the Bible completely translated from the Greek and Hebrew. It would probably be 5000 pages or more..LOL. There is so much more meaning in some verses. Than what we are taught in English. Some things cant be translated properly. You need to be versed in the original language. I like a pastor that can do that. Some verses dont change, but. There is an eye opening understanding at times, when the translation is explained.



Blessings to all myst freinds...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh said:

You grant yourself the ability to separate the common understanding of evolution as Darwin conceptualized it, but you deny me the ability to separate Creation as some fundamentalists conceptualize it. That's not fair.

If that were what I was doing, then yes, that would not be fair.



But that is not what I was doing.



What I did was to clear up exactly what *I* was interpreting and using as a definition when I heard you say "evolution vs creation". I did this by using very common definitions that are used in that general debate.



You continue to use the term "evolution", without defining its context or its specific meaning. That is why I supplied the definitions; so that there would be no misunderstanding as to what I was talking about.



As for your questions above, I never stated nor provided any evidence for "the big bang"...I just posited it as one theory. You ask where the matter came from. That's an interesting question, but only really interesting if you are trying to push me into a corner with the notion that there is conservation of matter. Conservation of matter is a theory, is it not? Besides, above I said "or some other event", just for the very fact that for the sake of the two definitions, "Big Bang" is not the pivotal point. The pivotal point is old earth versus young earth.



As far as a 6,000 year old earth, that estimate is defined within the Bible through various geneology established in Genesis. It is quite well documented by theologians. Yes, most don't agree with it today, but MANY, MANY do. (see my next post...scary stuff).



Again, I was pointing out that when one debates evolution vs creation, and doesn't specifically define those terms, one is being reckless. I provided very common definitions for each that are used often in the debate. You can say you meant or were referrring to something else, and that is fine. That would go a long way towards clearing up why we have different POVs on the subject.



Debating that my "lense" and "definitions" are not valid is rather pointless, for in the proof that is my life, they are the "given". You feel free to provide your own definitions, then we can see where our mental models diverge.







Eddie S said:

"Isnt it posible that 1 day to God could be 5 billion years or more."

Actually that realy doesnt matter. We either have faith or we dont.

That's a cop-out answer, IMHO. Yes, have faith. That's fine. Have faith in God, in his word, in your following of him.



But by all means, don't shrug your shoulders and stop thinking, stop learning, stop considering, and stop questioning things, even things in the Bible with a pet, simple answer of: "Well, you just gotta have faith!"



That's fine answer for certain spirtual questions. But, it is the same answer that some use when they are convinced that the earth is about 6,000 years old, man and dinosaurs existed together, carbon-14 dating is bunk science, there is no prehistoric man, the Grand Canyon was created by the great flood...etc, etc. These things and more are all believed by the young-earth Creationists, and frankly, when they say things like:



- "Well, the Bible says so!",



- "If the things I belief are wrong then what else in the Bible is wrong?",



- "Evolution is JUST A THEORY too!", and, God forbid:



- "Well, you just have to have FAITH!"



...when I hear those things, I simply have to cringe.



They are scary. Religion can be a wonderful thing, especially when it opens one's heart. Science is a wonderful thing in that it opens one's mind. Religion that closes one's mind, especially to science, is NOT a good thing.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



P.S.



If we are to believe Wikipedia, various polls estimate that 10% to 45% of the adults in the U.S believe in "Young Earth Creationism."



With all the evidence at hand that discount the "young earth" theory, you see why I say there is more evidence supporting "evolution" (as I defined it above, which is the scientific contrary to "young earth creationism") and less supports "creation" as up to 45% of adults in the U.S. view it.



Now, if one takes a more liberal interpretation of Genesis, one that allows for a galaxy that is billions of years old, and an Earth that is 100s of millions of years old, and man that started as a primative 'beast', and at some point was given/acquired a soul (read: intelligence and a conscience unlike any other animal), then, yes then we start to marry those two ideas, and we start to merge science and religion. (which is not necessarily a bad thing).



TJR

 

[H D]

What I did was to clear up exactly what *I* was interpreting and using as a definition when I heard you say "evolution vs creation". I did this by using very common definitions that are used in that general debate.

I, sir, am anything but common. :grin:

If we are to believe Wikipedia, various polls estimate that 10% to 45% of the adults in the U.S believe in "Young Earth Creationism."

Wikipedia is never an acceptable source in academic discourse. 10% to 45% is such a large margin that the margin of error must necessarily make these polls statistically irrelevant. At any rate, it is not important what any proportion of people believe which theories. And you mention one of my points right here, "...in the U.S." Sunday school and public education have both failed the U.S. population. What do you want me to say?



And back to the first quote, those are the definitions used in the U.S. by people you yourself label as "in general." In general, most people do not know the true tenants of either Creationism or evolution. You therefore get arguments between people who have a superficial understanding of both without fully considering either. I don't want to use the general definitions used in the U.S. that only serve to polarize political factions. I want to use more reasonable definitions that promote thinking rather than entrenched ideology.



I don't have the answers, but I do have faith that it will one day be revealed to me. You can only be revealed God's plan by studying His Word and the world around you. It's lazy to only study the Bible and it's arrogant to only study the natural world. Using both, you can gleam bits and pieces of revelation, but one without the other leads you to either failing to understand why or how.



If you only rely on your understanding of the Bible, you might get the why. If you only rely on science, you might get the how. The why can be revealed through His Word and communication with God. The how can be revealed in the natural world He created. Used together, God can reveal His plan more fully.



Is that clear enough, or are our definitions at odds again?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



I think you are wiggling too much. I'm not sure why you continue to do "point / counter point" with me.



The truth of the matter is that Wikipedia is a fine source for most things. It has been proven more accurate on average than encyclopedias. Those that seem to dismiss it are more often than not those that don't agree with what it says (the high-tech equivalent of someone saying "nah-nah-nah, I'm not listening").



The reason for the wide range is that it takes into account various polls. The reality is that many, many people (a large percentage) of adults in America believe in "Young Earth Creationism", that's why I used and assumed that definition. You can try to refrute the sources, but the fact is that many, many people in this country look at "Creationism" in this way.



Clearly, you seem to have had your head a little in the sand. You stated that the Bible doesn't establish a 6,000 year Earth, yet there are countless that claim it does.



Try to sweep under the rug that "Young Earthers" exist, and are large in numbers if you wish, but that's simply NOT the case.



Everything else you said just above is fine. I too agree that there is too much polarization in this country on such discussions. I try to see things in the middle, myself.



I'm not so sure that I believe that one can "only be revealed God's plan by studying 'His Word.". If by 'studying His Word', you mean the reading the Bible, well, then, I definately don't believe that.



I just can't believe that. For me, that makes God an elitist, an intellectual elitist at that. There have been so many people that have lived, and continue to live on this world that will never have the chance to read or otherwise hear God's Word (again, assuming we are talking about the Bible). Are these people to NEVER be revealed God's plan? Not even in the afterlife?



It's like the old question: Will a tribe of natives living on a desert island ever go to heaven?



Some will say: Sure. God knows what is in your heart. But then there are others that say: "Yey must be born again". So, which is it?



See my point yet?



One of my biggest beef's with many aspects of Christianity is the absolutisms (Only through the son, only for those that believe, can only be revealed by..., etc...). These things make the faith so, well, elitist, and portray God as, well, for lack of a better term a... (starts with P, rhymes with Rick)!



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

"Isnt it posible that 1 day to God could be 5 billion years or more."

Not at all since the bible says 1 day in the eyes of God is 1,000 years.





Tom

 

[Gavin Allan]

God made the fossils too.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



Does the Bible REALLY say that? Really?



Consider this:

the Bible does not say, With God one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day. The apostle Peter actually wrote: eloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Peter 3:8). Peter used a figure of speech known as a simile to compare a day to a thousand years. It is not that one day is precisely equivalent to 1,000 years or vice versa. Rather, within the specific context of 2 Peter 3, one could say that they share a likeness.

Regardless, the point is pretty clear. The Bible is clearly open to interpretation, and is not a literal book of measures, instructions, definitions, and facts. There are contradictions within, and therefore it isn't inerrant (without error) either. It is what it is, a book written by man, inspired by man's believe in God (inspired by God? - that is where faith comes in). Still, first and foremost, it was written by man...man held the pen, man used his language, man formed the words, passed them down, wrote them down.



Great book, still. Filled with truths, of that I am most certain. Would I use it to debate science? Nope!

 

[Richard L]

I agree with JTR that the Bible is at best a guide and not a literal book of instructions from God. There are so many contradictions by the same authors that it's very difficult to determine exactly what is true, and what has been embellished by the author or those who wrote/translated what they thought the author was trying to say.



And Caymen make a very valid point. To God a day may be, thousands, or millions or perhaps billions of years in relationship to Earth time. Our day is fixed based on the sunrise each day. Perhaps God measures time very differently than we do?



But again, most of you have not answered my basic question: "If God were a supremely intelligent, advanced alien, how would that change our religious beliefs". I am not looking for a one word answer either yes or no, I would like to know why it would or would not change our religious beliefs.



....Rich

 

[Kevin Lang]

I am not talking about about the future, I am talking about now....What if scientist discovered today that God was really a space/time traveler. Or better yet, what if God landed in a UFO and declared that he was the God that spoke to Moses and gave hime the Ten Commandments???

It would be as portrayed in the 1990s movie Stargate with Kurt Russel & James Spader.



The premise being that all the ancient Egyptian gods were actually advanced aliens who came to earth and awed primitive man into worshiping them. It's an idea that has been covered so thoroughly that it has become prosaic.



:btddhorse:

"If God were a supremely intelligent, advanced alien, how would that change our religious beliefs

It would invalidate them. If we know what God is, then we no longer believe in Him, we know it. One does not "believe" in a fact. I don't believe that my ST is green--I know it. Likewise, I can't believe that what I've held as God is actually a space alien because then I would know it.



If semantics don't work for you, then why not look at how people changed when they became believers in Scientology? Scientologists believe what you're saying, so find some scientologists who are proselytized Christians, and compare them.



(What would be interesting to note would be the religious beliefs of your "supremely intelligent" being. Why would there not then be a higher being to your higher being?)

 

[EddieS'04]

Thomas, Im sorry if the word faith makes you cringe. Maybe my best explanation is. I believe in Christ and what he did for me. I believe in the writtings of the appostles of how Im to live and treat my fellow man. That excludes the WBC nuts. They got it wrong.



Other wise Iam a very open minded thinker about issues of the world and the past. But as I said, it doesnt do anything for my life I live today. To ponder and argue What are the true time lines of existance. I have enough to do and worry about in this time line that this body of mine is alive.



I do take offense to being told Im a small thinker. Some things just arent worth bogging the mind down. Im not one that is so stoic in my faith. That will throw it in your face, because God said so..I do have times that I wonder about things in the Bible. Im not out of Gods grace for it. He created me as a free thinker. I will say I have left some churches or denomenations. For trying to take that away and make me a puppet.



For me life is much simpler and enjoyable to believe in my creator. Too try my best to be a good member of society. In the way that bible scipture guides me.

Im not perfect by no means. I screw up everyday.