How will religion handle this.......

Dear jusmeig

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown
Click to expand...
Genesis 6:4

We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."
Click to expand...
Numbers 13:33

To be honest with you, my immediate primal urge after reading your comments ------->

>"I am starting to see your point! I had another inconclusive post that asked if theists can debate objectivly. I would most definitly say they cannot, as whether they like it or not their faith has a major influence on their objectivity. "<

....was to tell you to shut your cake hole and learn to use a spell checker. I know that isn't a valid defense and would be rude. So now that I have that urge under control, let me explain why I mention the Nephilim. :D

There is much debate whether the Nephilim are angels, demons or aliens. I'm not taking a stand on whether these "Nephilim" are proof of ET's in the Bible. I just want to point out that it is a possibility.

Secondly, the discovery of alien life wouldn't necessarily eliminate or alter the direction of a particular religion unless that particular life form was in direct conflict with our understandings of matters of faith and deity. The thing I also chuckle about is that people immediately think alien life forms are going to be recognizable to us in the first place. It is always depicted as bipedal, almond shaped eyes, long slender fingers, etc. Talk about ego. Alien life could totally be all around us and we might not have the ability to detect it. It could be macro or micro in nature. It could be something that isn't stable enough to be detected by any human method.


In Genesis it states God created the heavens and the earth. If God is powerful enough to create that, he's powerful enough to create anything within those things. You can consider that a cop out if you wish but I don't think alien life is a threat to that notion. As for the dinosaurs, etc. Not every interpertation of the creation events is the same. Progressive creationists, old earth, gap theory, theistic evolutionists, etc. probably believe much the same on this as you do. They just don't believe that all of creation was produced by an entity referred to as "chance". Chance is the unGod atheists worship.
 
fadingCaptain:

I don't find it depressing. I can not imagine how a bacteria on Mars would be more interesting than an elephant in Africa. There is more than plenty here on Earth for me. I dont need to worry about radio waves comming from places we have no idea how to visit. I like this world and my big hope is that we don't damage it too badly.
 
In Genesis it states God created the heavens and the earth. If God is powerful enough to create that, he's powerful enough to create anything within those things. You can consider that a cop out if you wish but I don't think alien life is a threat to that notion.
Click to expand...
Well, yes that is a cop out. What do you think the chances are that the aliens would fit into one of the major religions paradigms? Do you think the aliens would worship jesus? :) Obviously they would be in direct conflict with christianity...so quoting the bible is fairly worthless unless you would consider aliens ripe ground for missionary work!

Chance is the unGod atheists worship.
Click to expand...
Where are these churches where atheists are worshipping the almighty 'chance'??? I need to sign up.
 
Originally posted by Gifted
Alot has been lost over the years, including at least a quarter of the original bible.
Click to expand...

True enough, that much written in testament was lost or thrown out due to its not fitting in to then current accepted theology...not to say any of it would have anything mentioning other worlds, but a find such as that would catch my interest indeed.

Some people say that religion is fixed unlike science, which tries to adapt to fit the observations. I disagree in some part, because upon finding other life totally alien, like Gifted said, the theist would just fit it in as yet another miracle, no matter how much science provides in explanation. I don't think the Bible states that life on Earth is the only life...so it's conveniently open ended.
 
Jaxom:

I don't think science and religion are incompatible. Science studies the world around us and it has been very successful in improving our species survival and variety of life. Religion or faith speculates upon those things that can not be studied or known and I believe that adds greatly to the quality of life.

Idealy science gives us the power to accomplish great things and faith gives us the vision to use science in positive ways.

I think that religion crosses the line when it uses texts (that were obviously not intended to be text books) as scientific data or evidence.

I think that science crosses the line when it asserts that the knowledge that has been gathered by humans will lead us to the truth.
 
Originally posted by MShark
I think that religion crosses the line when it uses texts (that were obviously not intended to be text books) as scientific data or evidence.

I think that science crosses the line when it asserts that the knowledge that has been gathered by humans will lead us to the truth.
Click to expand...
Can you give me an example of science (or someone here) "crossing the line". I can think of no instance where modern day science talks about 'leading us to the truth' in the way that I think you mean it.
 
Fade in, fade out...

Capn:

What do you think the chances are that the aliens would fit into one of the major religions paradigms?
Click to expand...

Speaking of cop outs.....What evidence do you have that enables you to predict what religious paradigm they would or would not fit in to? Why would they have to fit in one in the first place?


Do you think the aliens would worship jesus?
Click to expand...

I have no basis to make that assumption. Do you think they wouldn't worship Jesus?


Obviously they would be in direct conflict with christianity...so quoting the bible is fairly worthless unless you would consider aliens ripe ground for missionary work!
Click to expand...

Obviously you need to make your case or you're just wasting bandwidth with your arguement. I quoted the Bible to raise awareness of the Nephilim. If the Nephilim were to make themselves available, I'm sure that there are missionaries out there who would take a stab at it.

Have a nice day.
 
Originally posted by jusmeig
mohamed, It is not my fault if you have trouble understanding basic english. If you are confused try this:

Explain how your religion would cope with the discovery of life on another planet?
Click to expand...
yes right!thats becoz i am marzian from mars, and i am telling u dont enter in our busines we have our own religion and u have ur religion:D
 
ConsequentAtheist:

Good shot. Now I will have to do a little research to back up my big mouth. By truth I did mean the big "Truth" but I also meant the small data and therories that are presented as fact by those who represent science - such as science teachers, journalists, researchers, or anyone who chosses to make a claim for science.

I will attempt to find specifics. Not to push hot buttons but the therory of evoultion is quite often portrayed to the general public as fact or the truth. I am quite comfortable with most of the therory myself.
 
Not to push hot buttons but the therory of evoultion is quite often portrayed to the general public as fact or the truth. I am quite comfortable with most of the therory myself.
Click to expand...
God didn't say how he made man out of dust.;) There are references to God having a longer day than we do, and the the fact that we are not to take the bible literally says that 144 hours is not to be established as the actual time it took.
 
Originally posted by MShark
Good shot.
Click to expand...
That was not my intent.
Originally posted by MShark
Not to push hot buttons but the therory of evoultion is quite often portrayed to the general public as fact or the truth.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that it is (they are) both, but first a couple of terse definitions:
  1. Fact or facts in science refers to the data (observations) to be explained.
  2. Theory referes to a testable (falsifiable) explanation of those facts.
Descent with modification (evolution) is an observable fact. Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution) is a theory seeking to explain that fact. Whatever "truth" is achieved is always tentative and approximate.
 
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
That was not my intent.
I would suggest that it is (they are) both, but first a couple of terse definitions:
  1. Fact or facts in science refers to the data (observations) to be explained.
  2. Theory referes to a testable (falsifiable) explanation of those facts.
Descent with modification (evolution) is an observable fact. Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution) is a theory seeking to explain that fact. Whatever "truth" is achieved is always tentative and approximate.
Click to expand...

Ah, Uncertainty and Semantics.
 
Language can be that way, misleading.

The idea that evolution occurs is a fact, just as if you drop an apple, it falls to the ground.

The ideas as to the methods by which evolution occurs are theories, and are constantly being added to or discarded.

You're probably right that evolution is taught in schools as a "fact". But I don't know of many lower schools that would get into the gritty different theories of evolution, mainly because they do change. Rather, they deal with the overall picture of evolution, which really can be terms as facts for that age of student. The higher levels of learning tackle the "theories" of evolution, the heavy details.
 
Originally posted by Jaxom


The ideas as to the methods by which evolution occurs are theories, and are constantly being added to or discarded.
Click to expand...

i think that the method by which evolution occurs was and still is natural selection. Some details have changed, not the main idea behind evolution.
 
Originally posted by jusmeig
mohamed/friends and members of other religions please answer me this:

How would the stories of creation, from your respected holy books (Bible/Koran etc...) deal with the discovery of another life form on a planet other than earth?

Please avoid ranthing about how god created all and loves all equally etc... If you believe these books as proof of your faith then they must account for major events such as....the hundreds of millions of years that the dinosaurs were hanging about.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about religions or people who believe in God??

I personally don't see how the existence of life on another planet or dinosaurs roaming around would affect anyones faith in the God of his or her choice.:cool:
 
If I know for a fact that my nephew "WILL" take the controller and not Play the dog, then my nephew "WILL" take the controller and not play with the dog, therefore in this perspective, he is following what i know.
MY NEPHEW "WILL NOT" PLAY WITH THE DOG, BECAUSE MY KNOWLEDGE OF HIS ACT IS ABSOLUTE AND PERFECT, YOU SHOULDN'T USE THE WORD "CANNOT", because THAT WORD IMPLIES THAT HE CANNOT PLAY WITH THE DOG INSTEAD AS IF HE DOESNT HAVE FREEWILL LIKE A CYBORG, WHEN THE FACT IS MY NEPHEW HAVE FREEWILL. THE ANSWER IS NO, MY NEPHEW "WILL NOT" DO AGAINST WHAT I KNOW, AND THAT ACT IS PROVEN A FACT......AGAIN, MY NEPHEW DIDNT DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I KNOW BECAUSE MY KNOWLEDGE OF HIS ACT WAS 100% ACCURATE, BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN MY NEPHEW IS A ROBOT AND DOESNT HAVE FREEWILL..

AGAIN, YOU CAN'T USE THE WORD "CAN", WE ARE TALKING ABOUT "FREE-WILL", GET IT? FREE--------WILL......WILL.....FREEWILL...."FREE" AND "WILL"....FREEWILL, GET IT?

DO YOU GET IT FRENCHY? YOUR ARGUING AGAINST FACTS, YOUR ARGUING THAT MY NEPHEW DOESNT HAVE FREEWILL...ARE YOU OK?

SATAN IS TRICKY, HE IS THE MASTER OF DELUSION, HE IS USING YOU, BUT GOD IS MUCH MORE SMARTER THAN HIM...LOL, AND GOD IS USING ME, AND LET THE TRUTH UNVEILS ITSELF...

Moderator warning:

Imitating a banned member can seriously damage your health.
;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's all about the details.

An incomplete list of past and current theories in the whole set of evolution:
Darwinism (descent with modification by natural selection; and in and of itself a set of theories; i.e., 'Strict Darwinism', 'General Darwinism', etc.; and an 'umbrella' term sometimes used in other evolutionary theories as a basis, which is then modified)
Lamarckianism ("inheritance of acquired characteristics")
saltationalism (evolution proceeding by major leaps or jumps)
gradualism (slow, uniform accumulation of modifications)
punctuated equilibrium (periods of stasis followed by brief, intense periods of speciation)
phyletic gradualism (speciation occurs gradually over a species' entire range)
orthogenesis (evolution that follows a single direction or specific trend continuously, "straight- line" evolution, often appearing to be independent of natural selection)
(taken from http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm

But you're right, the main idea, that things evolve due to natural influences of one type or another and are related by distant common ancestors, is a hard fact.
 
You people are getting to stiff. We need somebody to come in here and shake things up again, like muscleman and Green World. They were good entertainment... Okay, Im just sleepy... And if the mods feel the need, edit both of my posts.

Moderator comment: Done
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jaxom,

Speaking of details... What of the distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution"?

Macro-evolution has not been observed so, in theory, life found on another planet could fill in the gaps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top