Scientists have proved for the first time that nucleobases found in meteorite are extraterrestrial

reply to post by eagledriver


This an excellent point and one I've tried to emphasize.

We have only been technologically aware for a few hundred years, which is an extremely brief time on the cosmological scale. In fact it's difficult to get across how quick our tech era has been.

If there were any space faring civilizations out there, it's VERY likely that they have peaked and blinked out a long time ago, or perhaps have not yet peaked, but are so far away that any messages or communications will not be received for millions if not billions of years.

One other related fact is that the civilization also has to perceive time in the same manner as we do. Humans perceive time passage on the 'seconds' scale as their major periodicity.

Who's to say that this isn't unusual and that most highly technical civilizations are not living on the same time scale, either perceiving the passage of time on a much faster or much slower scale?

Remember the Scalosians of ST:OS, who lived in a highly accelerated state?

Likewise you could have a civilization which measures time on a geologic scale, where the time slice is measured in hundreds of years?

If the 'aliens' we may encounter are just too different from us, there may be no way to communicate. Indeed, we may not even be able to perceive them, or perceive that they are alive.

Some may remember the old Electronic Arts game Starflight? The main aim of the mission was to collect and burn these crystals called Endurium for fuel, but...

(link above)

it turns out that the endurium crystals themselves are living, sentient beings that are being destroyed on a widescale level when they are burned up as fuel for interstellar starflight. Since their metabolisms are extremely slow due to their crystalline makeup, they consider the other races like humans to be like a disease and the Crystal Planet was built by the crystal race as the remedy

...Oops!

My reply is a little off the topic, but it speaks to the general theme of the differences and similarities of potential life in the Galaxy and the probabilities that life on Earth may or may not be even vaguely related to other potential life-forms who may be out there at present or in the past.

Good post.









[edit on 16-6-2008 by Badge01]

reply to post by jamie83


The reason that they say it can only come from space is due to the fact that carbon is formed by supernovas - it is not a primal element, but an actual result of the extreme heat caused by a secondary nuclear explosion that produces stardust and a lot of meteors.

Only about 2 percent of our body is composed of carbon-13 and the remain carbon is carbon-12, the most stable element in the universe. For this reason it is used as the universal standard of atomic weight by which all other elements are measured. It is the reason carbon amino acids stick together to form chains and then warp into spirals at they interact with the hydrogen in water to form DNA.

This study infers that carbon was probably deposited here on Earth from meteors condensed from supernovae rather than it being native on the Earth (which we know didn't happen anyway). It also infers that other planets throughout the universe would be seeded with carbon in the same way. Not a big surprise in any of this, but just science plodding along at its own snails pace.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by Maxpageant]

endoloithic bacteria.
survive complete vacuum.
Extremophiles. MARS.
Time WILL tell.
We still use Newtonian stuff, but we know its inaccuracies...

They downplay the fact that we've already seeded the solar system. In such a dynamic universe, it's impossible that materials haven't been shuffled and transferred to the nth degree already... Unless the universe is only a few thousand years old..
Which I fully encourage as many people to embrace as possible. We may need those ditch diggers again soon.

reply to post by djerwulfe


Not to change the subject, but that simple fact (and I have met people also who believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old and that the dinosaurs were never real) it illustrates the insanity that religious fundamentalists put into young people's minds while teaching them to never question such fundamentalist ideals at the same time. That kind of insanity is the only reason science and religion are at odds with one another. Science is basically a search for truth. Religious fundamentalism is different. These people tweak the truth to fit their fundamentalist principles regardless of what evidence is there to counter such a faith-based world view.

I am very anti-religious, but the fact of the matter is that this entire fundamentalist ideaology that the bible is always right and ,therefore, science must be wrong is completely backwards. Therefore, even if scientists discovered decisive, matter of fact evidence to prove that life on earth was likely seeded by comets and/or meteors, these religious fundamentalists who believe that the universe is 12,000 years old will not care. To them, even the idea of such a thing is blasphemous. Heck, look at what happened to Copernicus during the Inquisition. It's the same philosophical concept of religious fundamentalist views and/or interpretations of biblical scripture undermining the search for truth. It is counterproductive to finding the truth about our universe through true science.

-ChriS

[edit on 21-6-2008 by BlasteR]

It used to bug me....

Nothing happened to Copernicus, but later followers and proponents of the sun-centered solar system were persecuted by the church. Thankfully, they didn't excecute Galileo, but the church did kill some of his pals.

And then the church didn't accept the sun-centered model officially until 1835, long after the question had been settled.

The only time religion bugs me now is when it causes human/life suffering without a rational cause.

People do have a need to believe in order and purpose.

Panspermia is nearly a foregone conclusion to some degree, IMO.

reply to post by djerwulfe


This story is just as applicable today as it was way back then. What an important part of history this is..

en.wikipedia.org...

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and I Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the Lord] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set. In fact, it is the earth's rotation which gives the impression of the sun in motion across the sky.

One of the few pieces of information we have about the reception of Aristarchus's heliocentric system comes from a passage in Plutarch's dialogue, Concerning the Face which Appears in the Orb of the Moon. According to one of Plutarch's characters in the dialogue, the philosopher Cleanthes had held that Aristarchus should be charged with impiety for "moving the hearth of the world".[34] In fact, however, Aristarchus's heliocentrism appears to have attracted little attention, religious or otherwise, until Copernicus revived and elaborated it.[35]

Nicolaus Copernicus published the definitive statement of his system in De Revolutionibus in 1543. Copernicus began to write it in 1506 and finished it in 1530, but did not publish it until the year of his death. Although he was in good standing with the Church and had dedicated the book to Pope Paul III, the published form contained an unsigned preface by Osiander stating that the system was a pure mathematical device and was not supposed to represent reality. Possibly because of that preface, the work of Copernicus inspired very little debate on whether it might be heretical during the next 60 years.

There was an early suggestion among Dominicans that the teaching should be banned, but nothing came of it at the time. Some Protestants, however, voiced strong opinions during the 16th century. Martin Luther once said:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

This was reported in the context of dinner-table conversation and not a formal statement of faith. Melanchthon, however, opposed the doctrine over a period of years.

Some years after the publication of De Revolutionibus John Calvin preached a sermon in which he denounced those who "pervert the course of nature" by saying that "the sun does not move and that it is the earth that revolves and that it turns".[36] On the other hand, Calvin is not responsible for another famous quotation which has often been misattributed to him:

"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?"

It has long been established that this line cannot be found in any of Calvin's works.[37][38][39] It has been suggested[40] that the quotation was originally sourced from the works of Lutheran theologian Abraham Calovius.

Over time, however, the Catholic Church began to become more adamant about protecting the geocentric view.[citation needed] Pope Urban VIII, who had approved the idea of Galileo's publishing a work on the two theories of the world, became hostile to Galileo.[citation needed] Over time, the Catholic Church became the primary opposition to the Heliocentric view.[citation needed]

The favored system had been that of Ptolemy,[citation needed] in which the Earth was the center of the universe and all celestial bodies orbited it. A geocentric compromise was available in the Tychonic system, in which the Sun orbited the Earth, while the planets orbited the Sun as in the Copernican model. The Jesuit astronomers in Rome were at first unreceptive to Tycho's system; the most prominent, Clavius, commented that Tycho was "confusing all of astronomy, because he wants to have Mars lower than the Sun." (Fantoli, 2003, p. 109) But as the controversy progressed and the Church took a harder line toward Copernican ideas after 1616,[citation needed] the Jesuits moved toward Tycho's teachings; after 1633, the use of this system was almost mandatory.[citation needed] For advancing heliocentric theory Galileo was put under house arrest for the last several years of his life.

Copernicus may not have been 100% correct, but his astronomical observations were much closer to actual truth than the geocentric theory that was widely accepted by the Catholic church.

Many of his astronomical observations were extremely accurate. But this type of thing just goes to show how crazy people can get when they're assumed reality is challenged with hard facts through science. Copernicus fought a battle that is still being waged today. The Church had no right to toss him in a dungeon like they did. How arrogant and hypocritical of the holy who were so hateful of the truth that they would do whatever it took to silence reality for their own self-serving agenda.

-ChriS

[edit on 21-6-2008 by BlasteR]

I completely fail to see the point of this discovery. So what if life incorporated the carbon that came from outer space. That's how God created carbon lifeforms. They use the carbon that's available to them. If it comes from space so be it.

Secondly they really have no idea what the earth conditions were like in prehistoric times. Velikovsky has a better track record of prediction than most of these scientists, meaning that catastrophe theory suggests earth conditions may have been very different in the past. Perhaps even carbon 13 was once more plentiful. Who can say?

creationist reaction?

How does this disprove the notion that God created all life?

What you call science
i call god's work

its simple.

No where in the bible does it ever say HOW God created man, earth, etc.


There's your response

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Maybe a 'god' or a 'god process' created all life. But after this 'seed' of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen the 'god' or 'god process' turned it over to biology, which runs itself.

Ergo, biology is as powerful as the original event. Check the definition of 'emergence' on wiki.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
What you call science
i call god's work

I think you meant to say nature, no?

Science is the study, effort, will to discover and understand the physical world and how it works.

No where in the bible does it ever say HOW God created man, earth, etc.

However, it does say how he created the woman.

reply to post by BlasteR


Good info.
Still, the church didn't do anything to Copernicus. He was one of the boys!
And yeah. This crap takes forever.
And to the rest of ya'll. God schmod. This really has nothing to do with God. You can't prove or disprove the Supreme Being with some elements.
Leave God alone! He has bigger fish to fry. Like the recent spike in numbers of people who need judged or whatvever happens to people when they die and God gets ahold of them.

reply to post by danx


The bible speaks in metaphores
every page, every chapter, every other line.

"a rib from man" to create woman is nothing more than a metaphore to suggest creating woman from the flesh of man.

Please take no offense, but the biggest problem i see with people who don't believe in God, is that they think they understand what the Bible says, but they really don't

No where in the bible does it say that God created only human beings
no where in the bible does it neglect the notion of E.T. life
no where in the bible does it suggest a time frame from which the earth was created

no where does it say when human beings sprung forth, no does it say how.

god created the earth and all that you see

then God created human-kind.

seems pretty much in line with how scientists explain we got here

the bible is not a history book
nor is it a physics book, a biology book, etc. So stop trying to extract answers to the questions of human-kinds origins from it.

it is a reference book for morality
it tells you to have love in your heart and live your life the way you FEEL is right.

You dont have to believe in God if you dont want to, i just get deeply angered when someone comes forth and claims things about the Bible and about God that are just not true.


shakespeare writes much in line with how the bible is written, but people push that fact aside in an attempt to prove their point


All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances

To take the same approach to this passage from Shakespeare, that a lot of non-believers take to the bible:

How can you say the world is a stage? A stage is made of wood, nails, and paint. Our planet is made of earth rock and rater. And what is this "exit and entrance" garbage? I mean, seriously, cmon. We all know William was probably trippin on drugs when he wrote this -b ecause it defies every thing known in science




except that William speaks in metaphores, and one has to set and think, for just a second, to see what he's trying to say.



[edit on 22-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


I've read the book a few times. I'm a fan.
And there are a number of things that people "plug in" to the bible that aren't there.

Popular ideas about heaven, hell, sin, the kingdom, etc.
Real quick here are a few.. but there are alot more...
commenterry.blogs.com...

reply to post by djerwulfe


nice find DJ! Ill have fun with that link.

To add to DJ's comments:

non-believers in general always reference their interpretations fo the bible to support their claims
but when bible scripture interpretation is used against an athesistic claim, the bible is immediately refuted as the writings of a man

its the double-standard of the eon

My faith in God makes it impossible for me to admit the opssibility that there isnt a God. But i have yet to have a single discussion with a non-believer that has any merit.

My question is: Why is it every time extraterrestrial existance is mentioned, is the firs tthing brought up to the effect that "THIS DISPROVES GOD!!!!!!"

Why are people so eager to try and disprove God?
there is some deep-seated animosity here, and i fail to see the cause of it.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
The bible speaks in metaphores
every page, every chapter, every other line.

Too bad so many religious people take it literal then.

Please take no offense, but the biggest problem i see with people who don't believe in God, is that they think they understand what the Bible says, but they really don't

You think that's a bigger problem than people who believe in god that think they understand what the bible says, but they really don't?

god created the earth and all that you see
then God created human-kind.
seems pretty much in line with how scientists explain we got here

I guess... if by god you mean in the metaphorical sense, that you wrote about earlier, in regards to the universe or nature.

the bible is not a history book
it is a reference book for morality

A 'morality' of thousands of years ago, yea, perhaps.

it tells you to have love in your heart and live your life the way you FEEL is right.

You know that's fine and all if it wasn't for those pesky little passages about gays deserving to die, stoning non-believers or believers of other faiths, among other fun things.

Or are all those metaphors too?

You dont have to believe in God if you dont want to, i just get deeply angered when someone comes forth and claims things about the Bible and about God that are just not true.

You know, I feel exactly the same way about religious people who claim things about science that are just not true. And they anger me even more when faced with contradictory evidence they still claim that god did it.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
My faith in God makes it impossible for me to admit the opssibility that there isnt a God. But i have yet to have a single discussion with a non-believer that has any merit.

So let me get this straight: From the start you admit you cannot accept the non-existence of god as a possibility, yet, you wish to have a discussion with any merit with a non-believer.

Yes, I'm sure the problem preventing you from having a discussion with merit are the non-believers...

reply to post by danx



show me one passage where it gives heterosexuals the "okay" to go ahead and kill gays

you can't

you just proved my post

thank you.





reglardless of how you feel about homosexuality - the bible does not give power to humans to decide right or wrong.

If we're going to talk about the bibles reference to what humans should do about homosexuality?


but this thread isnt about bible interpretation

the OP forms a sentance

Creationist reaction in.... 3.... 2....

that seems to challenge the belief structure of a God, or a higher being, as the constrcut for all of existence.

So i challenge that claim.

Show me one shred of evidence that says ET life dispells a notion of God.


[edit on 22-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by danx

 

Show me one shred of evidence that says ET life dispells a notion of God.

What about this scenario?

ET arrives and they look like highly evolved humans, the Nephilim.

They land and claim Earth in the name of God, and declare their mission is to dominate all lesser beings.

What does this do to your personal notion of God?

Would you change your impression that humans are the top of the Evolutionary chain? The Bible does mention the Nephilim.

Genesis Ch6, v 1-4

"Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.[1]

If god created all living things, then who are you to argue that these beings are not the 'chosen ones', being more powerful and dominant.

What if God appeared and somehow managed to convince you that he was the Christian God and these advanced beings were his emissaries?

Just for the sake of argument.

We all know that as creatures of Faith, humans frequently fall short of the requirements, doubting god and not believing.

Further, say He then tells you that he is a 7th Dimensional being, able to appear to humans as omniscient and omnipresent and infallible.

Suppose he tells you and shows you that he is not the only 7th dimensional being, but just the one who too dominion over the 3-D humans and other living beings in that dimension.

How does this change your 'faith in God'?

He still exhibits all the qualities and attributes of your notion of god. Do you argue and make excuses or do you just accept it? How does this affect your Faith as it currently exists? Would you feel betrayed?






[edit on 22-6-2008 by Badge01]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
show me one passage where it gives heterosexuals the "okay" to go ahead and kill gays
you can't
you just proved my post
thank you.

Romans 1:26-27:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:32:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


And from the crowd favorite Old Testament

Leviticus 20:13:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

reglardless of how you feel about homosexuality - the bible does not give power to humans to decide right or wrong.

I'm glad you have that perspective. Unfortunately other fellow Christians (and people from other faiths) don't feel the same way.

Show me one shred of evidence that says ET life dispells a notion of God.

I never contested otherwise, that's why you won't find any such references in my posts.

reply to post by danx


none of your passages "condone" one human killing another human

"death" in the bible refers to eternal damnation

to be void of the lord is to know death

this is proven by the numerous times that the bible makes it very clear that "death" of the flesh is not death at all, because the soul is considered eternal in the realm of heaven.
But in the realm of Hell, the soul is considered dead, and void.

Hence - death.

once again - you have to evaluate the bible like you would any other metaphore.

I agree, there are some who take it too far and too literally - but those people are on both ends of the spectrum



[edit on 22-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]