Aliens Don't Exist and If They Did, It's Irrelevant

[Churchwork]

Aliens Don't Exist and If They Did, It's Irrelevant

FACT #1: Based on our fastest capable speeds it would take 70,000 years to reach the nearest solar system. Even if we went at a fraction of that speed and collided with a small rock on the way the ship would be utterly destroyed. And the probability of life in any one solar system is so astronomically remote, the nearest system would not be merely 70,000 years away but at best billions of years away and more likely trillions of years away. So even if life did exist on another planet, it's irrelevant. Stick with your Bible.

FACT #2: Even if an alien race existed they would still need a cause as well, and on and on, but infinite regress is impossible, because if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Moreover, we would not have existed, because an eternity would still be going on before it could every reach this point. Infinite regress is not only proven false on both accounts but inherently contradictory.

FACT #3: There have not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe for life to exist on another planet. Science doesn't know what life is and can't explain how life arose from the chaos of an explosion that sterilized the entire cosmos a trillion times over. "Natural selection" is no help. It can neither create life nor assist the first living thing to start functioning. The first living cell would have had to come about by pure chance. But this is mathematically impossible--and there is no arguing with mathematics.

There are approximately 10^80 atoms in the cosmos. Assuming 10^12 interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 10^18 seconds (30 billion years) as twice the evolutionists' age of the universe, we get 10^110 (80 +12+18) as the total number of possible interatomic interactions in 30 billion years.

If each interatomic interaction produced a unique molecule, then no more than 10^110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe. About 1,000 protein molecules composed of amino acids are needed for the most primitive form of life. To find a proper sequence of 200 amino acids for a relatively short protein molecule has been calculated to require "about 10^130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos! No random process could ever result in even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest form of life.

"It is therefore sheer irrationality...to believe that random chemical interactions could ever [form] a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities. In the face of such stunningly unfavourable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we see in living systems? To do so with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion, represents a serious breach of scientific integrity" (John R. Baumgardener, Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. See In Six Days (http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6712), pp. 224-25).

Donald Page, an eminent cosmologist, calculated the odds of the universe existing 10(10^1240). Remember, the simplest physical structure upon which natural selection might operate must happen by chance--and it can't.

When anyone says that an eye, for example, couldn't happen by chance, Dawkins responds in an offended tone, "Well, of course an eye couldn't happen by chance! Natural selection is the very opposite of chance!" But Dawkins doesn't mention that natural selection is impossible without some living thing that can replicate itself.

FACT #4: The Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha books were excluded from the Bible. One of the reasons is they taught about aliens (automatically making them false). God says there are no aliens. He says there are: a) angels, and b) men on earth. That's it! When you really think about it, why would God need to create more than that? There is One Son of God who will be the center of the New City (Rev. 21), not many Sons of God in a bunch of New Cities across the universe. There is only One Uncreated Creator for one New City. The Bible says His sons and daughters (elect men and women) are the pillars of the New City not aliens. Judgment upon man does not need to be done by an alien race attacking earth or freakish hybridization (sorry Tom Cruise, you lose). God is not an unjust or unrighteous God!

Contradiction: Those who believe in aliens claim aliens came to earth long ago but today they are no longer here which contradicts all the alleged alien sitings and abductions in our modern day, so I guess they think the evidence from thousands of years ago is better evidence than all the hoopla today.

[Mystermenace]

Where does the bible say that god did not place men and women or other beings of his choice on other worlds?

[Churchwork]

Where does the bible say that god did not place men and women or other beings of his choice on other worlds?
"And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven" (Deut. 4.19). The Bible says, "And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so" (Gen. 1.15), not "and for other members of God's creation to inhabit other planets". It's not even an issue there could be life on other planets. As Hugh Ross says, there are 800 variables needed for life on another planet, and there simply is not enough planets in the universe to make life possible on another planet. There simply has not been enough interatomic actions in the history of the universe even to produce one protein molecule of at least 200 amino acids, let alone 1000 needed to create the simplest replicating life form. Understand that the reason why there are so many stars and planets in the universe is because there needs to be that many to produce the full elemental table. And when the New City changes into 1379 x 1379 x 1379 with walls 216 feet thick we whom are saved will go out to explore God's amazing creation, but not to visit aliens, since there is none, but to see all the amazing worlds out there. To explore! To go where no man has gone before!

[Mystermenace]

"And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven" (Deut. 4.19). The Bible says, "And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so" (Gen. 1.15), not "and for other members of God's creation to inhabit other planets". It's not even an issue there could be life on other planets. As Hugh Ross says, there are 800 variables needed for life on another planet, and there simply is not enough planets in the universe to make life possible on another planet. There simply has not been enough interatomic actions in the history of the universe even to produce one protein molecule of at least 200 amino acids, let alone 1000 needed to create the simplest replicating life form. Understand that the reason why there are so many stars and planets in the universe is because there needs to be that many to produce the full elemental table. And when the New City changes into 1379 x 1379 x 1379 with walls 216 feet thick we whom are saved will go out to explore God's amazing creation, but not to visit aliens, since there is none, but to see all the amazing worlds out there. To explore! To go where no man has gone before!

Well, that doesn't even come close to actually addressing the question I asked. I expected as much.

To respond to your current irrelevance:

Do you think that god told you the sum total of his existence, everything that he knows and that he has ever done, in one book?
Do you think that we are the only purpose and function god has in his existence?
Is Hugh Ross saying that god is not capable of making life possible on another planet?

[Churchwork]

Well, that doesn't even come close to actually addressing the question I asked. I expected as much.
I'm glad you can't show it.


To respond to your current irrelevance:

Do you think that god told you the sum total of his existence, everything that he knows and that he has ever done, in one book?
It will always be true that there are some things we won't know and that's ok.


Do you think that we are the only purpose and function god has in his existence?
We are His main purpose.

"All who claim me as their God will come, for I have made them for my glory. It was I who created them" (Is. 43.7).

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not" (1 John 3.1).

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Rom. 8.28,29).

"God chose him for this purpose long before the world began, but now in these final days, he was sent to the earth for all to see. And he did this for you" (1 Pet. 1.20).

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved" (Eph. 1.4-6).

"Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus" (Col. 1.28).

"But ye are a chosen...royal priesthood...that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light" (1 Pet. 2.9).

"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Col. 1.18).

"When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory" (Col. 3.4).

"Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ" (Eph. 3.8-9).


Is Hugh Ross saying that god is not capable of making life possible on another planet?
God can't be less than perfect. This is a perfect creation. Why accept anything less? Why would you try to do worse on a test or do less than you know you ought to in life?

MAY GOD SHOW YOU HIS GLORY!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cB2nyCaNMI&feature=related

[Mystermenace]

It will always be true that there are some things we won't know and that's ok.

We don't know that god has another thousand worlds that he has given the same promises to as he has here on Earth.


We are His main purpose.

A finite world such as ours doesn't amount to more than 0.0000...000% of god's infiniteness. Put about a billion more zeros where those three dots are and it is still too much.
To claim we are god's main purpose would be to bring him down into the finite realm of our world.

And all your biblical citations were irrelevant to the point also.


God can't be less than perfect. This is a perfect creation. Why accept anything less? Why would you try to do worse on a test or do less than you know you ought to in life?

Why do you say that god can make nothing perfect other than this world? Don' t you believe that god is omnipotent?

[Churchwork]

We don't know that god has another thousand worlds that he has given the same promises to as he has here on Earth.
We know life can't exist on another planet because there is not enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe and because Hugh Ross has taken 800 variables required for life, and there is no enough planets in the universe to make it possible. Even if there was life on another planet or another universe, it really doesn't change the fact the ultimate cause needs be uncaused with a mind.


A finite world such as ours doesn't amount to more than 0.0000...000% of god's infiniteness. Put about a billion more zeros where those three dots are and it is still too much.Indeed.


To claim we are god's main purpose would be to bring him down into the finite realm of our world.Not at all. First he created the angels and 1/3 fell away which was an eternal choice without redemption, and they knew it. So God created man who was redeemable after the fall, but only a small fraction of souls will be saved, because the vast majority are like those fallen angels who want to be eternally separated from God. How vain though since God is in control of all worlds and all dimensions. There is no escaping His design.

We are His perfect creation. Nobody knows all the things He has planned for us, and He loves us so much that He gave His only begotten to Son to pay for the sons to be the perfect and necessary ransom to meet His justice and love.


And all your biblical citations were irrelevant to the point also.I am glad you couldn't show it.

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not" (1 John 3.1).

The Bible say you don't know me, you can't, because your spirit is dead to God. You're as cold as ice.

"All who claim me as their God will come, for I have made them for my glory. It was I who created them" (Is. 43.7).

Christians are for His glory. He calls the most beautiful thing on earth, the pearl of great price, the Church body of Christ. If you can't sense this, just know you have a conscience that is millions of miles away from one that is regenerated and quickened with God's life for His Holy Spirit to indwell.


Why do you say that god can make nothing perfect other than this world? Don' t you believe that god is omnipotent?God is omnipotent, but He can't violate His righteousness. It would be evil of God to create a world ensemble less than this one. And He can't create one better than this one because this is the best.

[Mystermenace]

Nobody knows all the things He has planned for us,

I claim that you don't know all the things he has planned for the rest of the universe either.

[Churchwork]

I claim that you don't know all the things he has planned for the rest of the universe either.
That's nice but not sure how that helps you deal with your never ending problem that you still can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, and your timeless spaceless imaginary cause for the universe from nothing has no mind as God does, so God trumps your idol since a mind is needed to create a mind.

[Mystermenace]

That's nice but not sure how that helps you deal with your never ending problem that you still can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs,

Everyday a million and one people believe things that are false. A million of them don't blame it on god. When they figure it out, they blame it on being wrong.



and your timeless spaceless imaginary cause for the universe from nothing has no mind as God does, so God trumps your idol since a mind is needed to create a mind.

"a mind is needed to create a mind" is a quaint claim, but without any reasoning to support it, it doesn't hold much sway.

You like to quote the bible as rebuttal. You should stick to what the bible says and not what you want it to say. Otherwise, someone has to decide what the biblical words will mean when some biblical words are needed, and then you have a cult, not a religion.

[Churchwork]

God never asked you to blame him. How silly. The fact that people are wrong all the time does not address your problem you still can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs.

The reasoning for why a mind is needed to create a mind is because the lesser can never produce the greater. This has been said so many times. I think you deserve an infraction for wanting a reason when it was already given.

Again, you are accusing but where is the evidence to support your accusation as valid? You've not shown where I am not in concordance with the Bible. When I accuse I give a reason, but you do not. You're like Satan the great accuser who also doesn't need a reason. You take after your father the Devil. A chip off the old block.

Quoting the Bible is good since the proof is in the Bible, the very proof you are unable to overturn. Praise the Lord!

[Mystermenace]

God never asked you to blame him. How silly. The fact that people are wrong all the time does not address your problem you still can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs.

The naturalistic explanation is that they were wrong in their beliefs. I have already stated this. You need to infract yourself.



The reasoning for why a mind is needed to create a mind is because the lesser can never produce the greater. This has been said so many times. I think you deserve an infraction for wanting a reason when it was already given.

It has been said many times and I asked you to explain what analysis reached that claim but you ignored my request and consistently repeat it like it is self-evident. It is not. You need to infract yourself.



Again, you are accusing but where is the evidence to support your accusation as valid? You've not shown where I am not in concordance with the Bible. When I accuse I give a reason, but you do not. You're like Satan the great accuser who also doesn't need a reason. You take after your father the Devil. A chip off the old block.

I have shown where you are not in accordance with the truth and with science. You say that I do not give reasons but you do not present a single example of this. You need to infract yourself. That's three infractions, you need to ban yourself.

The policy that those who debate can shut down an opponent by banning them can best be described as cowardly and anti-intellectual. It exemplifies an environment that precludes an open-minded exchange of ideas.

If you can't handle debate then that should be made clear on the home page and don't invite debaters from other forums to join. Moderator-debaters are the nemesis of informed, articulate members who wish to engage in dynamic, unencumbered debate.

[Parture]

The naturalistic explanation is that they were wrong in their beliefs. I have already stated this. You need to infract yourself.
This is not a valid response for you need to account for how they could be wrong. Since you fail to do so and only self-assert, that's worthy of an infraction such as self-declaration.


It has been said many times and I asked you to explain what analysis reached that claim but you ignored my request and consistently repeat it like it is self-evident. It is not. You need to infract yourself.Since many times it has already been said that we observe nothing in which the lesser can produce the greater that is the reason you keep avoiding. You deserve an infraction for circumventing.


I have shown where you are not in accordance with the truth and with science. You say that I do not give reasons but you do not present a single example of this. You need to infract yourself. That's three infractions, you need to ban yourself.Since you are unable to reproduce your alleged claim, then you are just blowing smoke, again, deserving of an infraction for belligerency.


The policy that those who debate can shut down an opponent by banning them can best be described as cowardly and anti-intellectual. It exemplifies an environment that precludes an open-minded exchange of ideas.You are not permanently banned, only temporarily banned for these repetitive errors. It is the hope that you will reflect on these mistakes you make over and over again to come to the table to discuss more openly next time. It is important that in a debate one party not become abusive as are you doing with these obstinate behaviors. To continue in such a debate persisting in these antics is cowardly on your part and unintellectual not only for you but anyone in discussing with you.


If you can't handle debate then that should be made clear on the home page and don't invite debaters from other forums to join. Moderator-debaters are the nemesis of informed, articulate members who wish to engage in dynamic, unencumbered debate.
You are note engaging or dynamic but a dullard. The debate is viable as long as you abide in the board etiquette (http://biblocality.com/forums/faq.php?faq=etiquette_faq#faq_rules_etiquette). After all we wouldn't want a forum of just mindless zombies such as yourself for that is really boring.

[Kamerad]

When anyone says that an eye, for example, couldn't happen by chance, Dawkins responds in an offended tone, "Well, of course an eye couldn't happen by chance! Natural selection is the very opposite of chance!" But Dawkins doesn't mention that natural selection is impossible without some living thing that can replicate itself.

Dawkins actually says the opposite of that. Dawkins says that natural selection can occur with pretty much anything. He actually says that very early on in The Selfish Gene, if you've ever read it. For example, if there was a large hole, and above that hole there were some precariously perched rocks of various sizes made of some light volcanic rock, and the wind periodically knocked one down, the pile of rocks would be naturally selected to be a certain size because the rocks that were larger would bounce away. Because life is replicatory, chemicals would tend to select for life because life would only have to form once, and then it could use the other chance combinations to form more life. Nature would select for life because once life exists it replicates, and becomes greater. Baumgardner clearly understands neither natural selection nor basic statistics. Contradiction is a good name for that last section.


Contradiction: Those who believe in aliens claim aliens came to earth long ago but today they are no longer here which contradicts all the alleged alien sitings and abductions in our modern day, so I guess they think the evidence from thousands of years ago is better evidence than all the hoopla today.

Those who believe in Jesus claim that a 2000 year old book is the absolute truth, but it contradicts nearly all of the observations of modern science, so I guess they think the evidence from thousands of years ago is better evidence than all the hoopla today.
208

[Parture]

There is no evidence for life coming together from non-life all by itself. In fact, there is not even enough interatomic interactions (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/gospel_tract#interatomic) in the history of the universe to make it possible if it were possible. This is our evidence. You have no evidence for your faith. Your hostility to God should not be grounds for evidence.

As to the testimonies of the disciples in the Book multiply attested in various group settings, you are unable to find a naturalistic explanation to account for their eyewitness testimony. You can't ask for a better proof than that that Jesus is God and raised Himself the 3rd day.

This agrees 100% with modern science. You're violating modern science, because modern science says if there is no naturalistic explanation then it must be true. The evidence today is even stronger than it was back then because today we know there are no such things as group hallucinations and people don't willingly die for something they know is a lie.

The first churches by the Apostles were set up on their eyewitness testimony of seeing Jesus in various group settings resurrected bodily.

Hallelujah!

p.s. That's a dumb comment to ask if aliens didn't exist how did they build things? That's like asking how does Santa Claus (Satan Lucas) deliver all the presents if he doesn't exist? You're not too bright are you?

[Kamerad]

There is actually substantial evidence behind the hypothesis that RNA formed naturally. I read in either Nat Geo or Scientific American about an experiment that was conducted that showed that a soup of chemicals could form RNA. It is not faith. It is a supported evidence.

K, a naturalistic explanation for the eyewitness reports. A cult leader named Jesus, was buried by mistake (this happens in third world countries all the time). One of the followers from his little cult came along to try to take the body for a little cult-shrine. He opens up the tomb and finds Jesus trying to stumble out. He screams and runs away, possibly for quite a long time. Jesus finds all his old culties and tells them some stuff. He starts feeling a little woozy and walks out into the desert, telling his followers he is going to be in heaven. He then dies in the desert, and his body is lost forever. His culties believe him and spread all this word to all their buddies in the city. It eventually spreads to the Romans, and they spread the word of a dead cult leader all around the world.
The better way to say that would be to say: Jesus was buried by mistake, everyone thought he was resurrected, he crawled into the desert and died. There is no evidence indicating that group hallucinations do not happen, and people could be willing to die for greed or any other number of base motives.
Plus, there is always the argument that the Bible is just a work of fiction. Full Length Film on the subject-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFsmmMTMCHU
The picture was making a point about a lot of the arguments I see. God exists because how else could He have made the universe?

[Parture]

Forming RNA intelligently is only done synthetically by us and not by natural causes. It requires intelligence. You're actually providing evidence for Intelligent Design. And you can't produce self-consciousness nor God-consciousness to create a being like God did from "dust" (Gen. 2.7) and breathing in the the breath of life by His Spirit.

What you are proposing is called the swoon theory, but that wouldn't convince anyone with his back scourged down to the bone, holes in his hands, feet, chest and head. On the 3rd day he wouldn't even be able to walk. And it was all the disciples who testified to seeing Jesus alive from the dead in not just one setting but various group settings, different scenarios and different number of Apostles together at the same time.

Jesus was sent to the tomb. Roman guards would be punished or killed if they let a crucified person live.

As to legends theory which you then propose, that doesn't work because Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity. If He didn't exist then nobody did. In fact, there are more sources of Him within 150 years of His death than for any 10 figures combined. If all you are doing is proposing some fictional work that is impossible too, because we have 40 writers over 1500 years in complete agreement. Fictional writings tend to have the characteristic of admitting they are fictional story telling, but you don't get that air with the Scriptures going through the real lives of John, James, Peter and Paul, etc. In fact, second generation Apostles such as Clement of Rome said he was friends with Peter and Polycarp said he was a student of John.

There are no group hallucinations cited in history. The DM-4 psychology manual has no group hallucinations in it. And nobody in history is found to have died for something willingly they knew was a lie. Your wild speculations are without support. Your theory would be akin to refusing to admit you are not a Christian to save your life when you clearly reject Christ.

You totally avoided the 4 Step Proof for God. Simply, since nature can't start up by itself nor always have existed, it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Simple, so you are without excuse (Rom. 1.20). Actually, any discussion of DNA and RNA is mute because the uncreated is proven anyway.

[KAmErd]

Forming RNA intelligently is only done synthetically by us and not by natural causes. It requires intelligence. You're actually providing evidence for Intelligent Design. And you can't produce self-consciousness nor God-consciousness to create a being like God did from "dust" (Gen. 2.7) and breathing in the the breath of life by His Spirit.

What you are proposing is called the swoon theory, but that wouldn't convince anyone with his back scourged down to the bone, holes in his hands, feet, chest and head. On the 3rd day he wouldn't even be able to walk. And it was all the disciples who testified to seeing Jesus alive from the dead in not just one setting but various group settings, different scenarios and different number of Apostles together at the same time.

Jesus was sent to the tomb. Roman guards would be punished or killed if they let a crucified person live.

As to legends theory which you then propose, that doesn't work because Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity. If He didn't exist then nobody did. In fact, there are more sources of Him within 150 years of His death than for any 10 figures combined. If all you are doing is proposing some fictional work that is impossible too, because we have 40 writers over 1500 years in complete agreement. Fictional writings tend to have the characteristic of admitting they are fictional story telling, but you don't get that air with the Scriptures going through the real lives of John, James, Peter and Paul, etc. In fact, second generation Apostles such as Clement of Rome said he was friends with Peter and Polycarp said he was a student of John.

There are no group hallucinations cited in history. The DM-4 psychology manual has no group hallucinations in it. And nobody in history is found to have died for something willingly they knew was a lie. Your wild speculations are without support. Your theory would be akin to refusing to admit you are not a Christian to save your life when you clearly reject Christ.

You totally avoided the 4 Step Proof for God. Simply, since nature can't start up by itself nor always have existed, it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Simple, so you are without excuse (Rom. 1.20). Actually, any discussion of DNA and RNA is mute because the uncreated is proven anyway.
No, I am not providing evidence for intelligent design. Leaving a soup of chemical bases and them coming back and finding that they have combined to form RNA is not intelligently creating RNA. It is an experiment designed to discover how RNA forms in nature.

Again. My theory is based on the idea that the whole thing is exaggerated. Perhaps Jesus was not as badly treated as the apostles claimed. Perhaps the only real dangerous wound was the stab wound, and he managed to bandage it up with his burial shroud. Honestly, there are endless numbers of scenarios.

Just because he is heavily documented does not mean that he is a real person. One, the Christians did their best to completely wipe all other religious books and other paraphenalia off the face of the Earth, so of course he would be more documented. His followers destroyed all the other documents. They were so zealous they even tried to wipe out some of their own literature.

Saying that there must have been a creator applies to God as well. Surely something complex enough to create all of life has to have been created by something.

210

[Parture]

Hawking said, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." ('A Brief History of Time', 1988, p.127)

When Hawking speaks of "nothing" he is not referring to that which does not exist but the space of nothingness which itself still has particles.

Whereas those who prove the existence of God are referring to nothing as being that which doesn't exist. That which doesn't exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist.

They synthetically created RNA, unable to produce it naturally or 200 amino acids needed to produce 1 protein molecule of which at least 1000 protein molecules are needed for the simplest life form. Since you can show none of these steps, you got nothing. All you can do is a little synthetic RNA. That's like throwing part of an engine and hundreds of car parts into a big mixing machine and hoping it comes out a Farari all by itself. Silly. You can throw a 1000 monkeys into a room with typewriters and not one of them will produce a Shakespeare play.

John places himself at the cross with Mary Magdalene and the mother of Jesus when Jesus died. Exaggeration from no death to death would be a plain out lie, yet people don't willing die for what they know is a lie. Jesus wouldn't look much like a risen Messiah all beat up, holes in his feet and hands at the cross, hole in his chest and back scourged down to the bone. Roman guards execute those on the cross. Jesus' knees didn't need to be broken because he suffocated to death and a spear gushed out water and blood from his chest cavity. He was not even strong enough to carry His cross to Calvary. Studies have been done a person can't survive on a cross more than 12 minutes unsupported by the legs because they suffocate to death. Try it but you won't live to tell about it.

Whatever book burning was done by whom and when is really irrelevant because the original books of the NT were all completed within the first century. Later books are irrelevant. You can quote the entire NT except for 11 verses from quotes of the early church fathers in the 2nd century. The evidence I have is all the books of the NT were written before 65 AD except for Revelation 95 AD.

Since the universe can't come from nothing nor always have existed, logically it must come from that which is outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. That which is uncreated is all-knowing and omnipresent. Nothing is greater. It is illogical to suggest something caused the uncreated. It's uncreated-always existed. That which always existed has no cause. It always existed. Slow crowd here today.

[stone]

Aliens Don't Exist and If They Did, It's Irrelevant

FACT #1: Based on our fastest capable speeds it would take 70,000 years to reach the nearest solar system. Even if we went at a fraction of that speed and collided with a small rock on the way the ship would be utterly destroyed. And the probability of life in any one solar system is so astronomically remote, the nearest system would not be merely 70,000 years away but at best billions of years away and more likely trillions of years away. So even if life did exist on another planet, it's irrelevant. Stick with your Bible.
This 'fact' contradicts the bible itself. You're saying that it would take 70,000 years for light to reach the closest solar system. The universe is much younger acording to the bible. how about the further stars... even longer? Billions, maybe trillions of years? all I am saying is this 'fact' does not show that aliens dont exist, it shows that the bible is wrong.

[Parture]

You misread the Bible. Gen. 1.1 God created perfectly. It doesn't say how long it took. The universe is only 13.7 billion years old, not trillions. And it was 6000 years ago when God created the first God-conscious man when He breathed in the breath of life directly creating man's spirit which when made contact with the body man became a living soul. We know aliens don't exist because no life can exist on another planet. There are over 800 variables required for life to exist on another planet. There is not enough planets in the universe to make that possible.

[wootwoot]

You misread the Bible. Gen. 1.1 God created perfectly. It doesn't say how long it took. The universe is only 13.7 billion years old, not trillions. And it was 6000 years ago when God created the first God-conscious man when He breathed in the breath of life directly creating man's spirit which when made contact with the body man became a living soul. We know aliens don't exist because no life can exist on another planet. There are over 800 variables required for life to exist on another planet. There is not enough planets in the universe to make that possible.

What? That's insane! There's not enough planets! HELLO! Has anyone seen the Hubble Deep Field Photograph. In ONE LITTLE SPEC of the night sky that's not even VISIBLE TO US, there's over 10000 galaxies which each hold between 200-400 million stars, each holding around 2-40 planets each solar system, AND THAT'S JUST ONE SPEC OF SKY which means there's probably over 300 trillian galaxies, multiply that by 300 million stars each, multiply that by 5 to UNDERESTIMATE THE AMOUNT OF PLANETS and you have about.....1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000 planets...and times that number by 30 billion....like.....not enough planets? Not enough planets? There's WAY too many planets. People should be SCARED by the amount of planets out there because that means the chances of life, even being REALLLLLY rare means that the universe is probably PACKED with life.

Earth is an anthill next to a 10 lane super-highway people! Now for those of you who think I mean there's an actual highway out there, I'm being metaphorical to prove a point to you to give you perspective on your life.

You think god can only share his love with planet earth? You think planet earth is the only one that can love god?

The religious people of this world have to prepare themselves for the very real possibility that they may come in contact with extraterrestrials that are much more intelligent than us and that are much more spiritually evolved than us. This means that when they come out of the sky they may appear as angels to us because of their spiritual growth so far beyond ours, but they will not be angels they will be extraterrestrials coming to share that same love of god with us that we share with them.

Same goes for all religions, god created all the religions. All the religions have truth in them. But not all followers are true! But the core of every religion in this world shares in one thing: The love of God/creator force of this universal existence and the hope to better themselves through avoiding the negative and embracing the positive.

Do not get caught up in simple miscalculations of each others religions and allow that to divide humanity. A muslim mother and child deserve gods love just as much as us, and she has gods love through muhammads teachings of christ, and the quran.

Do not try to find disagreements with Bhuddism, Quran, Hinduism, or Judaism. Because the core religion teaches the same core love that christianity teaches, it's just the followers that can be mislead. Just like there are christian followers that can be mislead.

How can we live in harmony? First we need to know we are all madly in love with the same God. - St. Thomas Aquinas

I love each and every one of you, Jesus loves you, muhammad loves you, bhudda loves you, God loves you. God bless us all.

If we come in contact with extraterrestrials, don't worry, or feel that the meaning of the bible has been lost, the bible will always be important even after extraterrestrials come down to this earth because 7 sins, 7 heavenly virtues, 10 commandments, those are all REALLY GOOD POINTS that EVERYONE should read and feel better knowing them than NOT knowing them.

God's love flourishes on this planet and TRILLIONS OF OTHERS. God's creation is beautiful.

[Churchwork]

wootwoot,

I removed your account because in your profile you said you are an Apostle for the Church which obviously you are not since you believe in salvation by works and you are a universalist. You're going to Hell.

You're not doing your homework. I just said when you divide those 800 variables into the number of known planets, there is not enough planets for life to exist on another planet. Study the work done by Hugh Ross.

God has no purpose for life on more than one planet. One planet is more than enough to find a people who love Him to spend eternity with. More than one planet is vanity! God considers it evil to create a paradigm that could potentially involve wars between humans and aliens which would most certainly occur. We are not guilty for the sins of beings from another planet. We are guilty for our own sins right here on earth. In the same way, multi verses are pointless endeavors also. Watch the tv series The Fringe to see what I mean.

God didn't create any religion except the faith of ancient Israelites and Christianity, for it is the only true religion. All these other religions you favor eternally separate themselves from God because they will for eternity reject the love of God giving His only begotten Son, who Himself is God (2nd Person of the Trinity) to die on the cross for the sins of the world.

Jesus said the world would be divided because of the hostility of people like yourself who misrepresent Him in your contradictory ecumenicalism. A Muslim woman who accepts the teachings of Muhammad is going to Hell, for she has accepted the lie that Jesus never died on the cross. She knows better in her own conscience that Islam is false, just by observing its fruit if nothing else. She could be saved by accepting the God of the mountains and stars then surely if she was presented the Son would accept Him too for the Father and the Son are One Being.

The core teachings in all these faiths are false and diabolically opposite to Christianity. In Christianity God died on the cross for the sins of the world to save whosoever is willing to believe in Him to receive eternal life and not go to Hell.

Buddhism is Atheism and teaches shutting your mind down like a zombie in Nirvana. God doesn't want you to do that. He wants you to solve problems and embrace your senses. And Atheism teaches there is no God. The Quran is false because it teaches Jesus never died on the cross, thus didn't die for the sins of the world. Hinduism is false because the population would be far greater than it is if it were true, and its god is amoral. How can God have morals below our own? And obviously you are not coming back as a chicken if you are a bad human. That never effectively deals with sin. And of course Judaism is false because to reject the Messiah is deserving of eternal damnation.

All of these religions are works based faiths too in which they claim a person can lose salvation. Whereas in Christianity a person who is born-again, receiving eternal life, can never lose salvation, for the Bible says we "shall never perish" (John 10.28). It takes quite the arrogant mind to think you can bridge the gap between you and God by your own strength.

The Great Tribulation is coming in which the people of the world will almost destroy themselves, but Jesus says He returns for the sake of the elect then follows the regeneration of the world (Matt. 19.28). The elect would be people like me who are born-again who have God's uncreated life.

Muhammad doesn't love you, he was a murderous tyrant and lies about Jesus. Buddha doesn't love you, he's just a fat pig who hated God. But Jesus does love you, for not only did He create you, He provided a way of salvation for you through His precious blood for forgiveness of sins and reconciliation back to God.

I can't comment on what St. Thomas Aquinas said whether he was talking about just Christians who are already saved or if he was talking about something else.

The Bible says we are not saved by works lest anyone should boast, so your "saving 7 sins, 7 heavenly virtues, 10 commandments" theory will most certainly fail you, as you create a law unto yourself you don't even keep. If you try to live by the law even a law you create unto yourself, you will die by that law and eternally separate yourself from the love of God and God Himself. Your 7-7-10 theory reminds me of Wayne Dyer's Ten Dumbmandments.

[Itinerant Lurker]

You're not doing your homework. I just said when you divide those 800 variables into the number of known planets, there is not enough planets for life to exist on another planet. Study the work done by Hugh Ross.


Actually, we've found almost 800 extra-solar planets in the relatively short time we've been able to look for them, and it's estimated that our galaxy contains at least 160 billion planets which orbit stars. Of those we've discovered, a significant percentage of planets and moons are within the habitable zones of their stars. Is Ross taking into account the updated data astronomers now have concerning extra-solar planets, particularly from the Kepler probe?




Lurker

[Churchwork]

800 variables have been found so far requiring life to exist on another planet. There are not enough planets in the universe to meet that probability.

[Itinerant Lurker]

800 variables have been found so far requiring life to exist on another planet. There are not enough planets in the universe to meet that probability.

Do you know where I could go to read more about these 800 variables? Thanks.




Lurker

[Churchwork]

Do you know where I could go to read more about these 800 variables? Thanks.
Yes, in the books by Hugh Ross such as The Creator and the Cosmos and other books he has written. I got this information from him. People are unaware of how many factors there are that go into requiring life to be able to exist on a planet. They just assume because there are so many planets surely the odds are in their favor. But when you examine that, indeed, there are so many variables involved (even more we haven't thought of) you realize life can't originate on another planet. And it's quite elegant to think of it that way too, because it serves no purpose. God's glory is manifested on this one planet making man in His image to save and choose out a people for Himself to spend eternity with (the rest go with you to Hell). Life on another planet is actually vain, serves no purpose and totally unnecessary.

[Itinerant Lurker]

So I got the chance to try and run down your claims about Hugh Ross’ “800 variables for life”. I don’t have the book, but the only online references I could find were simply more second-hand references to it which, given the tendency for creationists to make up stuff like this, left me a bit dubious.

Fortuitously, I am quite familiar with Ross’ website, “Reasons to Believe”, from my days as an OEC. It turns out that your claim of 800 variables is, at best, very outdated (it was ostensibly “sourced” in a book from 1995, after all). Ross has a few articles on what he sees as the fine tuning of life on earth from 2001 and 2004 which detail not 800 but 154 parameters for life (Fine Tuning for Life on Earth (http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tuning-for-life-on-earth-june-2004)), and which assign probabilities to some of them (Probabilities for Life on Earth (http://www.reasons.org/articles/probabilities-for-life-on-earth-2001)).

There are a few very good reasons to think that Ross is grossly exagerrating what would be required for life to arise, not the least of which include that he doesn’t appear to explain his basis for assigning probabilities to his parameters, and that he seems to ignore that many of his parameters are interdependent or just downright unnecessary. (I can provide some examples of this if you'd like - just let me know).

I guess what I’d like to know is what is it about Ross’ apparently flawed claims that you find more compelling than the claims of other scientists? Is it really the strength of his evidence, or is it simply because it confirms your pre-existing beliefs? If the former, what specific evidence do you find particularly compelling (and why didn’t you simply present it when I, on multiple occasions, politely asked?); if the latter, shouldn’t that be the basis for some pretty drastic self-examination of your motives?

As always, I appreciate your taking to the time to reply.




Lurker

[Churchwork]

The number of variables has increased from under 100 to over 800. When you divide through the number of estimated planets in the universe, it's impossible for life to exist on another planet. Ross and others have done their analysis. What they have in common is there is not enough planets in the universe for life to exist on another planet. So does this agree with or disagree with God's glory? I believe God's glory is manifestly greater in creating this entire universe for life to exist on just one planet as it would be redundantly unnecessary otherwise, and His precision work would have to be even more precise for life to exist on just one planet. That's my God the God of the Bible.

[yiweitech]

Aliens Don't Exist and If They Did, It's Irrelevant

FACT #1: Based on our fastest capable speeds it would take 70,000 years to reach the nearest solar system. Even if we went at a fraction of that speed and collided with a small rock on the way the ship would be utterly destroyed. And the probability of life in any one solar system is so astronomically remote, the nearest system would not be merely 70,000 years away but at best billions of years away and more likely trillions of years away. So even if life did exist on another planet, it's irrelevant. Stick with your Bible.

FACT #2: Even if an alien race existed they would still need a cause as well, and on and on, but infinite regress is impossible, because if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Moreover, we would not have existed, because an eternity would still be going on before it could every reach this point. Infinite regress is not only proven false on both accounts but inherently contradictory.

FACT #3: There have not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe for life to exist on another planet. Science doesn't know what life is and can't explain how life arose from the chaos of an explosion that sterilized the entire cosmos a trillion times over. "Natural selection" is no help. It can neither create life nor assist the first living thing to start functioning. The first living cell would have had to come about by pure chance. But this is mathematically impossible--and there is no arguing with mathematics.

There are approximately 10^80 atoms in the cosmos. Assuming 10^12 interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 10^18 seconds (30 billion years) as twice the evolutionists' age of the universe, we get 10^110 (80 +12+18) as the total number of possible interatomic interactions in 30 billion years.

If each interatomic interaction produced a unique molecule, then no more than 10^110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe. About 1,000 protein molecules composed of amino acids are needed for the most primitive form of life. To find a proper sequence of 200 amino acids for a relatively short protein molecule has been calculated to require "about 10^130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos! No random process could ever result in even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest form of life.

"It is therefore sheer irrationality...to believe that random chemical interactions could ever [form] a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities. In the face of such stunningly unfavourable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we see in living systems? To do so with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion, represents a serious breach of scientific integrity" (John R. Baumgardener, Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. See pp. 224-25).

Donald Page, an eminent cosmologist, calculated the odds of the universe existing 10(10^1240). Remember, the simplest physical structure upon which natural selection might operate must happen by chance--and it can't.

When anyone says that an eye, for example, couldn't happen by chance, Dawkins responds in an offended tone, "Well, of course an eye couldn't happen by chance! Natural selection is the very opposite of chance!" But Dawkins doesn't mention that natural selection is impossible without some living thing that can replicate itself.

FACT #4: The Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha books were excluded from the Bible. One of the reasons is they taught about aliens (automatically making them false). God says there are no aliens. He says there are: a) angels, and b) men on earth. That's it! When you really think about it, why would God need to create more than that? There is One Son of God who will be the center of the New City (Rev. 21), not many Sons of God in a bunch of New Cities across the universe. There is only One Uncreated Creator for one New City. The Bible says His sons and daughters (elect men and women) are the pillars of the New City not aliens. Judgment upon man does not need to be done by an alien race attacking earth or freakish hybridization (sorry Tom Cruise, you lose). God is not an unjust or unrighteous God!

Contradiction: Those who believe in aliens claim aliens came to earth long ago but today they are no longer here which contradicts all the alleged alien sitings and abductions in our modern day, so I guess they think the evidence from thousands of years ago is better evidence than all the hoopla today.

Okay, first thing's first, I am an atheist who believes only in science, not some invisible supreme being in the sky watching humanity kill each other. So my arguments will be one-sided and biased. That said, I am open-minded and if somebody offers me scientific proof (a book written by a crazy Jew with a colorful imagination does not count) that something like god existed, I'm always open to ideas. Also, I don't mind if people believe in god, just that they keep it to themselves and not forcefully press people into believing in their own ideas like they've always done.
Also, for someone who, surprisingly, understands science, these are awfully arrogant and hollow arguments...
Now, onto rebuttals...

"FACT" #1: You are assuming that we will forever be bound to our current infantile rocket technologies and our speed of travel will always be the same, however, technology, unlike religion, progresses with incredible pace. As we develop faster ways of propulsion, we will definitely develop shielding mechanisms to prevent ships from being torn apart by dust particles. The chances of life on other planets is really unknown, because we haven't even found that many exoplanets, the search has just started and the technology is very primitive, we are only able to find giant gas giants because of their size, which doesn't allow for life (as we know it). So what if it's millions of light years away? We will eventually get there. And STICK TO YOUR BIBLE? really? are you kidding me? Humans have "stuck to the bible" since some conman wrote it a few thousand years ago. Look at how far that got us! NOWHERE! Now when the industrial revolution kicked off, A.K.A. when religion lost its hold and people stopped getting burned at a stake for not believing in god, that got us much further than the thousands of years of religion combined.

"FACT" #2: Your arguments here is based on the idea that everything in the bible is true. It's not. So why do you think that aliens will need some form of belief, some form of faith to survive? Religion is something that humans invented to pretend they could explain everything they don't know, maybe the aliens we find will decide that they should focus on actually WORKING on knowing the things they don't know instead of coming up with some bollocks explanation to try to explain something.

"FACT' #3: Science CREATES life, HUMANS define life. A single-celled organism (give that same organism a few billion years it develops into intelligent sentient lifeforms) on an alien world is life, but you may not accept it. There are MANY MANY MANY galaxies MUCH older than ours, if our young galaxy has life (and a lot more than one kind), why can't the trillions of others? . Life is created by evolution, molecules of different acids, random chemical reactions, and our position in our solar system and galaxy with the right planets to help us evolve and be here to believe in god. Our position is in no way unique, there are trillions of planets like ours in the milky way, in the Goldilocks zone, in the right position, and with enough molecules for life. As for your math, it's wrong. There are MORE than 10^80 atoms in the OBSERVABLE universe, meaning our 13 billion light year bubble, which is most definitely NOT the entire universe, and this is not an accurate estimate, since the light from just-forming galaxies are only reaching us now, we have no idea how huge these galaxies have gotten, not to mention the neutron stars, black holes, and other anomalies that contain much more material able to create life. The only reason we exist is because we are here, thinking about why we exist and if we are alone, and not pure chance, because if we didn't exist due to pure chance, we would not be musing about why we exist, make sense? The math is UNKNOWN, because we really don't know enough about, life, space, and the universe to know how big or small the chances are. your "math" is based on pure untrue assumptions. Also, for argument's sake, why would we assume that aliens need water, sunlight, or even solid land to survive? Aliens could theoretically evolve from nitrogen, hydrogen, in the air, in space, or any place you may think of. In that case, life is very NOT uncommon in the universe, it would be just as usual as people on Earth, or animals in the forest. But of course this is not life "as we know it"

"FACT" #4: The bible is always right...sure, makes legit logical sense. IF THE BIBLE SAYS ALIENS DON'T EXIST, ALIENS MUST NOT EXIST! pure awesomeness of logic...The passages excluded from the bible were probably the only things that were true. And why can't god, this all-powerful being, create life on some other planets? and go look after THEM instead of looking at our failure of a planet? If god knew everything, why would he create this Earth that's not flat, full of homosexuals, murder, rape, crime, war, destruction, global warming etc. etc.? Universe? Galaxy? well apparently he didn't know much about what he created, unless you are crazy enough to say that the universe doesn't exist and god wanted to punish us for whatever? an alien race really wouldn't find a reason to attack and judge us, which is ironic since it's what we might actually do to other aliens when we have sufficient technology to do so.

"Contradiction": The claims of aliens visiting Earth are generally regarded as bollocks, because it's most likely not real. The first sightings may have been real, but all the copycats that follow aren't. However, just because aliens didn't take a stop to visit our stupid and primitive race, doesn't mean that aliens don't exist. Just because of some conman deciding it would be funny to record some flying saucers on tape doesn't ruin the possibility of other life in the universe.

[Churchwork]

You start out faulty because science doesn't come from nothing. It has a cause. It is illogical to forsake the cause of science and only accept science is true, otherwise your premise could be false.

Before we move onto your other points, I thought we could start with your first point.

[yiweitech]

Science is caused by science, not God, you tell me that God has some hand in science, please prove it or I really wouldn't believe it. Science is true because the universe exists, the universe bounds us using science, and we can use science to achieve great things which God has no hand in even if he existed.

[Churchwork]

The laws that govern science can't pop into existence from nothing, for that which does not exist can't cause anything such as the laws of science.

You have proposed the reason why science exists is because the universe exists. So go to the next step and ask what caused the universe? Don't shut your mind down for Satan.

[yiweitech]

The universe was caused by the big bang, what the big bang was caused by, we don't know yet, but if was by some supreme being, why can't there be other lifeforms? And that supreme being would be an extraterrestrial
Merriam Webster: "originating, existing, or occurring outside of earth's atmosphere"
A supreme being not of our universe certainly qualifies.

[Churchwork]

We do know the big bang did not come from nothing so it must come from something.

A supreme being we are talking about is uncreated, timeless and spaceless. Whereas a life form is not.

So it is fair to ask what caused a particular life form, but illogical to ask what caused the uncaused cause since by definition being uncaused always existed.

[yiweitech]

I don't care if it's timeless, spaceless, or whatever, it came from outside of Earth's atmosphere and that makes it extraterrestrial. Now as to if god is a life form, god stated that there were gods before him, so obviously they are not timeless, but then again, the bible is full of contradictions, mistakes, and imperfections because it was written by HUMANS. You think that God may have wanted to hire a proofreader. Now, many modern researchers believe in multiverses, does god play a hand in those other universes too? Now you claiming that god always existed, why would he create us? why would he create a being of such imperfect and incompetent people? why in the universe would he bother to want races lesser than him? to rule over them? but no, he is all good and almighty and would never do such a thing, so he was bored? being the only thing in the nothingness? so was god the singularity? does a god exist inside every black hole?
P.S. please move on to my actual points, we can spend decades debating the dictionary definition of a fictional character.

[Churchwork]

You are talking about some god you claim had gods existing before him. If such gods were true then you would still have to ask what caused those gods.

Whereas I am talking about the God of the Bible in which He says there are no gods before Him, beside Him, or after Him since He is uncreated, thus alone from everlasting.

[yiweitech]

Okay so what came before him? nothing? so he created himself, out of his own image, which is nothing...seems plausible...so why would he create mortals again?

[Churchwork]

That's illogical to say the uncreated created himself since he already existed.

[yiweitech]

It is illogical to say there is something that was uncreated and just bam...smack down in the middle of nothing, it is even more illogical to believe so with the only evidence in the form of a single book.

[Churchwork]

How can you smack dab something in the middle of nothing when it doesn't exist to have a middle?

[Don Mohawk]

I agree with the subject aliens don't exist, but in the form of little .green men and bugs. Angels and demons are not from this world and that is alien. Aliens from other planets would be wrong considering the fight with satan is on this world. Not on any other planets. God is very able to create aliens, he is infinite. But I don't see where he would want aliens to be a center of topic for the faith. He would of givin us some sort of guide to deal with other beings as he gives us very well detailed information about angels, demons, and our history in the world. So with that being said, thank you for this thread I enjoyed it.

[Churchwork]

Alleged aliens live on another planet. Fallen angels are not planet based like you said. There is required more than 800 variables for life to exist on another planet. There is not enough planets in the universe for that to happen. The odds are astounding when you get into each of those variables and multiplied together. You can plead no contest. Enjoy the majesty of the universe while not forgetting to achieve our full periodic table of elements required the universe be this big. It's that simple. Alien diversions is a waste of man's mind.