Do you believe in other life in the Universe?

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Puhleeze. Stay ignorant if you will, but don't expect others to believe your stated conclusions.

LOL...

 

[eldirector]

Evolution, especially the theory that one body type eventually morphs into others is pure conjecture and is increasingly being abandoned. This was always a sham.

Wait... wut?

 

[Alpo]

Exactly.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Evolution, especially the theory that one body type eventually morphs into others is pure conjecture and is increasingly being abandoned. This was always a sham.

I've not heard of that before. Anywhere I can read up on it?

 

[T.Lex]

I thought that was sarcasm?

No.

I mean.

I thought that was sarcasm.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I've not heard of that before. Anywhere I can read up on it?

You'd have to listen to some of the same apologists and skeptics I do, the articles they write about research they write about. I was taught the same stuff you and all of us were. I used to believe when a scientist said something was true, it was probably true. But then I started noticing how often they are wrong no matter with how much authority they said it with, no matter how many others jumped on the band wagon.

 

[T.Lex]

You'd have to listen to some of the same apologists and skeptics I do, the articles they write about research they write about. I was taught the same stuff you and all of us were. I used to believe when a scientist said something was true, it was probably true. But then I started noticing how often they are wrong no matter with how much authority they said it with, no matter how many others jumped on the band wagon.

I'm curious about the body-morphing thing. Any linkification for more information on that?

It seems to me that there are examples of body-type changing - like on the Galapagos - but there's certain definitional issues.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm curious about the body-morphing thing. Any linkification for more information on that?

It seems to me that there are examples of body-type changing - like on the Galapagos - but there's certain definitional issues.

Adaptation is not the same thing as one body type morphing into a new one.

 

[T.Lex]

Adaptation is not the same thing as one body type morphing into a new one.

I hope after all our time together here on INGO that you know I'm not trying to be argumentative with my questions. I'm genuinely curious.

Can you give an example (or better, a link to the source) about this body-morphing thing? Like, there is an article of faith in science that a single cell organism can, with enough time and mutations, become a multi-cell organism. Does the skepticism you reference attack that notion? If so, I think that could be viable.

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just don't think I've ever heard of this criticism.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I hope after all our time together here on INGO that you know I'm not trying to be argumentative with my questions. I'm genuinely curious.

Can you give an example (or better, a link to the source) about this body-morphing thing? Like, there is an article of faith in science that a single cell organism can, with enough time and mutations, become a multi-cell organism. Does the skepticism you reference attack that notion? If so, I think that could be viable.

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just don't think I've ever heard of this criticism.

Check out some of the Christian apologists' web sites. Subscribe to their podcasts. Read what they write. They reference studies, research, site arguments, etc.

It's based on a different world view for sure. When we encounter new information, it's a human tendency to reject it in favor of early/first learning. I was there. But their arguments were compelling to me. And I'll throw in this disclaimer because I know what some reading this will say: it's not that macro evolution has to be false for Christianity to be true. I believe even if "conventional wisdom" is correct and I'm wrong, it can still be all a part of God's plan.

 

[T.Lex]

Check out some of the Christian apologists' web sites. Subscribe to their podcasts. Read what they write. They reference studies, research, site arguments, etc.

It's based on a different world view for sure. When we encounter new information, it's a human tendency to reject it in favor of early/first learning. I was there. But their arguments were compelling to me. And I'll throw in this disclaimer because I know what some reading this will say: it's not that macro evolution has to be false for Christianity to be true. I believe even if "conventional wisdom" is correct and I'm wrong, it can still be all a part of God's plan.

Yeah, for this thread in particular, I'm good with "divorcing" the theological aspects from the scientific-critical parts. Especially in light of how evolution would be part of unpacking the larger "life in the universe" issue.

Can you recommend a starting point? As a Christian (but not angry about it) I don't feel like I need to hear the apologetics part of it. I'm a full blooded Doubting Thomas about most things, so overcoming the first learning problem isn't a big deal.

 

[fnpfan]

To think in an ever expanding universe that we are alone is very small minded.. the proof is all around if your willing to hear it and understand it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yeah, for this thread in particular, I'm good with "divorcing" the theological aspects from the scientific-critical parts. Especially in light of how evolution would be part of unpacking the larger "life in the universe" issue.

Can you recommend a starting point? As a Christian (but not angry about it) I don't feel like I need to hear the apologetics part of it. I'm a full blooded Doubting Thomas about most things, so overcoming the first learning problem isn't a big deal.

None of the ones I subscribe to are angry about anything. Being able to present a reasonable case to answer skeptic's questions isn't being mad...but many of us get that way when an opposing argument is made to our presuppositions.

A few of my favorites are Jeff Durbin (also pastor at Apologia Church), Frank Turek, William Lane Craig, Shaun McDowell, Ravi Zacharias.

 

[T.Lex]

To think in an ever expanding universe that we are alone is very small minded.. the proof is all around if your willing to hear it and understand it.

You keep saying that, without any real elaboration. Did you read this?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf

If so, were you willing (or able) to understand it?

 

[T.Lex]

Non existent of the ones I subscribe to are angry about anything. Being able to present a reasonable case to answer skeptic's questions isn't being mad...but many of us get that way when an opposing argument is made to our presuppositions.

A few of my favorites are Jeff Durbin (also pastor at Apologia Church), Frank Turek, William Lane Craig, Shaun McDowell, Ravi Zacharias.

Thank you.

The "angry about it" was a reference to a favorite quote of mine by Mike Huckabee. "I'm a conservative - but I'm not angry about it."

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Thank you.

The "angry about it" was a reference to a favorite quote of mine by Mike Huckabee. "I'm a conservative - but I'm not angry about it."

Oh yeah. I remember that line now that you mention if.

 

[Spear Dane]

You keep saying that, without any real elaboration. Did you read this?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02404.pdf

If so, were you willing (or able) to understand it?

The Fermi Paradox has nothing to do with the question at hand...Do you believe in other life in the Universe? Such life can be a microbe on Titan or an intergalactic empire. The paradox only addresses why we don't see/hear any evidence of other technologically advanced life.

 

[EricG]

According to astronomers, a vast majority of stars out there have their own cluster of planets orbiting them. Just think about that for a sec.

Sent from my VS810PP using Tapatalk

 

[T.Lex]

The Fermi Paradox has nothing to do with the question at hand...Do you believe in other life in the Universe? Such life can be a microbe on Titan or an intergalactic empire. The paradox only addresses why we don't see/hear any evidence of other technologically advanced life.

I mean, throughout this thread, I think we've tried to show that there are 2 different questions: life, or "intelligent" life (however that might be defined). The Fermi paradox issue certainly goes to the latter.

The former brings the evolutionary question to the forefront. If there are microbes someplace, and one accepts evolution, then there is the chance for that to develop over billions of iterations into something "intelligent."

That it hasn't (based on what is scientifically provable at this moment in time) is certainly an observation pregnant with controversy. (Pardon the possible pun.)

 

[T.Lex]

According to astronomers, a vast majority of stars out there have their own cluster of planets orbiting them. Just think about that for a sec.

Sent from my VS810PP using Tapatalk

I have. And the variety of planets we are discovering is becoming more and more diverse. And more and more of that diversity does not support "life" as it is currently defined.