NASA is throwing money away I can prove it!

[scorpia]

It is generally agreed by the scientific community that life had been caused by amino acids rained down from a primordial earth which polymerised and gradually evolved over a long time to create life as we know it today. This is supported by different fossils found in different layers of rock which has been dated and so forth. For the sake of argument let's go along with the theory of evolution.

Now, creationists believe different, that life is created in 6 days, all at once, you get the jist.

The logic of certain atheists, however, is as follows;
There is proof to support the theory of evolution
Creationist beliefs contradict this theory
The creationists' beliefs are false
This includes God, Jesus, Moses.........

HOWEVER
There are some people who believe aliens had put life Earth by seeding it.
The theory of evolution and the proof that supports it contradicts this (The Earth wasn't seeded with life all at once. It evolved over time)
Therefore these alien seeding people's belief's are false
If I were to go on with atheist logic, I should conclude that all their beliefs are false, including the existance of aliens and anything else that the mention.

You hear all the time in papers about astronomers finding some new possibly life-bearing planet in some big search to see if we are not alone. There's even some mission to Mars I've heard of, and what are they looking for? Places that could have supported life. (Or could in the future). However, due to atheist logic, this is a big waste of money, as I have proven in the paragraph above that no aliens can possibly exist. That, and I could say, "I haven't seen any proof of aliens. If they existed I would have seen proof of them by now. Since they haven't, I must conclude that they could not possibly exist."

Now, question for debate;
Is proving the theory of evolution really a good reason to conclude that no God, (Gods, aliens, spirits,) could exist?

Is it perhaps pointless to have so much fighting over creation/ evolution debates?

Isn't it a tad bit silly to think you are more sciency than anyone that isn't an atheist, or believes in higher powers? That science is on your side and not on anyone elses?

My response: The debate regarding evolution and creation is all good to argue in a friendly like manner. But I have my limits. I go along with the theory of evolution but I generally accept that creationists believe what they do for their own reasons. If it came down to it, I don't want to push them into believing otherwise. They say "evolution is only a theory" or anything else, fine. I see that they have already learnt all there is to know about evolution/ the big bang, they have made their own conclusions from it.

I am not going to be one to call them ignorant for it, however. And anything beyond the friendly arguments is simply rude and snobbish. And I think it is silly to think, just because you believe different, that you are more sciency, or less brainwashed. It doesn't mean you know more than them or are less ignorant. Scientists are searching for other powers, in a way, through whatever method like it or not so it isn't all evolution and smiting YEC's.

[scorpia]

I don't 'go along' with fantastical tales. Where we see life here on a planet, I think it a bit arrogant to conclude we are the only planet in the entire universe with life. Of course the matter of alien life is unproven, but given the condition of one planet in a universe so vast, it is not unreasonable to think other life is 'out there'. As stated before, the amount of money and effort spent IMO, is a reasonable thing for debate, but I would never say we should abandon all efforts.
God is not on the 'same page' because there is no evidence to suggest He exists, other than personal opinion and conjecture. Which God do you propose we 'search' for? How would we go about this search?

This I don't get; it's okay to assume life out there exists, ut's at least likely and I would agree, but just why is God a "fantastical tale?" Why is he so different? The only thing I can think of is the level of power God has. And it's just as arrogant to think that there isn't anything so powerful just as it is arrogant to assume we are the only form of life.

What can be verified in regards to religious texts? What God do you propose is taught.

That is encouraging, but I must ask, how would we go about searching for this God, or that god, or any of the thousands that have been proposed throughout history?

In light of many theists saying we must pray, and act in a given manner, in order to 'find' God, I see no reason to spend money on the search for a God that could only ever be proven on a personal basis.

Well I suppose depending on the religious text you can check out what can be verified. If some prophet claimed to have seen God did this prophet at least exist? Where was he? What was happening during that time period he existed? Not exactly proof of God, but proof there is some sort of witness. From there on one can make up there own conclusion, but the idea that someone might have seen some form of phenomenon and either saw it as God, or something that told him he was God, or saw it as a God because it was all his primitive mind could think of, sits with me more rather than sitting around and assuming he's lying rather than investigating, simply because it's "fantastical".

Without actually being aware of the specifics of why NASA would choose to search for alien life, I can only guess, but I think one reasonable reason would be we know there's life on this planet, surely there must be life on other planets or celestial bodies.

It's no so much a position of "I (we/nasa) haven't seen any proof of God. If God existed I/we/NASA would have seen proof of God by now. Since I (we/nasa) haven't, we/NASA must conclude that God could not possibly exist.

It's more a matter of, "How in heck are we gonna search for this God?"

How did all those other people who have claimed to have seen God find him?

Huh? Do you mean rephrasing Creationism as Intelligent Design, and trying to sneak it into schools under the guise of 'academic freedom'?

I do not know. Am I?

Are you aware that the whole Creation movement is evolving?

That too.

Are we to teach, in a science atmosphere, things that can't be proven beyond the level of myth?

Our schools should teach science in our science classrooms. Where a particular item does not meet the standards of the scientific method, then said item should not be taught in a science classroom

Then we will have to start teaching such in science. Until this pillar of turtles can be considered a logical, rational scientific theory it should remain outside of science classrooms

Not in a science classroom. This is a very bad idea, and certain creationist groups are using this phony ideology to try to -ahem- wedge their unproven science into the science classrooms. Our children deserve to be taught science. This whole idea of 'teach the controversy' or other Discovery Institute strategies are designed to sow confusion, and not designed to help children learn the critical thinking skills involved in science, and life in general.

These are the kinds of issues I hope would be taught at the college level, and leave the more 'solid evidenced' stuff to the lower grades. I would hope in the 'lower grades' the more controversial topics would be discussed more 'in passing' where it could help inform decisions about the 'solid evidenced' subjects. I fear though that even this concession would lead IDers to 'wedge' confusion and unsupportable claims into our grade schools.

Then let's leave 'the God issue' to philosophy class.

Substitute any science you wish(Cosmology, Chemistry, Geology, Tectonics, Physics, Biology....), it is still a reasoned look at how the Universe really works, no Philosophical implications, "Just the facts, ma'am." view of the world. It is not a vast conspiracy to convert all religionists(a subset of which are creationists) from their scientifically unsupportable beliefs(I too have morals and beliefs of how men should act, I just don't base them on superstitious beliefs of ancient men(certainly not on their scientific understanding of the Universe, thunder turned out not to come from Thor's Hammer, lightning did not come out of Odin's Spear).

As to Philosophy(not one of the 'Hard" sciences), believe what you want, act according to those beliefs, I do. Whether you think aliens, gods or other outside agency is responsible, fine, but you are not going to teach your philosophy in a Physics, Biology or Astronomy class for all of OUR children. Teach your philosophy in your church.

I've ut these quotes together since they basically about the same thing. Teach religion in science? No, not really the position I want to take. If anything I don't feel I have any right to say what should or shouldn't be taught, not having kids. But it even still at least in a separate class would make it fair for both sides.

Again, if you are arguing that we should use 'ET' money to help the less fortunate, I'm throwing in with you. My personal opinion is the 'ET' search is not likely to offer much reward in the immediate future, and this money could be better spent elsewhere. If you are arguing that we should abandond the 'ET' search because we are not also searching for God, then I must disagree. I am unaware of any sound methodology by which we could search for this God.

Neither. Searching for God, ET, a cure for cancer, anyting, is a worth while venture. Granted, money could be better spent elsewhere, but aside from that, I find it right to search for something rather than give up on it. The ET search for example. Will we have to scour the entire universe before we make up our minds? It's a very big place after all. Maybe we have to do that to prove to ourselves if there is anything out there, and maybe an effort just as huge will be what it takes to prove there is no God, but unless such an effort is made, I can't say that there isn't. But what we all serach for is up to the individual

In a sense, your scenario is not too far off the mark. Where two different folks are otherwise equal, would you choose the brain surgeon who studied under scientists, or the brain surgeon who studied under theologists?

If I had to have brain surgery I'd have to trust the employees of a local hospital, and the choice of doctors they select. That said though, if you're arguing that I shouldpick and choose my doctor based on his religious choice despite it being none of my buisness; I am not going to reject abrain surgeon because he's a creationist; he might be a skilled brain surgeon anyway, regardless of his beliefs.

Ridiculous!!! There IS such a thing as REALITY People who DENY that reality(whatever their motivations) HAVE to be limited in their freedom to teach others their delusions. By law, they CAN teach their own children pretty much anything they like, but in general we should not allow scientifically unsupportable opinions to be taught as viable alternatives to reality.

So, turn it around; what if genesis was literal fact and evolution wasn't reality? Would it have been right then to say evolution not be taught in class? Would it be, say, right to forbid any textbook regarding the subject to be banned? Because that is what happened. What was wrong about doing that? Because evolution was proven yet creationism wasn't? Or was it stopping any other theory than the one already given being heard? I'd say the latter.

It is agreed that this is a POSSIBILITY. But even if true it would mean little to the study of evolution. Evolution REQUIRES that life exists BEFORE it can occur, it's "genesis" is unimportant(Biogenesis is an entirely separate study, involving the synthesis of the first RNA/DNA molecules; a chemical process, not a biological/genetic one).

This was clarified already by byofrcs.

uuh....no. Your religion does not define my life, my work, my thoughts.

Nor should your different view of religion define mine. And if I wish a religion to define my thoughts that is my buisness. I could let someone make me believe that unicorns are trying to assisinate me if I wish, but if I volunteered to let such a person define my thoughts, then it's my buisness, and not a fault of the person who changed it whatever his motives.

[Nilloc James]

This I don't get; it's okay to assume life out there exists, ut's at least likely and I would agree, but just why is God a "fantastical tale?" Why is he so different? The only thing I can think of is the level of power God has. And it's just as arrogant to think that there isn't anything so powerful just as it is arrogant to assume we are the only form of life.

We are POSITIVE life exists. That increases the probabilty for it to exist else where.

We have no evidence god exists.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

This I don't get; it's okay to assume life out there exists, ut's at least likely and I would agree, but just why is God a "fantastical tale?" Why is he so different? The only thing I can think of is the level of power God has. And it's just as arrogant to think that there isn't anything so powerful just as it is arrogant to assume we are the only form of life.

I can see life sitting before me. I know it exists. It is therefore reasonable to assume, given the immense size of the universe and the trillions (+) of planets within, that somewhere else, there were conditions suitable for life to exist. It is logical, educated guess to believe that there is an earth-like planet within our universe that could and does support life. It is a blind stab in the dark to say that there is an all-powerful God who created us and interferes actively in our lives.

Ridiculous!!! There IS such a thing as REALITY People who DENY that reality(whatever their motivations) HAVE to be limited in their freedom to teach others their delusions. By law, they CAN teach their own children pretty much anything they like, but in general we should not allow scientifically unsupportable opinions to be taught as viable alternatives to reality.

Don't put such unwavering faith in your senses. They may be the best thing we have for seeing and perceiving the universe, but they can be wrong, and there is no guarantee that any one man's (or any million men's) view of the world is in fact reality.

[McCulloch]

I can see life sitting before me. I know it exists. It is therefore reasonable to assume, given the immense size of the universe and the trillions (+) of planets within, that somewhere else, there were conditions suitable for life to exist. It is logical, educated guess to believe that there is an earth-like planet within our universe that could and does support life.

But is it reasonable to assume that there is life that has evolved to a degree that meaningful communication between us and them is possible, that is near enough to us (spatially and temporally) that such communication would be possible?

[Goat]

I can see life sitting before me. I know it exists. It is therefore reasonable to assume, given the immense size of the universe and the trillions (+) of planets within, that somewhere else, there were conditions suitable for life to exist. It is logical, educated guess to believe that there is an earth-like planet within our universe that could and does support life.

But is it reasonable to assume that there is life that has evolved to a degree that meaningful communication between us and them is possible, that is near enough to us (spatially and temporally) that such communication would be possible?

Don't know. The SETI space program is a very small budget compared to the rest of the space program. However, there is only one way to find out, and that is to look.

[Cathar1950]

I can see life sitting before me. I know it exists. It is therefore reasonable to assume, given the immense size of the universe and the trillions (+) of planets within, that somewhere else, there were conditions suitable for life to exist. It is logical, educated guess to believe that there is an earth-like planet within our universe that could and does support life.

But is it reasonable to assume that there is life that has evolved to a degree that meaningful communication between us and them is possible, that is near enough to us (spatially and temporally) that such communication would be possible?

We do try to communicate with animals and I would think we share a biological kinship. We also share spatially and temporally experiences. But lets say a life form evolved to where they share information in a much different environment, then what would we share? It it were a truly alien life-form or culture would we even recognize it?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I can see life sitting before me. I know it exists. It is therefore reasonable to assume, given the immense size of the universe and the trillions (+) of planets within, that somewhere else, there were conditions suitable for life to exist. It is logical, educated guess to believe that there is an earth-like planet within our universe that could and does support life.

But is it reasonable to assume that there is life that has evolved to a degree that meaningful communication between us and them is possible, that is near enough to us (spatially and temporally) that such communication would be possible?

It is far less reasonable, but still very much within the realm of possibility, given our current view of the universe. It is simply not comparable to something as metaphysical and strange as "God".

More to the point, NASA is not searching for intelligent life on Mars who we can communicate with, just life.

[Grumpy]

McCulloch

We do try to communicate with animals and I would think we share a biological kinship. We also share spatially and temporally experiences. But lets say a life form evolved to where they share information in a much different environment, then what would we share? It it were a truly alien life-form or culture would we even recognize it?

If it were sufficiently advanced for us to detect it from a distance the universal language would be math, physics, chemistry, cosmology, etc. It is the language of the Universe itself and would be common to all.

Grumpy

[Reason1958]

...The logic of certain atheists, however, is as follows;
There is proof to support the theory of evolution
Creationist beliefs contradict this theory
The creationists' beliefs are false
This includes God, Jesus, Moses.........

HOWEVER
There are some people who believe aliens had put life Earth by seeding it.
The theory of evolution and the proof that supports it contradicts this (The Earth wasn't seeded with life all at once. It evolved over time)
Therefore these alien seeding people's belief's are false
If I were to go on with atheist logic, I should conclude that all their beliefs are false, including the existance of aliens and anything else that the mention.

These premises are fallacies, or at least flawed. The first is better stated:

- There is evidence to support evolution theory
- There is no evidence to support creation theory
- Evolution theory is more plausible/likely than creation theory
- Evolution theory contradicts biblical (et al) creation accounts, thus casting doubt on the whole of belief systems that posit creationism

The second premise is flawed primarily in its assertion that that aliens "seeded" life "all at once." A farmer plants a seed, which metamorphoses over time into a vastly more complex form. The key phrase is "over time" as opposed to "all at once." By including "over time" and remaining true to the notion of "seeding," then alien "seeding" of basic life becomes more plausible and wholly compatible with evolution theory. (Note 1: This "seeding" would not require the aliens to put in a personal appearance. Assuming these aliens are technologically advanced, they could place a few microbes on an asteroid and send it toward Earth.) (Note 2: Do not confuse evolution and abiogenesis.)

[scorpia]

We are POSITIVE life exists. That increases the probabilty for it to exist else where.

We have no evidence god exists.

I can see life sitting before me. I know it exists. It is therefore reasonable to assume, given the immense size of the universe and the trillions (+) of planets within, that somewhere else, there were conditions suitable for life to exist. It is logical, educated guess to believe that there is an earth-like planet within our universe that could and does support life. It is a blind stab in the dark to say that there is an all-powerful God who created us and interferes actively in our lives.

We are positive life capable of obtaining knowledge exists. It is reasonable to assume that with the immense size of the universe and the trillions (+) of planets within, that somewhere else, there were conditions suitable for life capable of such knowledge to exist. It is logical, educated guess to believe that there is an earth-like planet within our universe that could and does support life. Is it dumber though? Is it smarter? Has it evolved to a level far beyond ours that it can assumed to be a God?

But is it reasonable to assume that there is life that has evolved to a degree that meaningful communication between us and them is possible, that is near enough to us (spatially and temporally) that such communication would be possible?

Hit the nail on the head.

These premises are fallacies, or at least flawed. The first is better stated:

- There is evidence to support evolution theory
- There is no evidence to support creation theory
- Evolution theory is more plausible/likely than creation theory

(Note 2: Do not confuse evolution and abiogenesis.)

If that's how you want to read it, okay. I could have probably stated it better, but there is the whole 2 hour edit thing. And I know the difference between evolution/ abiogenisis, this is what I get for generalising.

- Evolution theory contradicts biblical (et al) creation accounts, thus casting doubt on the whole of belief systems that posit creationism.
The second premise is flawed primarily in its assertion that that aliens "seeded" life "all at once." A farmer plants a seed, which metamorphoses over time into a vastly more complex form. The key phrase is "over time" as opposed to "all at once." By including "over time" and remaining true to the notion of "seeding," then alien "seeding" of basic life becomes more plausible and wholly compatible with evolution theory.

Yeah, but what if someone was saying that it did happen all at once with "alien seeding?". If this is false, or inaccurate, should this cast doubt on anything regarding the existance of aliens? Should I say that they must not exist because someone made a false presumption about them?