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.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

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

No. The fantastical, unprovabe claims made for a given god are plenty enough for me to reject god belief.
The ToE is independent of a god or gods. It describes, with a high degree of accuracy, how changes occur over time.

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

Yes, there is no need to teach myth as reality. No, as long as folks insist on teaching fantastical tales as truth, we should 'fight' these efforts.

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?

When claims are made in direct contradiction to what we know about science, a reasonable response is to consider such claims "less 'sciency'".

It's not about being more 'sciency' so much as about more 'logically, reasonable' come about.

As to spending money to find 'other life', I suppose this is a subjective measure. Myself, I prefer we spend more money finding safe, Earth friendly ways for everyone (read me) to be able to visit other planets. That's my subjective view.

[scorpia]

No. The fantastical, unprovabe claims made for a given god are plenty enough for me to reject god belief.

Ah, I see. the existance of aliens sounds ridiculous, they can't be real.

The ToE is independent of a god or gods. It describes, with a high degree of accuracy, how changes occur over time.

Agreed.

Yes, there is no need to teach myth as reality. No, as long as folks insist on teaching fantastical tales as truth, we should 'fight' these efforts.

People should be able to teach what they want. It's their buisness. After all, what's myth and reality is only a matter of perspective.

After all, we can't let them think there's such a thing as those ridiculous sounding aliens. So we had better get rid of astronomers for saying the possibility of extraterrestrial life could exist. It's too ridiculous to claim as truth we should fight these efforts! The newspapers too. It's like every month they have some new planet that they find. And *gasp* It could be life bearing! Lies!

It's all George Lucas' fault! Let's ban star wars before they start a cult!

Jedi a religion now?

Oops. Too late.

I don't care.

Why do you?

As to spending money to find 'other life', I suppose this is a subjective measure. Myself, I prefer we spend more money finding safe, Earth friendly ways for everyone (read me) to be able to visit other planets. That's my subjective view.

There you go.

[nygreenguy]

Ah, I see. the existance of aliens sounds ridiculous, they can't be real.

You conveniently ignored the "lack of evidence" aspect of his argument.

People should be able to teach what they want. It's their buisness. After all, what's myth and reality is only a matter of perspective.

That sounds great. Imagine having it YOUR way. You go to a doctor who was taught the "doctrine of signatures" This school of thought says that objects shaped like human organs can help those organs. So, in stead of getting things like chemo and radiation for cancer, you will get a handful of leaves....

This is simply absurd. This is such a thing as truth, and the idea of "perspective" is nothing more than hyper-liberal bullshit. Some ideas simply are wrong.

After all, we can't let them think there's such a thing as those ridiculous sounding aliens. So we had better get rid of astronomers for saying the possibility of extraterrestrial life could exist. It's too ridiculous to claim as truth we should fight these efforts! The newspapers too. It's like every month they have some new planet that they find. And *gasp* It could be life bearing! Lies!

Strawmen do nothing to support your argument.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 1 Post 3:

No. The fantastical, unprovabe claims made for a given god are plenty enough for me to reject god belief.

Ah, I see. the existance of aliens sounds ridiculous, they can't be real.

I know life forms exist, I see 'em on Earth every day. I can reasonably assume from this that alien life forms could and IMO are likely to exist.

I can't see any proof for god claims.

Yes, there is no need to teach myth as reality. No, as long as folks insist on teaching fantastical tales as truth, we should 'fight' these efforts.

People should be able to teach what they want. It's their buisness. After all, what's myth and reality is only a matter of perspective.

After all, we can't let them think there's such a thing as those ridiculous sounding aliens. So we had better get rid of astronomers for saying the possibility of extraterrestrial life could exist. It's too ridiculous to claim as truth we should fight these efforts! The newspapers too. It's like every month they have some new planet that they find. And *gasp* It could be life bearing! Lies!

Notice my statement:

there is no need to teach myth as reality

IMO, myths are unverifiable, unprovable, often fantastical stories. I would hope we would not spend tax dollars teaching folks these stories are real.

Lacking any evidence for the fantastical claims in the Bible, I would hope we would not spend tax dollars teaching these stories as real.

Noting the circumstances surrounding religious beliefs, I hope we would not spend tax dollars teaching one to the exclusion of others.

Noting the circumstances surrounding religious beliefs, and their unprovable claims, and the fact that so many would seek to teach these events as real, I would prefer we left it up to the churches and whatnot to teach these tales, and leave the public schools to teaching what can be verified.

As to spending money to find 'other life', I suppose this is a subjective measure. Myself, I prefer we spend more money finding safe, Earth friendly ways for everyone (read me) to be able to visit other planets. That's my subjective view.

There you go.

I agree with you, spending money on a search for alien life could be wasteful. That is a subjective position on our parts. I agree if you say this money could be better spent elsewhere, but I disagree if this is said to mean the search for alien life is a goal we should otherwise abandon.

What I fear is going on here though, is you somehow feel threatened by whatever implications you think finding alien life may bring. Or you may fear the search alone is a threat to a belief you may hold.

I fear you are equating a search for alien life with an attempt to prove aliens 'seeded' life on earth.

[byofrcs]

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.

No panspermia is not generally agreed though it is one of a number of models which have strong evidence to support it (e.g. polarised star light and chirality is my personal favourite).

Also the theory of evolution says little about abiogenesis which is what you are discussing.

So other than those two strawmen.... do go on....

.....

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

Some creationists. In more enlightened Europe creation and evolution can go hand in hand with God providing the initial steps and then evolution taking over.

Then there are the many thousands of other creation myths.

But do go on.....

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.

Yes, like the Raelians. And yes they *are* a crazy bunch.....but that has nothing to do with panspermia, abiogensis or evolution.


Or NASA - the NASA budget is 0.6% of total US Federal Spending. On the other hand the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have consumed more funding than the whole 50 history of NASA.

People can look up at the skies with pride at NASA but they hang their head in shame at the currently waged wars.

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?

No. Too much money is ripped off from the public for Religious purposes. What knowledge or benefit do we get from them ? The most money hungry religions are those that are the most vocal in the 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.

Firstly like to point out that not just NASA is involved in searching for extra-solar planets. Many other countries are involved e.g. ESA.

Also if you look at some of these discoveries they are in many cases by individuals
e.g. (see Wikipedia) Didier Queloz was a Ph.D. student at the University of Geneva when he and Michel Mayor discovered the first exoplanet around a main sequence star. Queloz performed an analysis on 51 Pegasi [1]using radial velocity measurements (doppler effect), and was astonished to find a planet with an orbital period of 4.2 days. He had been performing the analysis as an exercise to hone his skills.

Just reading that says many things,

- the discoverer doesn't work for NASA,
- they may be using NASA data but then probably many other people do too for many different reasons,
- they don't have to worry that they will be burnt on a stake any more (a historical approach of religion),
- it was a cool display of skill.
- the person probably does not care less what implications this has for "Evolution" or the existence of any one God,

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.

Science adds to the knowledge of humanity. The jury is out as to exactly what religion does for us.

Your argument is shot through with strawmen and is mistitled. You haven't proved a thing about one tiny percentage of the NASA budget other than pointing at this mote in the US Federal budget whilst trying to knock us out with the beam.

[scorpia]

I know life forms exist, I see 'em on Earth every day. I can reasonably assume from this that alien life forms could and IMO are likely to exist.

I can't see any proof for god claims.

The above isn't proof that aliens exist or don't exist either, you just say that they're likely to exist. It's just something people go along with, and shouldn't be argued at over such high levels. Why isn't God on the same page as this?

Noting the circumstances surrounding religious beliefs, and their unprovable claims, and the fact that so many would seek to teach these events as real, I would prefer we left it up to the churches and whatnot to teach these tales, and leave the public schools to teaching what can be verified.

Proving what you're calling unprovable is what they make an effort to do, at least. How can can I consider them tale tellers when they make such an effort to prove what they have? I might as well be telling NASA that they can't prove that there is any life or life-bearing planet out there. Is that right? Shouldn't I just let them figure it out on their own? Or are they supposed to say that there isn't beforehand and not bother exploring? if there's no exploration, no experimentation, how is this on the side of science?

I agree with you, spending money on a search for alien life could be wasteful. That is a subjective position on our parts. I agree if you say this money could be better spent elsewhere, but I disagree if this is said to mean the search for alien life is a goal we should otherwise abandon.

What I fear is going on here though, is you somehow feel threatened by whatever implications you think finding alien life may bring. Or you may fear the search alone is a threat to a belief you may hold.

I fear you are equating a search for alien life with an attempt to prove aliens 'seeded' life on earth.

It was neither of those, it was an example to show how I disagree with the positions of some people. I am not trying to prove aliens seeded anything and I don't feel threatened if they exist.

You conveniently ignored the "lack of evidence" aspect of his argument.

I mentioned it in the opening post;

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."

So I guess NASA should stop spending money on their search.

That sounds great. Imagine having it YOUR way. You go to a doctor who was taught the "doctrine of signatures" This school of thought says that objects shaped like human organs can help those organs. So, in stead of getting things like chemo and radiation for cancer, you will get a handful of leaves....

This is simply absurd. This is such a thing as truth, and the idea of "perspective" is nothing more than hyper-liberal bullshit. Some ideas simply are wrong.

So what do you want to do? Start a private school for atheists only? Ban the Bible? I fail to see how it's any better, at least creationists are making an effort to improve their ways.

As for the doctor scenario, I have already taught myself that. I am now printing out my doctorate in leafology now. I have now graduated. Will it work? Or am I only kidding because I think you've missed the point. How do you know that atheism is simply wrong? What if aliens are simply wrong? What if science as so far is wrong and the Earth is in fact supported by a pillar of turtles? Let the kids hear everyone's say and make up their own minds, if what you say is so logically sound what have you got to fear? Let people get their own doctorates and it is up to the employers to see if it's credible or not, otherwise I would be able to pull a doctorate out of my rear and do brain surgery right here and now.

Also the theory of evolution says little about abiogenesis which is what you are discussing.

So other than those two strawmen.... do go on....

Techically true, but I was generalising, not using strawmen. My bad.

Some creationists. In more enlightened Europe creation and evolution can go hand in hand with God providing the initial steps and then evolution taking over.

Then there are the many thousands of other creation myths.

But do go on.....

There you go.

Yes, like the Raelians. And yes they *are* a crazy bunch.....but that has nothing to do with panspermia, abiogensis or evolution.

Let's see, when I was taught more about evolution, what was provided was a debate against aliens seeding the Earth being the creation of life which involved fossils of various forms of life in different stages of evolution throughout different layers in the rock when dug up. It is what I'm tryin to refer to here.

Or NASA - the NASA budget is 0.6% of total US Federal Spending. On the other hand the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have consumed more funding than the whole 50 history of NASA.

People can look up at the skies with pride at NASA but they hang their head in shame at the currently waged wars.

Yeah war sucks. Killing sucks. But then you have people getting poor, wanting money, getting oppressed, anyway, this is another discussion.

No. Too much money is ripped off from the public for Religious purposes. What knowledge or benefit do we get from them ? The most money hungry religions are those that are the most vocal in the creation/ evolution debates.

There are some smaller religions I could consider to be more money grabbing yet I don't see them all that vocal on such issues. The most Vocal of those on creation, if I dare to point at other churches, are the baptists. Yet the richest church is roman catholic. And there are other religions which use the money for charity.

Firstly like to point out that not just NASA is involved in searching for extra-solar planets. Many other countries are involved e.g. ESA.

Also if you look at some of these discoveries they are in many cases by individuals
e.g. (see Wikipedia) Didier Queloz was a Ph.D. student at the University of Geneva when he and Michel Mayor discovered the first exoplanet around a main sequence star. Queloz performed an analysis on 51 Pegasi [1]using radial velocity measurements (doppler effect), and was astonished to find a planet with an orbital period of 4.2 days. He had been performing the analysis as an exercise to hone his skills.

Just reading that says many things,

- the discoverer doesn't work for NASA,
- they may be using NASA data but then probably many other people do too for many different reasons,

That's nice, I expected as much.

they don't have to worry that they will be burnt on a stake any more (a historical approach of religion),
- it was a cool display of skill.

the thing is, is religion going to be the one learning from it's mistakes, only to be repeated by someone else because they want to point the finger solely on religion to make themselves feel better? What does a creationist have to worry about these days? You think life is just peaches and cream for them? Do you honestly think every fanatic is some money grabbing televangelist, if so you need to get out and see the rest of them a bit more.

Science adds to the knowledge of humanity. The jury is out as to exactly what religion does for us.

A philsophy to live life by, a theory of an all powerful, or close being beyond humanity (which I'm failing to see how it's so more far fateched than aliens). A relationship with beings beyond humanity, a relationship with others, it goes on.

Your argument is shot through with strawmen and is mistitled. You haven't proved a thing about one tiny percentage of the NASA budget other than pointing at this mote in the US Federal budget whilst trying to knock us out with the beam.

That wasn't exactly what I was trying to prove. If you took my little example seriously I do hope I looked utterly ridiculous as I did so because it's pretty much how I'm seeing certain people right now.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 1 Post 7:

The above isn't proof that aliens exist or don't exist either, you just say that they're likely to exist. It's just something people go along with, and shouldn't be argued at over such high levels. Why isn't God on the same page as this?

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?

Noting the circumstances surrounding religious beliefs, and their unprovable claims, and the fact that so many would seek to teach these events as real, I would prefer we left it up to the churches and whatnot to teach these tales, and leave the public schools to teaching what can be verified.

Proving what you're calling unprovable is what they make an effort to do, at least. How can can I consider them tale tellers when they make such an effort to prove what they have? I might as well be telling NASA that they can't prove that there is any life or life-bearing planet out there. Is that right? Shouldn't I just let them figure it out on their own? Or are they supposed to say that there isn't beforehand and not bother exploring? if there's no exploration, no experimentation, how is this on the side of science?

What can be verified in regards to religious texts? What God do you propose is taught. Are we to teach, in a science atmosphere, things that can't be proven beyond the level of myth?

I fear you are equating a search for alien life with an attempt to prove aliens 'seeded' life on earth.

It was neither of those, it was an example to show how I disagree with the positions of some people. I am not trying to prove aliens seeded anything and I don't feel threatened if they exist.

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?

...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."
...
So I guess NASA should stop spending money on their search.

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?"

That sounds great. Imagine having it YOUR way. You go to a doctor who was taught the "doctrine of signatures" This school of thought says that objects shaped like human organs can help those organs. So, in stead of getting things like chemo and radiation for cancer, you will get a handful of leaves....
This is simply absurd. This is such a thing as truth, and the idea of "perspective" is nothing more than hyper-liberal bullshit. Some ideas simply are wrong.

So what do you want to do? Start a private school for atheists only? Ban the Bible? I fail to see how it's any better, at least creationists are making an effort to improve their ways.

Huh? Do you mean rephrasing Creationism as Intelligent Design, and trying to sneak it into schools under the guise of 'academic freedom'? Are you aware that the whole Creation movement is evolving?

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.

What if aliens are simply wrong? What if science as so far is wrong and the Earth is in fact supported by a pillar of turtles?

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.

Let the kids hear everyone's say and make up their own minds, if what you say is so logically sound what have you got to fear?

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.
In a sense, we do not have the option to 'make up our own minds' about scientific issues. The evidence for a given issue 'compels our belief'. Where we say, "Gravity makes stuff fall to the Earth", we do not have a 'right' to 'make up our minds' and say, "Gravity makes stuff fall away from the Earth".

Of course there is rigorous debate about a given scientific theory, and parts of given scientific theories. These are best left to colleges and universities and such, where the 'kids' are old enough, and 'seasoned' enough to discern legitimate scientific debate from bogus, manufactured controversies.

Let people get their own doctorates and it is up to the employers to see if it's credible or not, otherwise I would be able to pull a doctorate out of my rear and do brain surgery right here and now.

LOL, I do appreciate humor when discussing such potentially 'serious' issues as we've been doing. I 'preciate the 'comedic relief'.
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?


>about a possible strawman argument mentioned by another poster<

Techically true, but I was generalising, not using strawmen. My bad.

I appreciate your willingness to admit when you feel you're wrong. In fairness, I am merely stating my opinion of how 'these things should be'. You have a valid position on the face of it (funding for ET research), I am more in disagreement as to the details.

Let's see, when I was taught more about evolution, what was provided was a debate against aliens seeding the Earth being the creation of life which involved fossils of various forms of life in different stages of evolution throughout different layers in the rock when dug up. It is what I'm tryin to refer to here.

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.

A philsophy to live life by, a theory of an all powerful, or close being beyond humanity (which I'm failing to see how it's so more far fateched than aliens). A relationship with beings beyond humanity, a relationship with others, it goes on.

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

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.

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.

[Grumpy]

joeyknuccione

Again, if you are arguing that we should use 'ET' money to help the less fortunate, I'm throwing in with you.

I would have to ask,"What ET money?"

Nasa doesn't spend money on a search for ETs, even the Mars missions are only looking for information on the conditions of the planet with an eye toward eventual manned missions. If this same info CAN BE USED to also search for evidence of life, BONUS!!! The same is true of astronomical investigations, if evidence of an Oxygen rich atmosphere on an exoplanet is found it will be in addition to work that would have been done anyway.


scorpia

People should be able to teach what they want. It's their buisness. After all, what's myth and reality is only a matter of perspective.

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.

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.

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).

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.........

uuh....no. Your religion does not define my life, my work, my thoughts. It just never comes into my thought process, other than when someone brings the subject up when trying to tell ME what we KNOW about the Universe is WRONG. "It's just a theory." "It's not PROVEN(a non-sense word in science, nothing can EVER be PROVEN in science)." As Stephen J. Gould put it...

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover,(and this is important) "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."

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.

Grumpy

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 1 Post 9:

Again, if you are arguing that we should use 'ET' money to help the less fortunate, I'm throwing in with you.

Nasa doesn't spend money on a search for ETs, even the Mars missions are only looking for information on the conditions of the planet with an eye toward eventual manned missions. If this same info CAN BE USED to also search for evidence of life, BONUS!!! The same is true of astronomical investigations, if evidence of an Oxygen rich atmosphere on an exoplanet is found it will be in addition to work that would have been done anyway.

Where a given piece of research has a dual purpose, I'm with Grumpy. Where a given piece of research can rightly be considered as only a search for 'ET', then I'll stick with scorpia/helping others, but not a search for God.

I could further expand this notion to outside of NASA, for instance SETI. The amount of money and effort here could be legimately debatible. I am more inclined to want this search for 'ET' to continue, but I must confess there is a compelling argument to use these resources helping others.

Obviously mine is an opinion based on what I feel is a reasonable, logical process. I offer my opinion to try to assist others in weighing the merits of these arguments.