Water on Mars

Canis Lupus

Just curious...

Water has been found on Mars and where there is water there usually is or was life.

If life is found to exist or have existed on Mars what impact does that have on your religion? Or will you simply all agree that god must have made that life etc but failed to mention it.

Admitedly I'm not saying life is going to be found or proved to have existed but just wondering if it would have any impact whatsoever on you.

The_Minister

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Water has been found on Mars and where there is water there usually is or was life.

You only have one planet to justify that belief. Water alone may not be enough.

Canis Lupus

Yup, totally however my question is what happens if life is discovered to exist or have existed.

JimiTime

I think there was a big thread on this a while back. Check out below:


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055293989

Personally, I don't think it would make a big difference, but my 'guess' is that there is no life there. But again, just a guess.

AtomicHorror

The_Minister wrote: »

You only have one planet to justify that belief. Water alone may not be enough.

Water alone is not enough. However some of the other conditions are pretty favourable too. The soil is not at all as salty or acidic as expected. It is also quite rich in minerals, at least at the Phoenix landing site. The lack of atmosphere would not be an issue for anaerobic soil bacteria-like life forms. It's not clear if the requisite organic molecules are (or were) present but further studies should establish that for us. Only the temperature really presents a problem, but we've found bacterial life in extreme cold before and it is unclear whether Mars has always been so cold. The existence of extensive water-erosion features seems to suggest it was once warm enough to host substantial bodies of liquid water.

At least two of the eight planets of our solar system have water. Earth and Mars. We're pretty sure some of the moons do to. Europa, Enceladus and Titan to name a few. At least one extrasolar planet (a planet orbiting another star) is thought to have water in its atmosphere. Given that we know of over 300 planets just around the stars nearest to us, it seems pretty likely that worlds quite similar to Earth are abundant in the galaxy. Estimates on the total number of planets likely to exist in our galaxy are in the billions. If only 2 in every 8 planets has water on its surface... well you see where that's going. The question is whether life arises when the conditions are right. If this "abiogenesis" hypothesis is correct, we should expect to see signs of life on extrasolar planets. If we find life on Mars that is signficantly different from Earth microbes, that will also support the hypothesis.

wolfsbane

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Just curious...

Water has been found on Mars and where there is water there usually is or was life.

If life is found to exist or have existed on Mars what impact does that have on your religion? Or will you simply all agree that god must have made that life etc but failed to mention it.

Admitedly I'm not saying life is going to be found or proved to have existed but just wondering if it would have any impact whatsoever on you.

Yes, it would mean that Christians cannot be sure of the big picture. If life on Mars, why not many places, why not many lifeforms made in the image of God, that also sinned and whom Christ died for on a million other crosses (or their equivalent)?

No, the Bible gives the character of God and His relationship to us. It is unique and exclusive. Likewise its portrayal of the origins of the universe - it is Earth-centred in purpose, all life being created here.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it would mean that Christians cannot be sure of the big picture. If life on Mars, why not many places, why not many lifeforms made in the image of God, that also sinned and whom Christ died for on a million other crosses (or their equivalent)?

No, the Bible gives the character of God and His relationship to us. It is unique and exclusive. Likewise its portrayal of the origins of the universe - it is Earth-centred in purpose, all life being created here.

So, the discovery of Mars-origin bacteria would knock a fairly large hole in your faith I guess. It is far from a certainty, but I suspect this is far more likely than you would want to believe.

Flamed Diving

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So, the discovery of Mars-origin bacteria would knock a fairly large hole in your faith I guess. It is far from a certainty, but I suspect this is far more likely than you would want to believe.

Agreed, I fully expect evidence of ET life (past or present) to be found within my lifetime. I think poor Wolfy is in for a let-down.

However, I'm sure with an ol'theological slight-of-hand trick here, a little reinterpretation there, and Wolfy will be back on track. Nothing to worry about.

Zombrex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Agreed, I fully expect evidence of ET life (past or present) to be found within my lifetime. I think poor Wolfy is in for a let-down.

I don't think Wolfsbane lets little things like science, evidence or discovery come between him and his faith.

If evidence for life on other planets was discovered he, and many Creationists, would just decide to view it as anything but evidence for life on other planets. Even if that means thinking the small green man waving at us through a telescope is really just a trick of the light.

PDN

If God created life on other planets then I fail to see why that should shake anyone's faith. He created life on this planet in so many different forms and environments (bacteria, life under water, life on land etc.). Why would a bit more life outside of this planet make any difference?

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

If God created life on other planets then I fail to see why that should shake anyone's faith. He created life on this planet in so many different forms and environments (bacteria, life under water, life on land etc.). Why would a bit more life outside of this planet make any difference?

I am not sure Wolfsbane would agree with this sentiment....

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it would mean that Christians cannot be sure of the big picture. If life on Mars, why not many places, why not many lifeforms made in the image of God, that also sinned and whom Christ died for on a million other crosses (or their equivalent)?

No, the Bible gives the character of God and His relationship to us. It is unique and exclusive. Likewise its portrayal of the origins of the universe - it is Earth-centred in purpose, all life being created here.

I owuld not worry. I am sure AIG are drafting denials of evidence already, just in case.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

If God created life on other planets then I fail to see why that should shake anyone's faith. He created life on this planet in so many different forms and environments (bacteria, life under water, life on land etc.). Why would a bit more life outside of this planet make any difference?

This is exactly my stance. Given that my faith isn't rattled by the existence the myriad terrestrial based lifeforms, I don't see why the discovery extra-terrestrial life would cause any great difficulties. I would welcome such a discovery.

Flamed Diving

Well Wolfy? What say you to your brethern?

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

I am sure AIG are drafting denials of evidence already, just in case.

It'll be interesting to see how things or spun, or even if positions are reversed, and Ken the Beard announces to his customers that life on Mars was not only god-ordained, but actually predicted by some verse of the OT that was previously considered irrelevant.

Meanwhile, the Prezzident has been apparently informed that there's a big announcement on the way:

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/02/the-white-house-is-briefed-phoenix-about-to-announce-potential-for-life-on-mars/

MrPudding

Very interesting indeed. Obviously they will have to deny it. IF you look at Wolfsbane's comments on it I think it is apparent that anything other than outright denial of the evidence would signal the end...

MrP

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

Obviously they will have to deny it.

Truly, MrP, you are blessed with Foresight! From here, we can learn that the Bearded One is thinking thusly:

The Bearded One wrote:

We suspect that, after coming up with either no clear evidence of organic materials or only contradictory/inconclusive evidence, the Phoenix researchers will nonetheless claim the ice discovery as a major find related to Martian habitability

...as though discovering water on Mars were unimportant.

MrPudding wrote: »

it is apparent that anything other than outright denial of the evidence would signal the end...

One can certainly imagine that AiG would lose market share if life, or the suggestions of life, were discovered on another planet -- a pretty clear and unambiguous pointer to the reality of deity-free evolution. So, I suppose that all they're really doing here is preparing the ground for a subsequent rubbishing of the evidence.

wolfsbane

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not sure Wolfsbane would agree with this sentiment....

I owuld not worry. I am sure AIG are drafting denials of evidence already, just in case.

MrP

MrPudding correctly interprets my post. Let me assure you all, such a discovery would greatly affect my ability to interpret the Bible and remove any theological objection I had to evolution.

Would it destroy my faith in God altogether? No, for that is based on internal revelation by the Spirit, and came before I had any thought on what the Bible taught about evolution. As has been pointed out here many times, some true Christians believe the theory of evolution, so it is not impossible to hold both. It just makes Biblical interpretation very difficult, ie., it would make it difficult to be sure of what narrative is meant to be taken at face value and what is metaphorical.

But I'm not sure what you mean by denials of evidence . I'm not aware of that happening before - maybe you can give me an example or so? As far as I can tell, both evolutionists and creationists work on the same evidence.

But perhaps you mean denial of the interpretation of the evidence? That happens all the time - indeed is the essential in any dispute. The competing versions of evolution deny the interpretation placed on the evidence by their opponents. Creationists and evolutionists (all types) do likewise.

santing

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me assure you all, such a discovery would greatly affect my ability to interpret the Bible and remove any theological objection I had to evolution.

Wolfsbane, there is no reason to move so fast. Apparently Phoenix isn't even equipped to discover life, the scientists fitting out the Marslander didn't expect that they would need a life discovery apparatus - because there is no life on Mars.

And indeed, if they find rudiments of life, it would be more likely that the Marslander has carried that all the way from Earth than that it was resident on Mars.

Galvasean

santing wrote: »

And indeed, if they find rudiments of life, it would be more likely that the Marslander has carried that all the way from Earth than that it was resident on Mars.

There's the pre-set kop out that was predicted earlier in the thread.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

And indeed, if they find rudiments of life, it would be more likely that the Marslander has carried that all the way from Earth than that it was resident on Mars.

Possibly, but they go to great lengths to make sure that doesn't happen.

santing

Wicknight wrote: »

Possibly, but they go to great lengths to make sure that doesn't happen.

That's right, but it seems to be a very difficult thing to achieve.

Nature.com has an interesting blog on water on Mars
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/08/breaking_news_water_on_mars_1.html

MrPudding

wolfsbane wrote: »

MrPudding correctly interprets my post. :)Let me assure you all, such a discovery would greatly affect my ability to interpret the Bible and remove any theological objection I had to evolution.

I find the fact that you might be willing to embrace evolution heartening, but I will not hold my breath for it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Would it destroy my faith in God altogether? No, for that is based on internal revelation by the Spirit, and came before I had any thought on what the Bible taught about evolution. As has been pointed out here many times, some true Christians believe the theory of evolution, so it is not impossible to hold both. It just makes Biblical interpretation very difficult, ie., it would make it difficult to be sure of what narrative is meant to be taken at face value and what is metaphorical.

Good. This is exactly the point that many posters have made to you over and over again. God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. It just so happens that a lot, but not all, of the people that believe in evolution and post on “that” thread happen to be atheists. For some reason I am happy that it would not cause you to lose your faith completely. It is obviously very important to you.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I'm not sure what you mean by denials of evidence . I'm not aware of that happening before - maybe you can give me an example or so? As far as I can tell, both evolutionists and creationists work on the same evidence.

Fossils? Dating techniques? Lenski’s E coli experiement…. I am sure others can recall more.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But perhaps you mean denial of the interpretation of the evidence? That happens all the time - indeed is the essential in any dispute. The competing versions of evolution deny the interpretation placed on the evidence by their opponents. Creationists and evolutionists (all types) do likewise.

That could be argued alright, but I will go with the scientific interpretation every time. That is actual science, not “creation science.”

MrP

MrPudding

santing wrote: »

Wolfsbane, there is no reason to move so fast. Apparently Phoenix isn't even equipped to discover life, the scientists fitting out the Marslander didn't expect that they would need a life discovery apparatus - because there is no life on Mars.

And indeed, if they find rudiments of life, it would be more likely that the Marslander has carried that all the way from Earth than that it was resident on Mars.

If a little green man popped up and tapped the lens of the camera, AiG would deny it. They have to, their industry could not survive a revelation of this magnitude.

MrP

santing

MrPudding wrote: »

If a little green man popped up and tapped the lens of the camera,

That's a long way for a leprechaun, I thought they headquartered just outside of Tuam ...

How do you expect the leprechaun has travelled to Mars?

MrPudding

santing wrote: »

That's a long way for a leprechaun, I thought they headquartered just outside of Tuam ...

How do you expect the leprechaun has travelled to Mars?

I don't know. Perhaps he just ascended there surrounded by doves and accompanied by a choir of angels?

MrP

Galvasean

Contrary to popular belief Leprechauns are not green themselves, merely their clothes.
But I digress.

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

Wolfsbane, there is no reason to move so fast. Apparently Phoenix isn't even equipped to discover life, the scientists fitting out the Marslander didn't expect that they would need a life discovery apparatus -

Its primary mission is to establish the soil properties and to verify the presence of water. So it has instruments to do just that. Automating the equipment required to verify the presence of life is expensive and difficult and also outside of the mission brief for that probe. Over complicating a device to be sent over such a distance is a bad idea. It has to be simple and able to survive the journey. This typically means that cutting-edge probes are actually outfitted with older technology that has proven its stability.

santing wrote: »

...because there is no life on Mars.

How can you possibly verify that statement? It's quite clear that many of the requirements are in place, so it's worth looking.

santing wrote: »

And indeed, if they find rudiments of life, it would be more likely that the Marslander has carried that all the way from Earth than that it was resident on Mars.

That may be a consideration if the amounts detected are tiny. If microbes are found in abundance, we can rule out contamination. As it is, the manipulator arm of Phoenix was fully sterilized, so it shouldn't be a significant concern unless the life is conveniently found only directly under the lander.

Phoenix has already found water, minerals, and shown that the soil salinity and pH are good. It should also be able to establish if the required organic compounds are present in the soil using its TEGA instrument.

I've read that Phoenix also has a couple of sample imagers, one with a resolution that might allow the detection of very large protozoan-like life and another which might be able to detect objects down to the size of a large bacterium. The results would not at all be conclusive, but perhaps we might see some hints of some sort of cells... That's just me speculating though, the instruments may not be sensitive enough to do that job on this trip.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

MrPudding correctly interprets my post. Let me assure you all, such a discovery would greatly affect my ability to interpret the Bible and remove any theological objection I had to evolution.

It's good to see you keeping an open mind on that. Were we to establish that the hypothetical life were of Mars origin, and not a result of panspermia, it would strengthen the validity more of the abiogenesis hypothesis than it would evolution itself. There's likely to be much more evidence for evolution here on Earth than on a planet where life, if present, has likely been subsisting at a more limited level. That said, perhaps that simpler evolutionary tree has secrets to teach us that we could never have imagined.

It would be perhaps the greatest single discovery in the history of Biology, creating several fields of practical research in an instant.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Would it destroy my faith in God altogether? No, for that is based on internal revelation by the Spirit, and came before I had any thought on what the Bible taught about evolution. As has been pointed out here many times, some true Christians believe the theory of evolution, so it is not impossible to hold both. It just makes Biblical interpretation very difficult, ie., it would make it difficult to be sure of what narrative is meant to be taken at face value and what is metaphorical.

I guess it will require you to simply adjust your interpretations as new evidence is uncovered. I have to say though, I think the evidence is there already for you to label Genesis as "metaphor".

Soul Winner

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Just curious...

Water has been found on Mars and where there is water there usually is or was life.

If life is found to exist or have existed on Mars what impact does that have on your religion?

None whatsoever. What affect should it have?

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Or will you simply all agree that god must have made that life etc but failed to mention it.

Assuming God does indeed exist and that He did in fact create the universe and life on Earth, then it would stand to reason that He also created life on Mars should it be shown inconclusively that there is/was life there. If God did create life on Mars but chose not to mention it in the Bible then why would that in itself make the Bible wrong? Why should the Bible mention it? There are many things un-revealed in the Bible, but why that should make what it does reveal wrong is beyond me.

Even if life is found on Mars, it is not conclusive that life might have originated there. It is not inconceivable to think that due to Mars' relatively close proximity to Earth that at some point in its history it was hit by debrit from Earth caused by a collision with Earth by a comet or other body, which said debrit contained microbial life forms of some sort from Earth and it matriculated out onto the surface of Mars after impact and died off due to Mars' incapacity to sustain it over any long periods of time.

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Admittedly I'm not saying life is going to be found or proved to have existed but just wondering if it would have any impact whatsoever on you.

It would not affect my faith in the slightest. But prove to me that Christ did not rise from the dead as a fact of history and back it up with hard evidence and that will destroy my faith. Saying it didn’t happen because it can’t happen won’t cut it. You must prove it inconclusively with hard facts. It is safe to assume that it did in fact happen as a fact of history simply due to the 2000 years that have elapsed and it has never been disproved by anybody even those who tried to disprove it by hard headed study of the facts who ended up only convincing themselves that there is no other explanation. He came out of that tomb!

In any case, having water on a planet is but one factor needed in the delicately balanced engine of life. It's proximity to the sun is also a very important factor. Its rotational period has to be just right. It has to have the right amount of spin that it doesn't stay too long in cold darkness or exposure to the sun. Its axis and tilt in relation to the sun has to be just right in order that it gets regular and right amounts of sunlight. These are only a few of the finely tuned factors that need to be taken into consideration in order for a planet like Mars to sustain life. Mars doesn’t have most of them. It probably did at some point in its history but even so you need all of them at the same time. Mars is too far away from the sun to be able to sustain any form of advanced life forms. The best it might be able to muster up is microbial life and we have yet to see the evidence even for that. But like I said, it wouldn’t affect my faith either way.

Personally I believe Earth is very very very unique, as it has all these variables just right and at the same time and not just to its position in the solar system, but also to the solar system's position in the galaxy. And possibly the galaxies position in the universe.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

You must prove it inconclusively with hard facts. It is safe to assume that it did in fact happen as a fact of history simply due to the 2000 years that have elapsed and it has never been disproved by anybody even those who tried to disprove it by hard headed study of the facts who ended up only convincing themselves that there is no other explanation. He came out of that tomb!

Umm .. how exactly would one prove conclusively that Jesus didn't rise from the dead baring a time travelling device?

And why would you accept it as fact until it is proven conclusively that he didn't.

Surely it is better to think he didn't until it is proven conclusively that he did? And that certainly hasn't happened.

AtomicHorror

Soul Winner wrote: »

Personally I believe Earth is very very very unique, as it has all these variables just right and at the same time and not just to its position in the solar system, but also to the solar system's position in the galaxy. And possibly the galaxies position in the universe.

There's only a limited amount of space in the solar system for a world such as Earth. It is unsurprising that only one world occupies the habitable zone in our solar system. We would expect to see the same situation in most solar systems.

As to our solar system's location in the galaxy, it is broadly favorable as we rarely pass through galactic spiral arms due to our sun's orbit. However there is little difference between the suitability of our location in the galaxy versus the stars local to us. I would suspect that most of the stars within a radius of several hundred light years (at least) would follow very similar orbits to our solar system on the galactic scale and are thus similarly suitable for life by that measure. Even with our limited technology, we already know of several hundred planets within that radius.

There's no evidence at all to suggest that our galaxy is in any manner different to the majority in terms of composition, size or locale. The universe we have observed seems largely homogeneous.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Umm .. how exactly would one prove conclusively that Jesus didn't rise from the dead baring a time travelling device?

Probaly not prove but show inconclsuively that it didn't happen by stuyiing the evidence that states that He did. The

And why would you accept it as fact until it is proven conclusively that he didn't.

Surely it is better to think he didn't until it is proven conclusively that he did? And that certainly hasn't happened.

Hi Wick. I have cited many sources to you before (see below) but you will not read them or accept them as valid sources due to some sort of bias on their part. An ill-founded assumption IMO but you are entitled to it. I can do no more than to point you to these. Not that I want you to be converted, nay rather that you may have a more informed opinion. You're a smart guy, you can handle them

Ok they do not “prove” that He rose from the dead conclusively but they do a pretty good job of convincing that the story was not lies made up on the part of the reporters. There comes a point in every serious Christian's walk where he or she must step up to the plate and say that they have heard enough of the evidence. I believe it!!! And walk in that light thereafter. In the same way that jurors are convinced of the evidence presented to them in court. The events under scrutiny can never be re-enacted to show forth the true situation as it happened (unless it was recorded on video or audio tape of course) but with enough evidence a decision can be made to either accept as true the evidence or to disregard it as unacceptable. It is the same studying Christianity. Some can believe everything without any problems, others are more hard headed and need to study it more. Great minds throughout the centuries have done this very thing and have come away convinced that it did in fact happen as a fact of history. Until you are prepared to do likewise and let the chips fall where they may then you will be forever enveloped in agnosticism. At least settle it for yourself. Study the facts. I can only point you to these sources and implore you to read for yourself what those who took years studying the evidence have found.

Who moved the stone - Frank Morrison
The trial of the witnesses - Thomas Sherlock
Evidence that demands a verdict - Josh Mc Dowell
Jesus Christ, Supernut? or Supernatrual? - Dr Gene Scott

I've yet to read any counter evidence that holds as much weight, I’d appreciate it if you could recommend any. Until I do I will remain convinced by what I have already exposed myself to.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hi Wick. I have cited many sources to you before (see below) but you will not read them or accept them as valid sources due to some sort of bias on their part.

Well no Soul Winner, you have presented the opinion of people who have read the Bible and come to the conclusion that they believe what is described is likely.

I think we both agree that isn't "conclusive proof" of anything.

What I find funny is the demand often made on this forum that people must offer conclusive proof that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. This is often put forward in a manner that tries to make out that the believer is both rational and skeptical, a sort of

I don't believe just any old thing, I'm quite skeptical, you need to offer me hard firm conclusive proof Jesus didn't rise from the dead, I'm not going to accept any old thing

way. All perfectly reasonable until you actually look at what is being asked for, hard proof that an impossible supernatural event didn't take place.

I find this rather curious because there is no conclusive proof that he did rise from the dead. Yes there are people who conclude that it is more believable that those who wrote the Bible are telling the truth than lying, but that isn't conclusive proof that a supernatural event took place, it isn't even conclusive proof they believe one did.

I've no problem with people saying they have faith that it is true, or someone like Wolfsbane saying that the holy spirit has entered his heart and confirmed such and such, but when you get into demanding proof that a supernatural event didn't happen under the guise of being skeptical that is just being silly.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ok they do not “prove” that He rose from the dead conclusively but they do a pretty good job of convincing that the story was not lies made up on the part of the reporters.

Well I disagree with that assessment, but even if that were true that is a far cry from proving any of it is real. Plenty of people believe things that didn't happen, plenty of people write books about these things. None of that is proof.

No don't get me wrong, I certain understand that you believe, for what ever reason, that it is true. But again, calling for proof that some impossible supernatural event didn't happen is a bit silly.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I've yet to read any counter evidence that holds as much weight, I’d appreciate it if you could recommend any. Until I do I will remain convinced by what I have already exposed myself to.

The counter evidence is simple. People don't rise from the dead, but people do quite often make claims of such happenings. Robin mentioned a number including an Indian mystic who has far more documented eye witness accounts that Jesus ever had.

The phrase extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence spring to mind. What extra ordinary claims don't need is extraordinary evidence that they didn't happen. You can take it that they didn't happen.

Galvasean

So this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object..

Flamed Diving

Galvasean wrote: »

So this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object..

Yes, Batman.

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

So this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object..

What you say about my mother .... :pac:

Well I'm not really interested in getting into another debate on Jesus' resurrection.

The point I'm trying (probably not very well) to make is that there isn't conclusive proof for Jesus' resurrection (or even particularly compelling evidence), so why would someone ask for conclusive proof that it didn't happen?

Why would someone need conclusive proof it didn't happen but not need conclusive proof, or anything close, that it did.

To me that demonstrates a some what skewed view point

AtomicHorror

Think we're drifting from the topic somewhat. Mars!

Flamed Diving

Water!

wolfsbane

MrPudding said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Would it destroy my faith in God altogether? No, for that is based on internal revelation by the Spirit, and came before I had any thought on what the Bible taught about evolution. As has been pointed out here many times, some true Christians believe the theory of evolution, so it is not impossible to hold both. It just makes Biblical interpretation very difficult, ie., it would make it difficult to be sure of what narrative is meant to be taken at face value and what is metaphorical.
Good. This is exactly the point that many posters have made to you over and over again. God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. It just so happens that a lot, but not all, of the people that believe in evolution and post on “that” thread happen to be atheists. For some reason I am happy that it would not cause you to lose your faith completely. It is obviously very important to you.

Evolution and an intelligible Bible are mutually exclusive. If Evolution is correct, then there is little about God or indeed any Biblical assertion that can be defined. Once we establish a hermeneutic that allows the Genesis account of Creation and the Flood to be metaphor, we have opened every seemingly historical narrative to the same treatment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But I'm not sure what you mean by denials of evidence . I'm not aware of that happening before - maybe you can give me an example or so? As far as I can tell, both evolutionists and creationists work on the same evidence.
Fossils? Dating techniques? Lenski’s E coli experiement…. I am sure others can recall more.

Fossils are evidence, worked on by both creationists and evolutionists.
Dating techniques are not evidence, but methods used on evidence to supply data to a theory of aging. Dating techniques make assumptions about rates of change that are speculative.
Lenski’s E coli experiment is not evidence, but an experiment to see how this organism changes over time. BTW, as far as I can see, it still remains E. coli.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But perhaps you mean denial of the interpretation of the evidence? That happens all the time - indeed is the essential in any dispute. The competing versions of evolution deny the interpretation placed on the evidence by their opponents. Creationists and evolutionists (all types) do likewise.
That could be argued alright, but I will go with the scientific interpretation every time. That is actual science, not “creation science.”

Creationist scientists are just as scientific as evolutionist scientists. They disagree on the interpretation of the evidence, using scientifc argument to do so.

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief

The answer to that old chestnut is that He is going to abolish evil. But before he does so, He has a lot of evil people to convert.:)

Soul Winner

Wiki you make good points but your view point just differs from mine. I never really believed in the resurrection of Christ (I thought I did) until I studied the evidence.

But anyway, yes I agree, let us get our asses back to Mars

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There's only a limited amount of space in the solar system for a world such as Earth. It is unsurprising that only one world occupies the habitable zone in our solar system. We would expect to see the same situation in most solar systems.

As to our solar system's location in the galaxy, it is broadly favorable as we rarely pass through galactic spiral arms due to our sun's orbit. However there is little difference between the suitability of our location in the galaxy versus the stars local to us. I would suspect that most of the stars within a radius of several hundred light years (at least) would follow very similar orbits to our solar system on the galactic scale and are thus similarly suitable for life by that measure. Even with our limited technology, we already know of several hundred planets within that radius.

There's no evidence at all to suggest that our galaxy is in any manner different to the majority in terms of composition, size or locale. The universe we have observed seems largely homogeneous.

You have a point, but how many stars like our sun (size and type, also very important variables in sustaining life on earth like planets) are locatable in the same region of our spiral galaxy? Given that spiral galaxies (Milky Way type) account for only 6% of all known galaxies.

Flamed Diving

Note: 6% equates to several million billions of galaxies.

Galvasean

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Note: 6% equates to several million billions of galaxies.

When you look at it that way it would almost seem impossible that ours is the only planet of its kind.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yes, Batman.

Wasn't it the Joker who said that?

What I meant was we have one person saying "Show me it happened" and another person saying "Show me it did not happen" and neither will change their mind (based on current interpretations of evidence). Such debate wont go anywhere fast.

Soul Winner

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Note: 6% equates to several million billions of galaxies.

Yes, but of those millions of billions of galaxies how many would have a sun like stars orbiting its centre at an equivalent distance that ours does to the centre of our galaxy, which also has an earth sized planet orbiting it at the right distance from it, and not only that but that planet would also have all the other characteristics needed as outlined below as ours does, and which is also developing in a region of the galaxy old enough not to have too much super nova activity so that it can be allowed to form, and with the right balance of elements needed to be present in that region of the galaxy in order that it might be allowed to develop into this planet size and type in order for it to be a candidate to produce the right balance of elements in order to develop and sustain life?

Characteristics for the right kind of planet in order that life as we know it to be sustained:

Right size
Right distance from the sun
Right type of sun star (size, age, temperature etc)
Right type of orbit
Right amount of spin on its axis
Right amount of speed, over or under the 24 hour period would be catastrophic for life as we know it
Right angle of axis tilt in relation to the sun
Right type of moon. Our moon regulates our planets angle tilt to precisely the right angle in relation to the sun. Otherwise earth’s orbit would be too erratic which would also be catastrophic for life as we know it to be sustained

Now when you take all of these factors into account (and there many others on the macro level), then take all the micro biological factors that also need to come together on such a unique world at the right time in the development of the planet, star and galaxy. You are talking about a chance of something like 1 in a hundred million billion trillion.

Earth is unique if not alone in the universe. But like I said even if we do find life elsewhere out there then it would still not affect my faith. I’d be amazed at it but not even anything like how amazed I am about a creator who created all this from beyond space and time and who not only created it but created it out of absolutely nothing at all just by speaking it.

Flamed Diving

Why do you assume that only an exact copy of earth (and additional factors) would suffice for life?




Oh, and you are making those odds up. Stop it.


Double oh, some of your necessary characteristics are idiotic. Life cant survive without a 24hour day? Dont be ridiculous.

AtomicHorror

Soul Winner wrote: »

Characteristics for the right kind of planet in order that life as we know it to be sustained:

Right size

A suitable planet size would range from much smaller than the moon to about 14 times the mass of Earth.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Right distance from the sun

The habitable zone around a star such as the sun is a ring about 70 million kilometers thick. That's about 5000 times the width of the Earth. This refers only to the region within which liquid water will exist due to solar radiation. It is likely that liquid water exists beneath the surfaces of Titan and Europa for example. They're well outside the habitable zone and also possess many of the organic molecules needed.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Right type of sun star (size, age, temperature etc)

This assumes that a star like our sun is needed, which is unlikely. Never the less, there are approximately 100 million sun-like stars in our galaxy alone.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Right type of orbit

Eccentric orbits appear to be in the minority amongst the planets observed to date. It looks like mostly slightly elliptical orbits much like our own.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Right amount of spin on its axis

Not really relevant. Even a tidally locked world could generate and support complex life. Weather conditions would be more extreme and climate variation greater. Given that life here probably arose in extreme conditions, this is not a major concern.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Right amount of speed, over or under the 24 hour period would be catastrophic for life as we know it

Why? It would certainly be troublesome for the Earth life that has spent 3 billion years evolving under a 24 hour day night cycle. It would irrelevant for alien life developing under different cycle lengths. Even Earth based life can adapt to alternate day-night cycles given the right conditions.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Right angle of axis tilt in relation to the sun

Life here has evolved to make use of the seasons. If they were absent from the beginning, it would not have and you'd be arguing that an axial tilt would be disastrous for life as we know it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Right type of moon. Our moon regulates our planets angle tilt to precisely the right angle in relation to the sun. Otherwise earth’s orbit would be too erratic which would also be catastrophic for life as we know it to be sustained

Confused... Does it regulate our axial tilt or our orbit? They are separate things. As it stands it does not function to do either thing. The other three terrestrial world have similar orbital characteristics (in terms of eccentricity rather than radius) despite no moons bar Mars' two minute moons. Mars has a similar axial tilt to Earth, but its moons certainly have minimal influence on this as their mass is insignificant. Something certainly caused Earth's axial tilt, perhaps the formation of the Moon. But many other events can do this too. Mars, Saturn and Neptune have comparable axial tilts to ours despite non-comparable moon masses.

In fact, tidal acceleration (caused by the moon) is actually gradually slowing down that 24 hour cycle you earlier claimed is critical to life.

Now if the moon vanished tomorrow, that would indeed have implications for life here, but only because it has been part of the mass of the Earth-Moon system for 4 billion years. Had it never formed, it's unlikely it would matter to the formation of life. We probably would not have gazed up at the sky so much though...

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now when you take all of these factors into account (and there many others on the macro level), then take all the micro biological factors that also need to come together on such a unique world at the right time in the development of the planet, star and galaxy. You are talking about a chance of something like 1 in a hundred million billion trillion.

That's a number you've just plucked out of nowhere. Or can you show how you arrived at it? The fact of the matter is that life, (if you'll excuse the phrase) probably is improbable. But when you have countless trillions of chances at an improbable event, it becomes likely. All that is in question then is where. Here at least, certainly elsewhere in some form.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

You are talking about a chance of something like 1 in a hundred million billion trillion.

not sure where you got all that from (24 hour rotation required for life? really?) some scientists have estimated that up to 10% of our own galaxy could theoretically support life (not saying that it does, but that it could). Which of course is billions of stars.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4525

MrPudding

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolution and an intelligible Bible are mutually exclusive. If Evolution is correct, then there is little about God or indeed any Biblical assertion that can be defined. Once we establish a hermeneutic that allows the Genesis account of Creation and the Flood to be metaphor, we have opened every seemingly historical narrative to the same treatment.

Why do other christians have no problems with this co-existence?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Fossils are evidence, worked on by both creationists and evolutionists.

So what do fossils tell you, as a creationaist?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Dating techniques are not evidence, but methods used on evidence to supply data to a theory of aging. Dating techniques make assumptions about rates of change that are speculative.

Dating techniques that are widely accepted by real scientists, who are not trying to protect an obviously false belief that the earth is only 6 thousand years old, and confirmed by other complimentary dating techniques.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Lenski’s E coli experiment is not evidence, but an experiment to see how this organism changes over time. BTW, as far as I can see, it still remains E. coli.

Yes, of course it remain E coli, but it developed an ability that 20 odd thousand previous generation did not have.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationist scientists are just as scientific as evolutionist scientists. They disagree on the interpretation of the evidence, using scientifc argument to do so.

It has been pointed out to you many many times that this is not the case. Show us peer reviewed articles by “creation scientists.” Show us anything that holds to normal scientific method that shows the earth is 6 thousand years old. Show us any actual science…

wolfsbane wrote: »

The answer to that old chestnut is that He is going to abolish evil. But before he does so, He has a lot of evil people to convert.:)

Why bother? Why put so many people though so much pain and suffering? What is he trying to prove and who is he trying to prove it to? Why do we have to sin? Why do we have to be punisded for something we have no control over?

MrP

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes, of course it remain E coli, but it developed an ability that 20 odd thousand previous generation did not have.

Funny that it is still E. Coli given that Wolfsbane model of life on Earth has new species appearing all the time. That is how Creationists explain how a small handful of species that survived the flood managed to grow into the millions we find today.

Shows the nonsense of Creationist trying on to marry their absolute rejection that life can develop using Darwinian evolution, and there absolute insistence that all land creatures were destroyed by a world wide flood 4,000 years ago.

So you get someone like Wolfsbane rejecting the Lenski experiment because it is "still E. Coli" while still putting forward the idea that a handful of "kind" species went trough massive macro-evolution to produce the diversity of life within a few thousand years.

Nonsense :rolleyes:

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

So you get someone like Wolfsbane rejecting the Lenski experiment because it is "still E. Coli" while still putting forward the idea that a handful of "kind" species went trough massive macro-evolution to produce the diversity of life within a few thousand years.

No, it's micro-evolution, remember? Macro-evolution doesn't exist. They work by the same processes, but the magic God barrier prevents micro-evolution from going "too far". Anyway, this is now turning back into the Creationism thread so I'll try to re-rail it.

Mars! So, Phoenix detected perchlorate in the soil. This is a substance which is harmful to some forms of microbial life whilst being an energy source for others. Seems likely it is native to Mars, though it's not clear if it is common across the planet. It's potential a mark against life on Mars, but not a very clear one.

For:

Good soil pH
Good mineral content
Water ice

Ambiguous:

Perchlorate

Against:

Low temperature (though microbial life can survive it)
Solar radiation (though more rapid mutation rates may not actually be a con in a hostile environment)

MrPudding

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No, it's micro-evolution, remember? Macro-evolution doesn't exist. They work by the same processes, but the magic God barrier prevents micro-evolution from going "too far". Anyway, this is now turning back into the Creationism thread so I'll try to re-rail it.

Mars! So, Phoenix detected perchlorate in the soil. This is a substance which is harmful to some forms of microbial life whilst being an energy source for others. Seems likely it is native to Mars, though it's not clear if it is common across the planet. It's potential a mark against life on Mars, but not a very clear one.

For:

Good soil pH
Good mineral content
Water ice

Ambiguous:

Perchlorate

Against:

Low temperature (though microbial life can survive it)
Solar radiation (though more rapid mutation rates may not actually be a con in a hostile environment)

So what is the next step? Is there anything in the pipeline that could actually show conclusively, one way or the other, if there is / was life on Mars?

MrP

AtomicHorror

MrPudding wrote: »

So what is the next step? Is there anything in the pipeline that could actually show conclusively, one way or the other, if there is / was life on Mars?

MrP

There's proposals for robotic missions to look at this, but I think we'll really need a manned mission to do this properly. Get a biologist there with basic lab equipment and he could do the work of 10 rover missions in about a month. Bring back a shed load of soil samples and we can do a whole lot of the work back here.