The Bible (Planet Earth Version).

strobe

Hey, so I was watching that film Contact staring Jodie Foster (it gets slated everywhere but I think it's pretty good) with a freind of mine a couple of weeks ago. If you aren't familiar with it, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/plotsummary .

She's a Christian, and after the movie we got talking about wether or not we thought there was life outside of Earth. My stance was that surely there must be some life somewhere given the scale of the universe and the adaptablility of life, extremophiles surviving in enviroments previously thought incapable of sustaining life ect.

Her stance was that life only existed on earth because that's what the bible teaches.

So we were having a couple of bottles of wine and after a bit of banter back and forth, we reached a compromise. If we assume the bible is the truth (she knows I'm an atheist and was only accepting the assumption for the sake of the argument) then maybe it only applies to Earth, and perhaps on other planets there is alien life and maybe civilisations who were also created by God and have their own entirely different versions of the Bible that relates to them, their creation and their history, which may or may not include a Messiah coming to the planet, or maybe there was no need for one because God didn't put a fruit tree in their garden of Eden and so the entire civilisation is free of sin ect.

Well anyway I thought it was an interesting idea and would make a good discussion so I just wanted to get your thoughts on the concept if you have any?

biko

Or maybe several God with a planet each?

As they say in the film: "I don't know, Sparks. But I guess I'd say if it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space".

Fanny Cradock

I don't dismiss simple lifeforms existing on other planets but it is then a huge leap to suggest that any of these would have intelligence levels similar or greater to our own (when I've played around with the Drake equation it seems unlikely).

krudler

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't dismiss simple lifeforms existing on other planets but it is then a huge leap to suggest that any of these would have intelligence levels similar or greater to our own (when I've played around with the Drake equation it seems unlikely).

Theres probably higher intelligences out there wondering the same thing about us

dvpower

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't dismiss simple lifeforms existing on other planets but it is then a huge leap to suggest that any of these would have intelligence levels similar or greater to our own (when I've played around with the Drake equation it seems unlikely).

The Drake equation only deals with our galaxy. By some estimates there are as many galaxies in the universe than there are stars in our one, so this changes the picture somewhat.

Manach

There is intelligent life on Earth ???
...
But on topic, I'd echo's Fanny Cradock's comment on the Drake equations. Given the hazards to life on Earth throughout geological time, they might give odds that are on the optimistic side.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't dismiss simple lifeforms existing on other planets but it is then a huge leap to suggest that any of these would have intelligence levels similar or greater to our own (when I've played around with the Drake equation it seems unlikely).

Why?

To get from simply life to complex/intelligent life you just need time (why do I feel JC and Wolfsbane have started running towards this thread)

Which is something the universe has plenty of. Imagine what we are going to be like in a million years (assume we last that long) which is nothing on the cosmic scale of things.

I would guess that the universe is full of life and that a small but sizable (given the size of the universe) percentage of these have evolved into intelligent life.

The unlikely thing is that any of them did so in a time scale that correlates to ours. So I think it is unlikely we will ever find them.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

To get from simply life to complex/intelligent life you just need time

That's it? So nothing about environmental factors, resource availability, competition or the blazing 100 km wide asteroid that is about to strike your planet.

anthony.mccoy

As far as i'm concerned there is absolutely no question whatsosver. There is life out there, and I would bet my house that there is not only one or two planets with life on them but more like 10's or 100's of millions. Furthermore I would not be in the least bit surprised if there is life on other planets within our solar system. Check out Joel Levines compelling argument about the need to go back to mars.. http://www.ted.com/talks/joel_levine.html

In my humble opinion (and i've thought long and hard about this!), The objective of the universe is to create new and ever expanding ways of experiencing itself. Life posses infinitely more potential to experience than say ... a rock does. But the real beauty about life, and particularly more complex life, is that it has the ability to CREATE experience. We can provide the universe with so much more knowledge of itself than anything else we know of. So I think the universe will create life any damn place it can!

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

Hey, so I was watching that film Contact staring Jodie Foster (it gets slated everywhere but I think it's pretty good)

Average movie but with an outstanding opening sequence. If anything would cause the god-shaped hole in a man to ache it would be his being rendered as small as that opening sequence renders him.

Three cheers for Carl Sagan!

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's it? So nothing about environmental factors, resource availability, competition or the blazing 100 km wide asteroid that is about to strike your planet.

Given enough time everything else will just happen...

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

Given enough time everything else will just happen...

MrP

Huh?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's it? So nothing about environmental factors, resource availability, competition or the blazing 100 km wide asteroid that is about to strike your planet.

Well no because the universe is so freaking big those things become inconsequential.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no because the universe is so freaking big those things become inconsequential.

You can't possibly know that other factors are inconsequential. But hey if you want to believe this is the case.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You can't possibly know that other factors are inconsequential. But hey if you want to believe this is the case.

Well I know the universe is freaking big, and basic statistic would suggest that if you expand the sample set out large enough random events with that sample set become inconsequential.

Do you have any strong objection to their being other intelligent life, from a religious position? Or you just don't think it is likely?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I know the universe is freaking big, and basic statistic would suggest that if you expand the sample set out large enough random events with that sample set become inconsequential.

I mentioned one large random event - a very large asteroid hitting a planet. But if you don't like this one or any number of rare natural disasters that might strike, I still think it reasonable to suggest that limiting factors like resource availability, for example, would present in all scenarios. I think our ascendency to position of chief bottle washer was an extraordinary coincidence and one not likely to be repeated.

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you have any strong objection to their being other intelligent life, from a religious position? Or you just don't think it is likely?

The latter. I think it highly unlikely that there are other lifeforms of comparable intelligence to us. I realise that people raise valid objections to the Drake equation, but as I see it what is good for this galaxy is good for every other galaxy. Still, on a personal note, as a life long sci-fi fan I love to consider the possibility that there are super-intelligent aliens out there zipping through wormholes and battling evil forces. And from a religious perspective, I don't see why other intelligent life existing would be a problem. The really interesting part would be what they have to say about God.

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think our ascendency to position of chief bottle washer was an extraordinary coincidence and one not likely to be repeated.

In what way do you view it as an extaordinary coincidence Fanny? Do you not subscribe to the interpretation of the bible that reads that God gave man dominion over the world?

sparkfire

The Catholic Church seems to believe that alien life is possible, and that this would not contradict belief in God.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7399661.stm

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

In what way do you view it as an extaordinary coincidence Fanny? Do you not subscribe to the interpretation of the bible that reads that God gave man dominion over the world?

I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing connection between our evolutionary progress and the reference to dominion that you mentioned (perhaps Gen 1:26?). Can you elaborate?

strobe

I thought you meant man being the dominant species by your use of the phrase "chief bottle washer", so I was just surprised to hear you describe it as a coincidence. i.e if God made it happen then there would be no coincidence to speak of. I take it that's not what you meant.

Edit: Just in relation to your reference of "our evolutuionary progress", can I take it that you don't believe man (and other animals) were created as we see them today?

Manach

To paraphrase President Clinton, define "dominant species". The late biologist Stephen J. Gould reckon that honourable title should go to bacteria, which dominant the biomass of Earth and are in nearly every eco-system.

strobe

I completely agree with you but seeing as I'm posting in the Christian forum I'm working off the implied biblical definition.

Soul Winner

anthony.mccoy wrote: »

Check out Joel Levines compelling argument about the need to go back to mars.. http://www.ted.com/talks/joel_levine.html

Back to Mars?

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

I thought you meant man being the dominant species by your use of the phrase "chief bottle washer", so I was just surprised to hear you describe it as a coincidence. i.e if God made it happen then there would be no coincidence to speak of. I take it that's not what you meant.

Well, I was talking to an atheist about intelligent life on other planets, so I don't necessarily see the need to posit God's hand as the deterministic factor in intelligent life arising elsewhere. Of course, I'm not completely removing God from the equation, but perhaps God is happy to let certain things happen by themselves. I do want to stress that I am in no way attempting to push God out to the far reaches of the universe in order to paint him as a Deistic God.

strobe wrote: »

Edit: Just in relation to your reference of "our evolutuionary progress", can I take it that you don't believe man (and other animals) were created as we see them today?

I accept evolution, and that through this process he gave life the ability to make itself. With regards to humans, assuming God wanted a certain outcome (and I don't necessarily believe that we had to take this physical form), I have no problem with believing that he stirred the primordial goo or whatever and thus brought about certain desired ends. As for Genesis, to me it reads as a mix between poetry and elevated prose, not the blow by blow account of creation that both creationists and some atheists wish it to be. But the thread that dares not speak its name is for such discussions.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I know the universe is freaking big, and basic statistic would suggest that if you expand the sample set out large enough random events with that sample set become inconsequential.

Do you have any strong objection to their being other intelligent life, from a religious position? Or you just don't think it is likely?

Consider the following:

The universe is something like 14 billion years old according to the standard model right? How long before the universe got to the stage were stars and galaxies could form? Few billion years of so? And then when planets could form around those stars? A couple more billion years or so? And then when basic life could come about on the planets that could support it?

According to accepted geologic theory which fits neatly into the standard model, the earth is over 4 billion years old, but it could only have been able to support basic life in the last 3 billion years or so due to its molten state for the first billion years or so of development. So what are the chances of life just happening to appear (as astonishingly unlikely as that is at any time) on the earth just at the time in earth's history when the earth became able to support it?

Just because earth became life permitting at some stage early in its history doesn't mean that it came about for that purpose. And then throw in the fact that it all happened in an unguided process just adds to the astonishing unlikeliness of it all.

If that is the way it all happened then wow. And then to have gotten to a state where beings like us today, who, like stars and planets themselves, are made up of the matter of the universe, to have evolved from such humble beginnings to where we are now, aware of our surroundings and the universe, can only mean one thing - the universe is becoming aware of itself.

Fanny Cradock

Soul Winner wrote: »

Consider the following:

The universe is something like 14 billion years old according to the standard model right? How long before the universe got to the stage were stars and galaxies could form? Few billion years of so? And then when planets could form around those stars? A couple more billion years or so? And then when basic life could come about on the planets that could support it?

According to accepted geologic theory which fits neatly into the standard model, the earth is over 4 billion years old, but it could only have been able to support basic life in the last 3 billion years or so due to its molten state for the first billion years or so of development.

Good point.

iUseVi

Soul Winner wrote: »

Consider the following:

The universe is something like 14 billion years old according to the standard model right? How long before the universe got to the stage were stars and galaxies could form? Few billion years of so? And then when planets could form around those stars? A couple more billion years or so? And then when basic life could come about on the planets that could support it?

According to accepted geologic theory which fits neatly into the standard model, the earth is over 4 billion years old, but it could only have been able to support basic life in the last 3 billion years or so due to its molten state for the first billion years or so of development. So what are the chances of life just happening to appear (as astonishingly unlikely as that is at any time) on the earth just at the time in earth's history when the earth became able to support it?

3 billion years is a very very very long time (not quibbling about it not being exactly 3 billion it'll do). I mean that's about a quarter of the age of the universe, the most ancient of all things.

If life had the entire age of the universe to evolve instead of 1/4 of it would that help a whole lot?

EDIT: I said I wasn't going to fuss about it, but at 3.8 billion since prokaryotes that much closer to 4 than 3.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I mentioned one large random event - a very large asteroid hitting a planet. But if you don't like this one or any number of rare natural disasters that might strike, I still think it reasonable to suggest that limiting factors like resource availability, for example, would present in all scenarios. I think our ascendency to position of chief bottle washer was an extraordinary coincidence and one not likely to be repeated.

I would tend to disagree with that.

While the sample set is obviously too small to make any definite conclusions, the Earth has experienced all manner of cataclysmic events that did not extinguish life completely.

Aside from a star exploding it is hard to imagine the Earth got off lightly, yet life survived.

Given this it then becomes an issue of is there enough time for intelligent life to evolve in between cataclysmic events, and again taking the Earth as an example, this would seem to be the case. I don't think the Earth is particularly unusual in this regard, I don't think we have significantly less chance of these events than any other planet.

As for resources, the building blocks for life, oxygen and carbon, are abundant throughout the universe being the 3rd and 4th most found elements.

Anyway, a bit like the fine tuned argument, it is some what difficult to draw much from looking only at Earth. We really need another planet with life to compare with before we can get any proper idea of how unique or non-unique Earth is. But I certainly wouldn't be as skeptical about other intelligent life

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Consider the following:

The universe is something like 14 billion years old according to the standard model right? How long before the universe got to the stage were stars and galaxies could form? Few billion years of so? And then when planets could form around those stars? A couple more billion years or so? And then when basic life could come about on the planets that could support it?

According to accepted geologic theory which fits neatly into the standard model, the earth is over 4 billion years old, but it could only have been able to support basic life in the last 3 billion years or so due to its molten state for the first billion years or so of development. So what are the chances of life just happening to appear (as astonishingly unlikely as that is at any time) on the earth just at the time in earth's history when the earth became able to support it?

That is some what of a redundant question. Life appearing on Earth wasn't a separate event to the Earth becoming capable of supporting life.

Life appeared on Earth because the Earth was capable of supporting life. It was a natural conclusion.

It is like leaving your tea out for a week and marvelling that mold started to grow on it after 2 days, exactly at the time when your stale tea was capable of supporting mold. What a coincidence, how did the mold know!

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just because earth became life permitting at some stage early in its history doesn't mean that it came about for that purpose.

Purpose?

Soul Winner wrote: »

And then throw in the fact that it all happened in an unguided process just adds to the astonishing unlikeliness of it all.

Not really. It is an inevitability given certain parameters, parameters which we keep widening as we find life living in more and more extreme environments.

The more we learn about life the less extraordinary it is. We are finding life in every crack of the Earth, every heat vent or underwater cave. Biologists all the time are re-evaluating the parameters which they used to think life could survive in.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

That is some what of a redundant question. Life appearing on Earth wasn't a separate event to the Earth becoming capable of supporting life.

As we don't yet know how life got started on earth that is a bit if leap to make don't you agree? Earth becoming able to support life and life appearing on the earth are - as far know - completely different events and as far as we know totally unrelated.

Wicknight wrote: »

Life appeared on Earth because the Earth was capable of supporting life. It was a natural conclusion.

Again that is mere conjecture.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is like leaving your tea out for a week and marvelling that mold started to grow on it after 2 days, exactly at the time when your stale tea was capable of supporting mold. What a coincidence, how did the mold know!

Again you're assuming that one of the theories explaining how life got started is true and yet we have no definitive proof that this is the case. But assuming that is how it happened then life as we know it should have evolved on many other earth like planets orbiting sun like stars all over the universe and considering the age of the universe and the number of such earth like environments in it, life evolving in this way would have happened trillions of times.

Wicknight wrote: »

Purpose?

Yes. If it all happened the way you say then it seems that the whole point of earth's development was to support life. Apart from that, what else does it do? Or if supporting life is merely coincidental in the earth's history like wilder-beast supporting flees then all we are is an accidental/coincidental byproduct of the universe's development.

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really. It is an inevitability given certain parameters, parameters which we keep widening as we find life living in more and more extreme environments.

The more we learn about life the less extraordinary it is. We are finding life in every crack of the Earth, every heat vent or underwater cave. Biologists all the time are re-evaluating the parameters which they used to think life could survive in.

But that's the thing, if life is so robust and its appearing on earth-like-planets so natural, then why does all life we see on planet earth today have the same common origin in the very first simplest arrangement of molecules that luckily happened to take place long enough ago to have enough time to have evolved into us today? Why don't we have many many many different springs of life producing molecule arrangements like this all over the planet if what you say about life appearing is as natural as mold on a stale cup of tea is true? Why is it only once that this just happened to occur? And just at the time in earth's history when the earth just happened to get to the stage where it had the potential to become a life supporting planet? It has been a life supporting planet for the last 3 billion years and yet this ever so natural process only ever happened once. Is it just me or does this seem a bit odd?

Manach

As Wicknight points out life is everywhere on this planet. However there are simple celled life with no complexity. The Earth through geological time has endured frozen snowball phases to nearly boiling oceans phases and this type of simple celled life prospered. However it is the dynamics of a changing environment which drives evolutionary adaption. Without change, in a static environment, the afaik "Stromolites" (a hive of single-celled organisms) would be the most complex life form. With ongoing catastropic change, there is a highly dynamic environment but complex life gets hammered into extinction. So the Earth seems to have struck a rare balance in the creation of complex life-forms.

wolfsbane

strobe wrote: »

Hey, so I was watching that film Contact staring Jodie Foster (it gets slated everywhere but I think it's pretty good) with a freind of mine a couple of weeks ago. If you aren't familiar with it, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/plotsummary .

She's a Christian, and after the movie we got talking about wether or not we thought there was life outside of Earth. My stance was that surely there must be some life somewhere given the scale of the universe and the adaptablility of life, extremophiles surviving in enviroments previously thought incapable of sustaining life ect.

Her stance was that life only existed on earth because that's what the bible teaches.

So we were having a couple of bottles of wine and after a bit of banter back and forth, we reached a compromise. If we assume the bible is the truth (she knows I'm an atheist and was only accepting the assumption for the sake of the argument) then maybe it only applies to Earth, and perhaps on other planets there is alien life and maybe civilisations who were also created by God and have their own entirely different versions of the Bible that relates to them, their creation and their history, which may or may not include a Messiah coming to the planet, or maybe there was no need for one because God didn't put a fruit tree in their garden of Eden and so the entire civilisation is free of sin ect.

Well anyway I thought it was an interesting idea and would make a good discussion so I just wanted to get your thoughts on the concept if you have any?

She was right about the Bible limiting physical life to earth. At least by the strongest implication - all it tells us leads us to regard the earth as the sole object of God's creation of life.

Could it be that there are lifeforms elsewhere and God did not reveal it to us? It would be in the same ball-park as God having an only begotten Daughter as well as the Son He told us of. In other words, it would make the whole message of the Bible disjointed.

Of course, if one believes in a materialistic origin of life on earth, what is to hinder it on any other planet?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

As we don't yet know how life got started on earth that is a bit if leap to make don't you agree? Earth becoming able to support life and life appearing on the earth are - as far know - completely different events and as far as we know totally unrelated.

Again that is mere conjecture.

It is a bit more than mere conjecture. You are correct that we don't know how life took hold but we know the Earth moved into a phase there life could take hold, through the forming of the first oceans.

It may just be a coincidence that life just happened to appear then, but it seems unlikely.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But assuming that is how it happened then life as we know it should have evolved on many other earth like planets orbiting sun like stars all over the universe and considering the age of the universe and the number of such earth like environments in it, life evolving in this way would have happened trillions of times.

Yup

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes. If it all happened the way you say then it seems that the whole point of earth's development was to support life. Apart from that, what else does it do?

What a delightfully egotistic view point

Soul Winner wrote: »

But that's the thing, if life is so robust and its appearing on earth-like-planets so natural, then why does all life we see on planet earth today have the same common origin in the very first simplest arrangement of molecules that luckily happened to take place long enough ago to have enough time to have evolved into us today? Why don't we have many many many different springs of life producing molecule arrangements like this all over the planet if what you say about life appearing is as natural as mold on a stale cup of tea is true? Why is it only once that this just happened to occur?

Most likely because the form we are descended from become dominant across the globe in a short period of time, quicker than any other form of life could develop.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And just at the time in earth's history when the earth just happened to get to the stage where it had the potential to become a life supporting planet? It has been a life supporting planet for the last 3 billion years and yet this ever so natural process only ever happened once. Is it just me or does this seem a bit odd?

We don't know it only happened once. We know it only happened with great success once, but that makes sense given what great success means.

Its the same reason you don't have have hundreds of different species of mold in your tea, because one species takes over.

great_pretender

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't dismiss simple lifeforms existing on other planets but it is then a huge leap to suggest that any of these would have intelligence levels similar or greater to our own (when I've played around with the Drake equation it seems unlikely).

But Mrs. Cradock, you must remember that the Universe is infinite... and in a universe of infinite possibilities, you and I both exisit (not identically but close) , having this very conversation, an infinite number of times.... so life forms of greater intelligence and of lesser intelligence exist on other planets an infinite number of times in the universe. Someone almost identical to you is now reading this message an infinite number of times, the difference being in one of the instances, the writer of this message hasn't included this dot here . and because this is infinity, and the human mind cannot comprehend infinity, we just have to accept it.

Fanny Cradock

great_pretender wrote: »

But Mrs. Cradock, you must remember that the Universe is infinite... and in a universe of infinite possibilities, you and I both exisit (not identically but close) , having this very conversation, an infinite number of times.... so life forms of greater intelligence and of lesser intelligence exist on other planets an infinite number of times in the universe. Someone almost identical to you is now reading this message an infinite number of times, the difference being in one of the instances, the writer of this message hasn't included this dot here . and because this is infinity, and the human mind cannot comprehend infinity, we just have to accept it.

While I don't claim to be an expert, I humbly suggest that you need to go back to the basics. Science hasn't yet been able to answer if the universe is infinite of finite. That you happen to believe it is the former is a faith statement and one not entirely supported by the data. You also seem to be confusing something like the many worlds hypothesis with our single universe. ASFAIK, there is much discussion about the validity of such hypothesis - all of which may be futile because it is believed that we can never observe the other hypothetical universes even if they did exist. In short, I believe that observations of these hypothetical universes are made impossible because they would lie beyond the cosmological horizon. Even if they did exist they are not open to experiment or observation. Further, you seem to be confusing possibilities with certainty. In our universe I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that all things are possible - everything marches to laws after all.

great_pretender

then is there such a thing as time in the after life? Essentially what is the difference between infinity in scientific terms, and eternity in biblical terms?

Fanny Cradock

great_pretender wrote: »

then is there such a thing as time in the after life? Essentially what is the difference between infinity in scientific terms, and eternity in biblical terms?

Short answer, I don't know. I don't even know if there will be time in the after life (which I happen to believe is a physical existence in a new heavens and a new earth). It could be that there is time but not as we know it.

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Short answer, I don't know. I don't even know if there will be time in the after life (which I happen to believe is a physical existence in a new heavens and a new earth). It could be that there is time but not as we know it.

This is going quickly to the limits of my (and probably most of our) understanding of this area of physics but I'm fairly certain a physical existance (space containing matter) can not exist without time, and visa versa. Time and space and hence matter being part of the space-time continuum and therefore inseperable from one another. So if there is a physical existance in a new heavens and a new earth then time is a prerequisite of that set-up.

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

This is going quickly to the limits of my (and probably most of our) understanding of this area of physics but I'm fairly certain a physical existance (matter) can not exist without time, and visa versa. Time and space and hence matter being part of the space-time continuum and inseperable from one another. So if there is a physical existance in a new heavens and a new earth then time is a prerequisite of that set-up.

But of course this is assuming that any future physical existence must be as it is now, which I would contend the bible hints that it wont.

strobe

But for something to be physical by definition it must be consisting of matter. Matter, time, space all being in a co-dependant relationship. So if we except that a future existance won't be as it is now then it is fair to presume that it won't be physical in the sense of the word that we understand? But if it is physicality by our understanding of the term then time must also be present?

Edit: Of course God being omnipotent means that in an alternate realm of existance then space could quite easily exist without time if that's what he wants to be the case, aswell as any other fundamental law of physics being altered in any possible way........so I guess it is a little futile to try and apply anything that is considered a constant or consistant rule to anything beyond our current observable environment as it exists free form his intervention.