RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DarkSteven -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 6:57:40 AM)

I'm not an authority, but... Genesis holds God to have created the universe, and populated earth. I don't recall anything saying that he quit at that point, or that he might not have done other things while doing all that.  If he truly IS onmipotent, making a second world is not beyond his ken.

Note that the article does not say that life HAS been found on other planets, just that he requirements for life on other planets got lessened.

Personally, I consider Genesis to be allegorical rather than literal, and do believe in evolution, even though I believe in God.

But this article takes a recent discovery and interprets it in a biased manner. It makes two leaps of atheistic faith.

1. Because it is now more likely that there is extraterrestrial life, we assume that there IS extraterrestrial life.
2. Because there IS extraterrestrial life, we hold that the Bible is incorrect because it does not mention extraterrestrial life.

Bad logic.



hertz -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 7:17:32 AM)

Arsenic and Phosphorus are chemically similar. In the periodic table, one sits right below the other - their reactions are quite similar, which means that one can stand in for the other to some extent. It's the chemical similarity that makes Arsenic poisonous to us. If we ingest it, it makes the same reactions as Phosphorus does, standing in for it instead of phosphorus. But the small differences make a huge difference to life. I'm sure I read somewhere that Arsenic compounds are not as stable and it is this instability that creates problems for us. It's cool that a bug can use Arsenic successfully as an alternative to Phosphorus when it needs to, but not that surprising, not really. Life is very good at keeping a foothold once it is established.

I'm still looking forward to them finding a Silicon based life form.



rulemylife -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 7:39:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

FR

Life is a game.

In a mixture of ethylene glocol and 30% glycerin, life prevails. In former years I had to dispose of this life, either in the drain or out in the parking lot. It's the optical fluid in a big TV. In some models it has to be changed from time to time, like every five years or so. Nobody thought anything could live in there, yet it became cloudy, thus requiring me to go make some money. This is a totally sealed environment almost, no food could get in, and nothing can escape. Seriously bottled up.

Well in the chanbers of this fluid lives a bacteria. It may have it's genesis in that fluid but I am not sure of that.


On the seventh day God rested.

On the eighth day he was bored and created big screen televisions and the life within them.




ScaryJello -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 8:41:16 AM)

It isn't spontaneous new life like some thing. It is a descendant of an earth based bacteria. It is evolution. The evidence of this lifeform does not prove or disprove the existence of god. Refusing to state that it does doesn't mean I am a sellout.

I am undecided about the existence of god. I treat it like bigfoot. So far I have seen no conclusive that there is a god, however I have seen no proof that there is.

This find is an example of evolution. Nothing more. Life adapts and survives.



joether -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 9:06:51 AM)

Does this new life form, state, how it became as it did? Not just theory, but evidence to support its structure? Since Evolution is the basis of change given time. While new forms of life are interesting, the evidence should be kept current and factual. If this life form just 'came' in to being, one might argue its from God. Or, that we humans, in our arrogance, overlooked something right under our noses.

All I see in this article of the OP, besides the curiously interesting lifeform, is merely an attack on religion. That a group of atheists feel justified in attacking other religions, and hoping people agree, its 'ok' for one side to attack and be immune to counter attacks. Science does not survive on this 'zero-sum' attitude. It surivives on the collection of evidence from tests and observations.

Just because your an atheist, does not give you a divine right, to attack other religions with impunity. And if attacked, to simply hide behind some sort of metaphorical wall (i.e. science). Funny, some of you would attack Christians if they, themselves, did this, but are purely 'ok' with doing it back at them without consideration, compassion, or even wisdom. Have you NOT learned how religious wars get their start?

If you want to debate the lifeform itself. How it could have come in to being, how it may have changed with time from some other form (known or otherwise). The enviroment to which it exists in, or maybe adapt to others. Or how such a lifeform, might be useful to us humans. That would be an 'ok' discussion. If you wish to make this a purely religious 'whose dick is bigger', then your simply playing the same game that's been played for thousands of recorded years. Same crap, different religious/belief.



tazzygirl -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 9:20:16 AM)

Even scientists are in disagreement with what Brain is claiming. This organism isnt new, just new to us.



Aneirin -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 9:21:11 AM)

For those that believe in god, the continued belief in the face of the march of science indicates god is not dead for the believer and whilst there are believers their god exists.

My belief is science will one day advance so far that it will prove the irrational beliefs it once put down are the truth of it all, but I fear when that happens science will fragment, for there are people who do not want to believe even in the face of irrefutable proof.

It is with interest those scientists of the past that followed their science into the realms of the unknown, may have been edging on the boundaries of truth, except the science community did not want to consider mysticism as part of science. That great man and humanitarian Nichola Tesla springs to mind in this respect.



rulemylife -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 9:34:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

For those that believe in god, the continued belief in the face of the march of science indicates god is not dead for the believer and whilst there are believers their god exists.



Which begs the question of whether God created us or whether we created him.



allthatjaz -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 9:47:18 AM)

Only naysayer's are going to use this discovery to try and strengthen their argument. Have you guys ever thought that science and religion could mean the same thing and just have different pronunciations?



tazzygirl -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 9:48:52 AM)

I believe they incorporate each other. [:D]



Moonhead -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 9:51:18 AM)

Why wasn't there all of this religious blather when organisms that had evolved to exploit temperature differentials were found clustering around undersea volcanic vents around the turn of the '80s?



Aneirin -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 9:53:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

For those that believe in god, the continued belief in the face of the march of science indicates god is not dead for the believer and whilst there are believers their god exists.



Which begs the question of whether God created us or whether we created him.



Who said it was a 'him' ?



Moonhead -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 9:55:22 AM)

"She's black."



maybemaybenot -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 10:20:37 AM)

 
I think many of the " Science proves God is Dead " makes a conscious decision to refute the scientific advances that actually support Biblical word. Dead Sea Scroll, Pilates Stone, Shroud of Turin, the wind set down effect, which explains the scietific reason for the parting of the Red Sea, the stone fragment found on an archeological dig, mentioning and confirming King David ruled over Israel,  and many other things.

There is a wonderful book called The Miracle of Exodus. It is written by a scientist who discovered scientif explanation for Biblical references.

It's also interesting to note that in Leviticus we are instructed to wash our hands under running water. In medicine, it wasn't until the 1840's that MD's began using running water, until that point they used a bowl of water. And we all know  Semmelweis was mocked, shunned from the medical community for his discovery of the benefit of handwashing to prevent pupural fever. Also interesting In Genesis God commands that all males be circumsized on the 8th day. Science has dicovered that Vit K and prothrombin are at their highest levels on the 8th day of life. Vit K and prothrombin are clotting factors. Co incidence ? Aethists will say yes, but is it really ?  Those are just a couple, but there are many.

I think it is important to understand that Science asks the question " How ? " and religion asks the question " Why ? " and that the answers to each will be different, as they are different questions, but the answers can live harmoneously.

                         mbmbn



allthatjaz -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 10:25:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot



I think it is important to understand that Science asks the question " How ? " and religion asks the question " Why ? " and that the answers to each will be different, as they are different questions, but the answers can live harmoneously.

                         mbmbn


exactly!



Moonhead -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 10:26:29 AM)

To be fair, they had been practicising circumcision for a while when Genesis was written. Observing that the eighth day worked well for that is more likely than a coincidence or divine revelation, I'd have thought.



tazzygirl -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 10:29:45 AM)

Or perhaps by the time genesis was written, the 8th day had already been proven to be the most effective day. Science begins by wondering about how something does or doesnt work.



Moonhead -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 10:39:13 AM)

Wasn't that what I just said?



tazzygirl -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 11:00:06 AM)

Actually, you were not quite clear in what you said.



Termyn8or -> RE: Does a New Life Form Mean God Is Dead? (12/6/2010 11:04:39 AM)

FR

I don't have faith. Either I know something or I don't. There is too much going on to think it is all just random, but that doesn't prove that there are any pearly gates or anything of the sort. Ancient wisdom postulated that there was something and then it seemed to fall short in describing that something.

Therefore whatever I concieve God to be cannot be destroyed. If the universe(s) is the being, and we are cells of that being, it's destruction would not only mean the end of human life on this planet, but all life everywhere.

So ironically my lack of faith is stronger than anyone's faith. I refuse to engage in projection, to assign traits to that which I have no hope of understanding fully. 

T



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125