Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 148:
Line 148: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Extraterrestrial life (view source)
Revision as of 20:33, August 22, 2008
, 20:33, August 22, 2008→Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?
:::Lastly, I do not believe in UFOs and no rational person would. Considering the human brain's propensity to make mistakes when it tries to fill in gaps (especially at night or during stressful situations), no reasonable person believes that UFO sightings, seeing Bigfoot, talking to aliens, hearing the voice of God, seeing the Loch Ness monster, etc., etc. are anything other than a product of over-active imaginations, of course. Rather, I along with many others propose that the [[Star#Number_of_Stars|sheer amount of stars in the universe (70000000000000000000000000)]], as well as the recent confirmation of water on Mars (http://uanews.org/node/20779) is enough to more than imply existence of extraterrestrial life. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:00, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Lastly, I do not believe in UFOs and no rational person would. Considering the human brain's propensity to make mistakes when it tries to fill in gaps (especially at night or during stressful situations), no reasonable person believes that UFO sightings, seeing Bigfoot, talking to aliens, hearing the voice of God, seeing the Loch Ness monster, etc., etc. are anything other than a product of over-active imaginations, of course. Rather, I along with many others propose that the [[Star#Number_of_Stars|sheer amount of stars in the universe (70000000000000000000000000)]], as well as the recent confirmation of water on Mars (http://uanews.org/node/20779) is enough to more than imply existence of extraterrestrial life. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:00, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
First, I haven't forgotten [[Hubble's Law]]. Nor have I forgotten something that you have, or maybe you just never heard about it: Edwin Hubble deliberately rejected the obvious explanation for what he was seeing, namely that we are at the center of the universe, on no better ground than the philosophical. His "hyperballoon" explanation for redshift all around fails to account for the quantized redshift effect and, in general, is a clear violation of [[Occam's Razor]]. In short, I maintain that Hubble's Law, as you have stated it, is a dead letter.
In this connection I remind you that the Sun ''does not'' appear to revolve around the earth, not when you consider the phases of [[Venus]], the phenomenon that convinced [[Galileo Galilei]] to surmise, correctly, that the [[earth]] is in orbit around the [[sun]]. Edwin Hubble has no "phases of Venus" to convince me or anyone that "relative motion looks the same everywhere you look." So that last is just a surmise. And if you looked at Edwin Hubble's own words, as [[John Hartnett]] did, you'd know that Hubble was explicit that his objection was a philosophical one.
Not to put too fine a point on the matter: as a [[young earth creationism|young earth creationist]], I have no problem with realizing that our [[galaxy]] is at the center of the [[universe]]. Edwin Hubble, [[evolutionism|evolutionist]] that he was, clearly did. And his "solution" was a cheap dodge more worthy of a beginning laboratory intern who can't handle a few outlying observations. Why, if Madame [[Marie Curie]] had pulled that kind of dodge when she kept observing more energy in pitchblende than she could account for after removing the [[uranium]], [[thorium]], and other known radioactive elements, she would never have discovered [[radium]].
Now about those various peoples: [[God]] created [[Adam]] and Eve, placed them in the Garden of [[Eden]], and gave them certain instructions. Foolishly, they violated those instructions. Then God left things up to the cosnciences of men, all of whom descended from that one couple. What happened was that [[antediluvian civilization]] became so cruel that it could not be allowed to continue. So God sent a [[Great Flood]] and told [[Noah]] to build the [[Noah's Ark|greatest ship ever built]] to survive it.
After it was over, those eight people (Noah, his wife, and his three sons and their wives) all knew about God. So if [[Ham]] did something monumentally disgusting (the nature of which I shall not repeat here), that indicated that the basic [[sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] nature of man hadn't changed. Yet for a few generations, God dealt with man under the dispensation of human government. That ended in failure, too. So God singled one man out—[[Abraham]]—and brought him to a specific "promised" [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.
Now [[Jesus Christ]] has left us with very strict instructions about telling our far-distant cousins about Him. But here is a point on which you have never touched: He never said ''one single word'' about going and making disciples of nations in orbit around [[star]]s other than our own [[sun]]. He would never have left that out. Neither do extraterrestrial civilizations figure in end-times prophecy, and for a very good reason: they do not exist.
Last of all: So what if there are a number of stars that you can represent with seven followed by an uncountable number of zeroes? That still doesn't make any one of them a candidate for a creation story to parallel ours. And water on Mars? For your information, water was the original material of which ''all'' celestial bodies were made. {{Bible ref|book=2_Peter|chap=3|verses=5}} Some of that water might have splashed down on Mars after having been ejected into space in the Great Flood event. More to the point, if water was all it took on Mars, then why don't we have any monuments to a [[War of the Worlds]] fought either in 1899 or 1959 or 2005? Why, next you'll be telling me about a refugee from an exploding planet, a refugee that became a [[God-substitute]] after he rose to manhood from small-town beginnings in the [[United States|American]] heartland. I don't doubt that a number of reporters at [[The New York Times]] must think that they ''are'' Clark Kent, but that doesn't make the name fit any of them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)